Labeling MM

[IfWishesWereHorses]

First of all, suggesting a diagnosis or labeling is not officially "diagnosing" unless you have a few extra letters behind your name that give you reign to do so.

 

Secondly, in order to deal with anything you have to diagnose it. A broken car, strep throat, a first draft, the weather... we can't treat a sore throat with out knowing which bug we are dealing with.

 

Thirdly, why assume that none of these MM haven't been professionally diagnosed.

 

AND fourth! I'm bowing and scraping to NoraJane. :cool: Why do you choose for it always to be about them. Especially in the case of narcissism (NPD), it is a completely moot point to begin with!

[jennie-jennie]

Cheater MM, now it's an adjective.

 

A cheating MM, that would be an adjective, and that I have no problem with.

[jennie-jennie]

First of all, suggesting a diagnosis or labeling is not officially "diagnosing" unless you have a few extra letters behind your name that give you reign to do so.

 

Finding a label that fits you can be incredibly helpful. Getting one shoved down your throat is not.

 

I have no problem with for example jthorne describing herself and her MM as cheaters and liars as she did in a post above. Then I can think about that and consider whether it applies to my MM and me. But if she would instead label us as such, it would be inappropriate since she does not have knowledge enough about us as individuals. By labeling us she would have crossed a line which would make me stop listening to her.

[silverplanets]

Come on.

 

I react to defining an individual by actions that only apply to a specific sector and situation of his life, when it does not hold true under any other circumstances.

 

Serial cheaters are exempt here by definition of repeating the same behavior under different circumstances and situations. (And the same would go for child molesters of course.)

 

It's not a case of "come on " it's a case of exploring a point of view from different angles ... and extrapolation/analogy is a perfectly acceptable way of doing that ...

 

Any WS IS a serial liar - they lie to their partner day in and day out.

 

According to the proposed logic though, that's ok, because the lie is not to you.

 

People are the sum of their total behaviour .. not just the part that affects us.

 

With reference to the serial or not point ... then again would you leave your children alone with a child molestor who had just done it to other people once ... again, I don't think so ...

 

Sorry, but I just don't see that the logic being proposed works in other scenario's .. and therefore I question why it should be applied in this case ...

 

What's special about a wandering married person that means we can ignore any unsavoury parts of their daily behaviour???

 

:)

[jennie-jennie]

It's not a case of "come on " it's a case of exploring a point of view from different angles ... and extrapolation/analogy is a perfectly acceptable way of doing that ...

 

Any WS IS a serial liar - they lie to their partner day in and day out.

 

According to the proposed logic though, that's ok, because the lie is not to you.

 

People are the sum of their total behaviour .. not just the part that affects us.

 

With reference to the serial or not point ... then again would you leave your children alone with a child molestor who had just done it to other people once ... again, I don't think so ...

 

Sorry, but I just don't see that the logic being proposed works in other scenario's .. and therefore I question why it should be applied in this case ...

 

What's special about a wandering married person that means we can ignore any unsavoury parts of their daily behaviour???

 

:)

 

My conclusion in the case of my MM is that he is a man who should not be married. Apparently he is prone to put a vow before his own good and before other principles such as honesty and fidelity.

 

So to be faithful to a vow he breaks other principles. To be faithful to me he is unfaithful to his wife.

 

My exSO was a serial cheater. Still our relationship was built on total honesty. Sure he lied to me once in a while to protect his affairs and his addictions. I still would never define him as a liar. My world is not that black and white, not that simple.

[bentnotbroken]

My conclusion in the case of my MM is that he is a man who should not be married. Apparently he is prone to put a vow before his own good and before other principles such as honesty and fidelity.

 

So to be faithful to a vow he breaks other principles. To be faithful to me he is unfaithful to his wife.

 

My exSO was a serial cheater. Still our relationship was built on total honesty. Sure he lied to me once in a while to protect his affairs and his addictions. I still would never define him as a liar. My world is not that black and white, not that simple.

 

 

Of course you wouldn't define him any other way than you do. If you do then you will have to re-define everything you have built your impression around, including yourself.

[jthorne]

Wait a minute... Wasn't there a thread on here not to long ago about labeling? Seems to me that the consensus was that labels were a fact of life, and if you didn't like the label, you needed look within yourself and see why.

