Where the term 'gaslighting' comes from

[silverplanets]

...

 

The ability to pursue serial and clandestine extramarital affairs whilst safeguarding the secrets and conflict of interest inherent in the practice, requires skill in deception and duplicitous negotiation. Even to hide one affair requires a degree of skill or malicious gaslighting. All these behaviours are more usually called lying.

 

...

 

RD, I would agree with your highlight. Even in the early days when no-one is suspiscious the WS is most likely already executing a comprehensive range of subtle tactics designed to keep the spouse's attention away from the key area ...

 

Even nipping out for a simple meeting they will possibly be thinking of controlling their heart beat, pulse and voice level prior to going out so that the spouse's interest is not pricked (or their colleagues are in the dark if they are leaving from work).

 

Whilst they are they are out they will have part of their mind assessing a response to what happens if the spouse calls their mobile etc etc during any meeting - and be callibrating in real time the amount of time they can stay out with the likely success of any required "excuse" they will need to come up with.

 

Afterwards, things like showering just enough to remove one scent but not to much to leave a new one.

 

When alone back in bed with the spouse then stilling the heart beat, pulse, voice etc to focus attention of the spouse onto something else.

 

And most probably, at the early stage, making out with the spouse as well - just to remove any lingering doubt/guilt.

 

At this stage, it's not obviously malicious (as such) and not particulaly lying but I would suggest that it actually worse than either ... and this is imho what the WS is doing as business as normal in the GOOD stages of the A.

 

Is it any wonder by the time the A goes south that they have become somewhat masters at the art?

 

I'm not saying they start doing it deliberately, or that all do it, but just that the situation requires it of them.

 

Of course, some get of on it but others I think it just slowly destroys them.

 

It's a sobering thought that you might be in a R with someone who is learning to exhibit that level of self control.

 

Of course, some had that self control even before that .. and those are the scary ones !!!

 

My MW did, and over time I realised that this is what attracted me to her ... and then I had to face something about me.

 

be safe

C

[pureinheart]

Yes, it's of great comfort that she does win through and prove him to be the sadistic, manipulative abuser he is...

Wish everyone gas-lit could do that.....

 

Hey Tara...

 

Wow...Angel1111 must be tripping at the progress of this topic!!!!!! I am so happy about this (hurt too) and am like totally burned out from such revelation. For me, knew something was coming my way concerning a deeper understanding. So for days now have thought of little else...right now it's difficult to wrap my brain around anything...lol

 

((((((((Tara))))))

[pureinheart]

My H (WS) and I watched it last night. He has always resisted any suggestion that he "gaslighted" me in any way.

 

After seeing the movie he could see how the term has persisted in use for so long. We had quite a discussion about it. I emphasised that I never felt that he deliberately set me up to appear deranged as in the movie. It was more that when some things happened that he realised were explicable by his A, he went to some lengths to convince me they were attributable to something else. Or he simply said he didn't know. He never tried to say something hadn't happened when it had.

 

He seemed really contrite and said he was sorry. All in all seeing the movie was a positive thing for us.

 

There was one particular thing that happened regularly, that I might start another thread about.

 

FTR, I didnot see your reply here prior to seeing the thread you started (which was very good, I might add). Now I am convinced your H is for real.

 

A "person" man/woman trying to protect themselves/lifestyle will NOT say they are sorry and be sincere. You will sense the sincerity.

 

When a person says they are sorry and they are sincere about it, change in the behavior does in fact come forth.

 

ExDM never was sincere about anything, he never told me he was sorry UNLESS he was forced, which in fact he was NOT sincere in any sense of the word.

 

Moaning, let me give you an example of a man that is heartless, completely heartless:

 

We were on his Harley one day on the way to a "run", they called it a "poker run". He drove over a pothole that threw me up in the air and I came down hard on the seat knocking the wind out of me...it hurt my back bad.

 

He stops at a gas station, not to see if I am ok, which I was clearly NOT ok, but to get gas for this run. I said I am hurt and he got pissed and became cruel and mean saying, "well, do you want me to take you home then"...yelling this...the gas station attendant came out to ask if everything was ok...I had my daughter pick me up...my son-in-law almost beat the F out of him. He called later to see if I was going to sue him.

 

Another Harley event I got a heat stroke as he would not stop so that I could get some water and cool down due to 105 degrees in the middle of summer, it was a 6 hr run to the destination...he again got pissed...his lead man from work took care of business thank God or I might have ended up in the hospital or dead.

 

Now one might ask what my problem was, how could I stay in such a situation? I really thought I was the problem....GASLIGHTING.

 

Moaning, this is just a SMALL portion...so I want you to have a good M because your H doesn't even come close to the insincerity that some have experienced....though he messed up...he HAS a conscience that gives him the ability to change.

[pureinheart]

I was googling some info on gaslighting, Wikipedia came up with this

 

Thought this was interesting.....

 

 

 

Extramarital affair

Main articles: Infidelity, Adultery, and Extramarital sex

Extramarital affairs are relationships outside of marriage where an illicit romantic or sexual relationship or a romantic friendship or passionate attachment occurs.

 

An extramarital affair that continues in one form or another for years, even as one of the partners to that affair passes through marriage, divorce and remarriage, could be considered the primary relationship and the marriages secondary to it. This may be serial polygamy or other forms of nonmonogamy.

 

The ability to pursue serial and clandestine extramarital affairs whilst safeguarding the secrets and conflict of interest inherent in the practice, requires skill in deception and duplicitous negotiation. Even to hide one affair requires a degree of skill or malicious gaslighting. All these behaviours are more usually called lying.

 

Deception can be defined as the "covert manipulation of perception to alter thoughts, feeling, or beliefs". The presence of deception may indicate the degree to which the deceiver has breached fundamental conditions of fidelity, of reciprocal vulnerability and of transparency. Sometimes these are explicit or assumed pre-conditions of a committed intimate relationships.

 

Individuals having affairs with married men or women can be prosecuted for adultery in some jurisdictions and can be sued by the jilted spouses in others.[1] As of 2009, eight U.S. states permitted such alienation of affections lawsuits.[2]

 

I am sure exDM gaslighted his W, although during the EA with me I don't believe he was gaslighting me at that time. It was only when he separated from his W and she filed for D that he began gaslighting me.

 

RD, what do you make of this, your opinion...

 

Possibly cheating on me too? Did he project me into his W's position and used embittered hate (possibly for women in general) as a reason for gaslighting?

 

Is he so sick that he needs to gaslight someone?

[pureinheart]

RD, I would agree with your highlight. Even in the early days when no-one is suspiscious the WS is most likely already executing a comprehensive range of subtle tactics designed to keep the spouse's attention away from the key area ...

 

Even nipping out for a simple meeting they will possibly be thinking of controlling their heart beat, pulse and voice level prior to going out so that the spouse's interest is not pricked (or their colleagues are in the dark if they are leaving from work).

 

Whilst they are they are out they will have part of their mind assessing a response to what happens if the spouse calls their mobile etc etc during any meeting - and be callibrating in real time the amount of time they can stay out with the likely success of any required "excuse" they will need to come up with.

 

Afterwards, things like showering just enough to remove one scent but not to much to leave a new one.

 

When alone back in bed with the spouse then stilling the heart beat, pulse, voice etc to focus attention of the spouse onto something else.

 

And most probably, at the early stage, making out with the spouse as well - just to remove any lingering doubt/guilt.

 

At this stage, it's not obviously malicious (as such) and not particulaly lying but I would suggest that it actually worse than either ... and this is imho what the WS is doing as business as normal in the GOOD stages of the A.

 

Is it any wonder by the time the A goes south that they have become somewhat masters at the art?

 

I'm not saying they start doing it deliberately, or that all do it, but just that the situation requires it of them.

 

Of course, some get of on it but others I think it just slowly destroys them.

 

It's a sobering thought that you might be in a R with someone who is learning to exhibit that level of self control.

 

Of course, some had that self control even before that .. and those are the scary ones !!!

 

My MW did, and over time I realised that this is what attracted me to her ... and then I had to face something about me.

 

be safe

C

 

My dear Chris, this is obviously the most difficult part...I am going to ponder what you have said here as I don't really think I've gotten that far yet, and it could be the scariest part of all.

 

Most of my abuse happened over a year ago and I began to put a stop to it, I became numb and disinterested concerning his abuse....actually his abuse had no hold on me any longer...and that is what abuse is usually meant for...control.