 

So what is this thread saying? That it's okay for OW to label themselves and each other, but the MM are off limits? That doesn't make sense to me.

[jennie-jennie]

Wait a minute... Wasn't there a thread on here not to long ago about labeling? Seems to me that the consensus was that labels were a fact of life, and if you didn't like the label, you needed look within yourself and see why.

 

So what is this thread saying? That it's okay for OW to label themselves and each other, but the MM are off limits? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

LOL I like this input. See, things are not as simple as they seem. I do believe that thread was about labeling us here on LS, thus according to behavior we DO see and experience personally.

 

That thread was also about dividing the LS posters into subgroups, not about defining them all as .... (fill in blank).

Edited May 29, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[jthorne]

LOL I like this input. See, things are not as simple as they seem. I do believe that thread was about labeling us here on LS, thus according to behavior we DO see and experience personally.

 

That thread was also about dividing the LS posters into subgroups, not about defining them all as .... (fill in blank).

So why is it ok for someone to call me a ROW, but not okay for me to call a MM a coward?

Just sayin.

[jennie-jennie]

So why is it ok for someone to call me a ROW, but not okay for me to call a MM a coward?

Just sayin.

 

Because your posts on LS indicate that you are a rOW. It is behavior you are showing on LS. And also "reformed" is an adjective, not a noun! Thus descriptive, not defining. You have never been called a reformator, have you?

[crazycatlady]

There are several things going on here, from my perspective...

 

1- People label their ww/wh/mm/mw etc as a way to help them move on from their situation or to give them a way of looking at it that allows them to cope.

 

2- to reaffirm their position (which ever it maybe, that doesn't seem to matter) it becomes a label frequently given to other people's ww/wh/mm/mw etc because it help justify in their heads what's going on.

 

I can see how some people go a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. While others go, he was/is cheating but he's not a cheater. I think both are true labels, but are not true for everyone person who engages in an affair. But I can see for some people, the need to have that to be true for all people involved in an affair. Its a coping technique.

 

My H cheated, he is not by nature a cheater. He does however have an inflated ego .

 

CCL

[silverplanets]

My conclusion in the case of my MM is that he is a man who should not be married. Apparently he is prone to put a vow before his own good and before other principles such as honesty and fidelity.

 

So to be faithful to a vow he breaks other principles. To be faithful to me he is unfaithful to his wife.

 

My exSO was a serial cheater. Still our relationship was built on total honesty. Sure he lied to me once in a while to protect his affairs and his addictions. I still would never define him as a liar. My world is not that black and white, not that simple.

 

Hi Jennie,

 

I like you , I really do. I never know whether to give you a medal for faith or to brain you with a club for not seeing reality.

 

The truth is, of course, that only you can call your situation and I know you have put in a lot of effort and research to get to a conclusion.

 

 

Take care

Chris

[jthorne]

Well, I agree with Nora and GEL that everyone should look within themselves.

 

But if a cheater doesn't like being called a cheater, maybe they should stop cheating.

If a liar, doesn't like being called a liar, they should stop lying.

 

I gotta go make homemade strawberry ice cream. Ya'all have a good day/night.

[jennie-jennie]

Hi Jennie,

 

I like you , I really do. I never know whether to give you a medal for faith or to brain you with a club for not seeing reality.

 

The truth is, of course, that only you can call your situation and I know you have put in a lot of effort and research to get to a conclusion.

 

 

Take care

Chris

 

 

Perhaps it is like I told my MM the other day: I interpret what you say within a wide range, from a worst case scenario to a best. I am prepared for the worst, but of course I hope for the best. !!!

 

I am a very loyal person, and I never stop loving my men, even after I have left them. I can look back and see their faults, but I still love them.

[OWoman]

My H is certainly not a narcissist, although his IC did say he showed characteristics of co-narcissism. (There is an article on co-narcissism here, though it focuses on children of narcissistic parents, rather than long-term partners of narcissists.)

 

Certainly according to these criteria:

 

DSM IV criteria (must meet 5/9):

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
   
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
   
3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
   
4. Requires excessive admiration
   
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
   
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
   
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
   
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
   
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
   

 

his xW fits the bill, consistently and thoroughly.

[jennie-jennie]

My H is certainly not a narcissist, although his IC did say he showed characteristics of co-narcissism. (There is an article on co-narcissism here, though it focuses on children of narcissistic parents, rather than long-term partners of narcissists.)