 

I began to fight back, playing his game with him. A rock had more sense than these two 50 yr olds acting like God only knows what. I began to understand the insanity as I pulled away...NC after NC gave me the time to think, even though it was excruciating. I would confine myself to my room for days reading, watching my God TV getting decent stuff into my mind. Then I got back on LS learning more and more....now I am getting back out into the world a bit.

 

Chris, it got to the point that I felt nothing while I was with him, absolutely nothing.

 

I am devasted by the truth of this thread, coupled with a chain of events that led to understanding....brokenness. When I get arrogant, I know I am being abused as arrogance and pride are defence mechanisms of great hurt. With working out so many other traumas I still use pride as a defence mechanism instead of seeing things for what they are and acting accordingly. I get offended easily and react unbecomingly.

 

Well Chris...for me...pride and arrogance.

 

You be safe too, Kathy....

[Simon Attwood]

Sometimes, when I see how our lamentable tendency to dichotomise our complex interactions in to simple black and whites and take a term and demonise it and demonise people because we have fitted them with the term, I am not sure whether to scream or cry...

 

To be clear about our tendency to demonise; when we feel the need to demonise another person, there is always an element of ejecting our own demons on to the surrogate. This woeful phenomenon is known in psychology as projection. Taking unwanted and intolerable elements of our own psyches and personalities and placing them on to others in order to deny them in ourselves and see ourselves in a good light and a pure goodness, unsullied by any negative qualities. The negative qualities belong to other people.

 

What I have read on here about what people are referring to as “Gaslighting” has vastly overly simplified our interactions, lumping everything in to a simple idea that everyone can understand, but that is not truly indicative of the complexity of our interactions.

 

Sometimes, when you tell someone they are being crazy, it is because they are being crazy and it is not “Gaslighting”! I would also hypothesise that when "Gaslighting" does become a serious problem, that at the beginning there truly was an element of madness that triggered the response and that the response then stuck and became a narrative for the interactions in that particular relationship i.e. a protective label, in the sense of "it is because you are mad!", that is then echoed by "it is because you are gaslighting!", thus explaining all inexplicable behaviour within the framework of the label.

 

And when we play the game back, we usually escalate conflict and suffering, and essentially become as bad as the person we are projecting our demons on to.

 

“Gaslighting” as depicted here, is a defensive activity, whether the need to defence, or the thing we are defending ourselves from is readily recognisable or not.

 

There is also a reason why a person would so easily be made to think “is it me?”; it’s because to some extent, it is true, it is you. All human interactions have both sides to the equation; provocations and retorts are part of human relationships and they are about defence of identity and ego. To some extent, these defences to identity and ego are an essential part of our lives while we have a society where identity and ego play such important roles.

 

If someone behaves defensively, it is because something in their lives, or their environment, is interpreted as threatening. In relationships, it is very often the spouse that is perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as the source of the threat. This threat is the essential root and motive for what has been labelled as “Gaslighting” here.

 

To some extent or other, we are the problem; “Gaslighting” and all the other demonising terms we use, are products of our natural defence mechanisms when we identify with identity and ego and we feel the need to defend our identities and egos.

 

Anyone that has been “gaslighted”, has done something, either intentionally or unintentionally, to provoke the situation. I’m not saying that the person performing the “gaslighting” isn’t at fault, but rather that our interactions are more complex than “I am good and the other person is bad” attitude that seem to permeate these discussions. Our behaviour and responses are predominantly reliant and dependent on external stimuli and provocations. Human interactions are far more complicated than the oversimplified, preferred and accepted view that people are entirely responsible for their behaviour. And an understanding of this truth will lead to a far better, more caring, more loving and more tolerant society.

 

Our intolerance of others weaknesses and imperfections, is a reflection of our intolerance of our own weaknesses and imperfections.

[pureinheart]

Sometimes, when I see how our lamentable tendency to dichotomise our complex interactions in to simple black and whites and take a term and demonise it and demonise people because we have fitted them with the term, I am not sure whether to scream or cry...

 

To be clear about our tendency to demonise; when we feel the need to demonise another person, there is always an element of ejecting our own demons on to the surrogate. This woeful phenomenon is known in psychology as projection. Taking unwanted and intolerable elements of our own psyches and personalities and placing them on to others in order to deny them in ourselves and see ourselves in a good light and a pure goodness, unsullied by any negative qualities. The negative qualities belong to other people.