 

Certainly according to these criteria:

 

 

 

his xW fits the bill, consistently and thoroughly.

 

I am going to check that out, because my mother fits the bill too!

[bentnotbroken]

So why is it ok for someone to call me a ROW, but not okay for me to call a MM a coward?

Just sayin.

 

 

So according to JJ, based on her post here about MM, he is a coward...just sayin.

[Fallen Angel]

look.. I just wanted a discussion of labeling people with things like NPD, Bi-polar, and split-self. (While split-self is not considered a "personality disorder" apparently, I think perhaps it should be as it is a part of the split-self's personality that leads their life to "disorder"... lol.. but hey that's just my two cents)

 

I do not know how this got off topic to discussing the terms "cheater, liar, coward" as those are personality traits but not something that someone would "diagnose" as so many people here seem to give a layman's diagnosis (Narcissist, bi-polar etc.. based on a few paragraphs worth of information about someone they have never met.)

 

My OP was written with the intent to discuss why people here feel that it is okay to tell someone that the person they are dealing with is suffering from (insert the personality disorder of the day here) when they have no clue as to if the person they are spouting off about suffers from the stated disorder or not.

 

As to labeling someone a liar because they have lied, well surely you can do that, but i would assume anyone who chooses to do so should likely get out their own "LIAR" badge and put it on, because I am certain not a single one of us is not guilty of having told a lie.

 

The same goes for the cheater badge and the coward badge. While not everyone has cheated in a marriage I am quite content to say that I am not conversing with Jesus on this board and so therefore I am comfortable in assuming that everyone here has cheated at something at sometime in their lives. And all of us I am sure have shown cowardly traits at somepoint, so *shrug* those are badges we must all wear if they apply forever to someone who has ever once committed those offences.

 

And finally to speak to "looking inward" and learning about why I am in the relationship I am in. I do just that, daily. I know what makes me tick and why and how; and when I find things about myself that need fixing I work towards that end. Obviously there are many who do not, but I am not one of them. Thanks!

[xxoo]

My OP was written with the intent to discuss why people here feel that it is okay to tell someone that the person they are dealing with is suffering from (insert the personality disorder of the day here) when they have no clue as to if the person they are spouting off about suffers from the stated disorder or not.

 

It is one thing to insist that someone has a personality disorder, based on internetz knowledges, lol.

 

It is another to see a pattern of behavior (based on information shared) that the OP might not see (too close to the situation), and suggest the OP look into X that seems to fit this pattern of behavior. Take it or leave it, but it can sometimes be a HUGE eye opening help.

[fooled once]

I am a bit bored, and was browsing the threads and came upon yet another MM being labeled as possibly a "narcissist". It seems to me this label is much espoused by BS, rOW and others who are firmly against people engaging in EMAs. It is a word that is thrown around quite often when someone is trying to convince an OW that her MM is just a "no good cheating, lying, cake-eater". (my words not a direct quote from anyone, just making a point)

 

And I have also recently noticed a couple of OW that have apparently been lurking for awhile, espousing the "split-self" label to describe their MM. This is being tossed about when an OW is attempting to convince everyone that their MM is different from everone else's MM and this is why (the split-self theory). *Note* I hold the belief that My Sweetheart is a split-self.

 

My question is why do we tend to want to label someone with a psychological tag rather than just deal with the person as they are. It seems that everyone is making excuses. "My MM is better than other people's MM because he is a split-self". "Your MM is worse than other people's MM because he is a narcissist."

 

Really I am curious why people feel the need to do this, so I thought I would put it out there and find out what you all think is the reason we do this, and if you think that we (a collective LS family we) are often right in our layman's diagnosis, or are we just attempting to put a name to that which we do not really understand?

 

Okay.. GO!

 

So you don't believe former OW don't use that label? Why wasn't that acronym used in the bolded paragraph?

 

Regarding the second bolded part, I agree with you *faint* I don't get why people like to throw labels around like a frisbee. Last I checked, no one here was a psychiatrist/psychologist TO the person being labeled.

 

No, I don't believe people are accurate on their arm-chair diagnosis and really wish people wouldn't treat true mental illness as a hobby.

[jennie-jennie]

It is one thing to insist that someone has a personality disorder, based on internetz knowledges, lol.