 

What I have read on here about what people are referring to as “Gaslighting” has vastly overly simplified our interactions, lumping everything in to a simple idea that everyone can understand, but that is not truly indicative of the complexity of our interactions.

 

Sometimes, when you tell someone they are being crazy, it is because they are being crazy and it is not “Gaslighting”! I would also hypothesise that when "Gaslighting" does become a serious problem, that at the beginning there truly was an element of madness that triggered the response and that the response then stuck and became a narrative for the interactions in that particular relationship i.e. a protective label, in the sense of "it is because you are mad!", that is then echoed by "it is because you are gaslighting!", thus explaining all inexplicable behaviour within the framework of the label.

 

And when we play the game back, we usually escalate conflict and suffering, and essentially become as bad as the person we are projecting our demons on to.

 

“Gaslighting” as depicted here, is a defensive activity, whether the need to defence, or the thing we are defending ourselves from is readily recognisable or not.

 

There is also a reason why a person would so easily be made to think “is it me?”; it’s because to some extent, it is true, it is you. All human interactions have both sides to the equation; provocations and retorts are part of human relationships and they are about defence of identity and ego. To some extent, these defences to identity and ego are an essential part of our lives while we have a society where identity and ego play such important roles.

 

If someone behaves defensively, it is because something in their lives, or their environment, is interpreted as threatening. In relationships, it is very often the spouse that is perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as the source of the threat. This threat is the essential root and motive for what has been labelled as “Gaslighting” here.

 

To some extent or other, we are the problem; “Gaslighting” and all the other demonising terms we use, are products of our natural defence mechanisms when we identify with identity and ego and we feel the need to defend our identities and egos.

 

Anyone that has been “gaslighted”, has done something, either intentionally or unintentionally, to provoke the situation. I’m not saying that the person performing the “gaslighting” isn’t at fault, but rather that our interactions are more complex than “I am good and the other person is bad” attitude that seem to permeate these discussions. Our behaviour and responses are predominantly reliant and dependent on external stimuli and provocations. Human interactions are far more complicated than the oversimplified, preferred and accepted view that people are entirely responsible for their behaviour. And an understanding of this truth will lead to a far better, more caring, more loving and more tolerant society.

 

Our intolerance of others weaknesses and imperfections, is a reflection of our intolerance of our own weaknesses and imperfections.

 

((((((((((Simon)))))))))))

 

I completely agree with your desire for a more tolerant society....so totally, it is what I scream about forgiving....although we cannot overlook abuse.

 

I think you are down playing severe abuse and as a society we must address it, because if we don't insanity will increase.

[pureinheart]

In reply to Simons post

 

Ok I have re-read and thought more...we have choices, meaning I can freak out on you for whatever and you can either retaliate or conduct yourself in a becoming manor.

 

Gaslighting, which was defined in this thread is a severe form of an abusive smoke screen which in most cases is a choice that is made.

 

Simon, in my studies I have found that most abusers need a host, and seek a host to abuse....in my case this is exactly what happened. I communicated my fault, although forgot to mention that another mistake I made was not seeing this coming and am having a hard time forgiving myself for that. This individual didnot just become abusive all of a sudden, he has for most of his life been this way...he has made a choice to abuse.

 

This is just my situation, what about all of the others on this thread, they should not be discounted.

 

The main thing with an abuser is the lack of validation...it is easy to make an assumption, and Simon, I have to say this is what I feel you might be doing....invalidating abuse.

[Simon Attwood]

Simon, I have to say this is what I feel you might be doing....invalidating abuse.

 

Not in the slightest.

 

And I have been in an abusive relationship myself; I discussed it here in this post

 

Rather I was pointing out that there is rarely a definitive, black and white, dividing line between abuser and abused, but that we have an inherent desire to defend our identities as good, so therefore it becomes easy to define ourselves as without fault and to demonise the other person rather than seeing the wider truth; that both parties often share the blame for an abusive relationship.

 

Foregiveness has to be preceded by an honest understanding.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Simon Attwood

[pureinheart]

Not in the slightest.