 

It is another to see a pattern of behavior (based on information shared) that the OP might not see (too close to the situation), and suggest the OP look into X that seems to fit this pattern of behavior. Take it or leave it, but it can sometimes be a HUGE eye opening help.

 

If it was just a suggestion, fine, but more often than not it is writing the so called "facts" on the forehead of the poster.

[jennie-jennie]

look.. I just wanted a discussion of labeling people with things like NPD, Bi-polar, and split-self. (While split-self is not considered a "personality disorder" apparently, I think perhaps it should be as it is a part of the split-self's personality that leads their life to "disorder"... lol.. but hey that's just my two cents)

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a personality disorder is not something that can be changed or helped through therapy and/or medication. It is part of your personality, whereas the split self can be healed through therapy.

 

I will give an example of the difference:

 

A person can have Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. They do not experience this as something wrong, indeed this is the way they believe everyone should handle everyday life. It can however be very wearying for those close to this person.

 

A person can have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). This person knows something is wrong and is suffering from it. He/she can be helped by cognitive behavioral therapy and/or medication.

 

These two people seem to be acting in the same way but their perception of their reality is very different.

 

OK, thinking about this, this means that Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder are also very different. One can be medicated and is indeed troublesome for the patient (bipolar), whereas the other one is part of the person's personality and not experienced as something troublesome but indeed as the correct way to view the world (narcissistic).

 

Hey, I am just a layman, don't shoot me!

Edited May 30, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[jennie-jennie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a personality disorder is not something that can be changed or helped through therapy and/or medication. It is part of your personality, whereas the split self can be healed through therapy.

 

I will give an example of the difference:

 

A person can have Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. They do not experience this as something wrong, indeed this is the way they believe everyone should handle everyday life. It can however be very wearying for those close to this person.

 

A person can have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). This person knows something is wrong and is suffering from it. He/she can be helped by cognitive behavioral therapy and/or medication.

 

These two people seem to be acting in the same way but their perception of their reality is very different.

 

OK, thinking about this, this means that Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder are also very different. One can be medicated and is indeed troublesome for the patient (bipolar), whereas the other one is part of the person's personality and not experienced as something troublesome but indeed as the correct way to view the world (narcissistic).

 

Hey, I am just a layman, don't shoot me!

 

This would leave us with:

 

personality disorders - most likely not helped by therapy and/or medication

 

mental disorders - can be helped through therapy and/or medication

 

dysfunctional patterns (such as split self) - can be helped through therapy

 

In my opinion we should refrain from diagnosing anyone over the internet with any of these labels. We can talk about those close to us that this is what we suspect, we can say that this is something that exists in the world, but that should be all.

Edited May 30, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[Fallen Angel]

So you don't believe former OW don't use that label? Why wasn't that acronym used in the bolded paragraph?

 

Regarding the second bolded part, I agree with you *faint* I don't get why people like to throw labels around like a frisbee. Last I checked, no one here was a psychiatrist/psychologist TO the person being labeled.

 

No, I don't believe people are accurate on their arm-chair diagnosis and really wish people wouldn't treat true mental illness as a hobby.

 

I said "and others" I used that to include anyone who also uses those labels and gives an "arm-chair diagnosis" on this site. Perhaps I should have called everyone out by name as well? Come on, AND OTHERS.. et al (Latin), en ander (afrikaans), ועוד (Hebrew), e outros (Portuguese), at ang iba (Tagalog), na wengine (Swahili)... seriously am I required to say it any other way to please you?

 

Do we really have to play this game? *frustrated face here*

[fooled once]

I said "and others" I used that to include anyone who also uses those labels and gives an "arm-chair diagnosis" on this site. Perhaps I should have called everyone out by name as well? Come on, AND OTHERS.. et al (Latin), en ander (afrikaans), ועוד (Hebrew), e outros (Portuguese), at ang iba (Tagalog), na wengine (Swahili)... seriously am I required to say it any other way to please you?

 

Do we really have to play this game? *frustrated face here*

 

 

Good god...... enough already. Since this is a forum for OW/OM, normally THOSE would have been the acronyms used. AND you said

others who are firmly against people engaging in EMAs

.... so OW are now against people engaging in an EMA??? Really? You are against it?

 

No one said you had to please me - I asked a question -- obviously one that YOU didn't like.

Edited May 30, 2010 by fooled once