 

And I have been in an abusive relationship myself; I discussed it here in this post

 

Rather I was pointing out that there is rarely a definitive, black and white, dividing line between abuser and abused, but that we have an inherent desire to defend our identities as good, so therefore it becomes easy to define ourselves as without fault and to demonise the other person rather than seeing the wider truth; that both parties often share the blame for an abusive relationship.

 

Foregiveness has to be preceded by an honest understanding.

 

What if a person does do self inventories. Abuse is meant to tear the "good" nature of a person down to cause them to feel like a not good person.

 

Anger from being a target and calling it what it is is much different than demonising a person, meaning not taking resposibility for their actions....what if the provocation comes from the abuser, knowing what buttons to push.

 

In past threads, I have communicated my wrong doings in various relationships....is this what you are getting at...sorry Simon, I just want understanding, not trying to mess with you...I was tired last night, although though I saw a downplay of the nature of an abuser.

Edited February 16, 2010 by pureinheart

[pureinheart]

Hey Simon, I read your story...wow....ok you may have done something wrong in the R, although concerning the topic of this thread I would say gaslighting needs little or no provocation...and the same with your situation. You may have been dealing with insanity.

 

FTR, this isn't just a "man bashing" session in these threads...very few men post, although if a woman jacks a man...say it like it is....

 

((((Simon)))))

[Simon Attwood]

I saw a downplay of the nature of an abuser.

 

That was not the intention, it was rather to look at things unemotively, from the outside, and seeing the complexity and underlying motives of the interactions that lead to abusive behaviour. Also to point out that viewing conflicts as polarised dichotomies is deeply prejudiced, hypocritical, and also risks sustaining, provoking and escalating further conflicts.

 

In past threads, I have communicated my wrong doings in various relationships....is this what you are getting at

 

If you believe that your wrongdoings may have provoked or escalated a situation where you ended up being the abused, then yes ... it’s about not seeing things from the point of view of one side or the other side in a conflict, but rather stepping back and seeing the whole. This is often very difficult to do if you were involved in the conflict, or have been involved in a conflict and are now viewing someone else’s conflict with empathy for “the victim” because you can put yourself in their place, because you have been there yourself in the past and you cannot separate yourself from your past experiences and the prejudiced perspective that your past experiences has installed in you.

 

Abuse is meant to tear the "good" nature of a person down to cause them to feel like a not good person.

 

This is true, but I was, and am, discussing underlying motives and the unconscious discussions that play a large, but hidden and much ignored role in human relationships.

 

Anger from being a target and calling it what it is is much different than demonising a person,

 

The point being that demonising aids the anger and aids us to see ourselves as the good and the other as the bad, and that in truth, these interactions are far less clearly defined. The demonising is destructive, it increases conflict, it further defines sides as good versus evil, white versus black, east versus west. Mankind has a lamentable habit of forming sides in a conflict and creating definite divides where, in truth, the division is not as clearly defined as we, instinctively, are predetermined by our phylogenetic inheritance, to perceive. Unfortunately, at times of stress (and many of us live our lives in continuous states of stress) our minds revert to a very primitive state of analysis, that only allows for 2 opposing options. Most, if not all, conflict arises and is maintained by this inferior function of our minds.

 

what if the provocation comes from the abuser, knowing what buttons to push.

 

The point being, that in relationships where conflicts pervade the communications, both parties are constantly trying to find and push the other person’s buttons and the result is a relationship that becomes a tennis match where both parties are trying to score points in order to place themselves upon the higher moral ground.

 

It is rarely, if ever, the case that one person solely does all the button pushing in a relationship.

 

What if a person does do self inventories.

Not sure what you mean by self inventories? Or from what I understand a self inventory to be, how it’s relevant to the discussion?

 

sorry Simon, I just want understanding, not trying to mess with you...I was tired last night, although though

 

Nothing to apologise for; there’s nothing quite like some good questioning to stimulate a healthy discussion!

 

[Simon Attwood]

Hey Simon, I read your story...wow.... You may have been dealing with insanity.

 

Of that I have no doubt. The question is, was it a temporary insanity triggered purely by a situation and the environment, or a deeper rooted problem, where a latent pathology was triggered?

 

... or a bit of both?

 

Unfortunately, although we have drawn a definitive line between sane and insane, and that line has been entrenched within over a century of psychological theory, no such line truly exists.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Simon Attwood