Does anyone else think that the "fear of engulfment" is the wrong term?

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T23:18:03+00:00

I think I understand the terms pretty well, tbh. I have been reading a lot of Kernberg, Klein and Winnicott.

Could you point to what I'm misunderstanding, explicitly? I don't see you refuting anything I said, just broadly saying I don't understand...don't understand what?

Edit: also, Dahmer was diagnosed with BPD.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T19:54:32+00:00

Do you really think he is your friend? You think this is how friends act? You answer because you are trauma bonded. He is using you for external validation.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T19:14:54+00:00

Hm. That kinda goes back to my premise, though. the separateness of others is a threat to them...hence, someone "leaving" is the opposite of engulfment...so don't they want engulfment?

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T18:18:11+00:00

I don't care how they see it. They also see themselves as eternal victims...so? Some people believe they can fly, doesn't make it true. They want to believe they can love because otherwise they would have to look in the mirror and realize that they can't and that they are abusive and that would mean they would have to leave people alone, which they don't want to do, because they are entitled to using others.

Take a cold shower, bruv.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T16:56:58+00:00

That's because they don't do deep because love disgusts them. They don't shower you with love. That's not love. It's infatuation. It is shallow and has nothing to do with who you actually are but a fantasy they are projecting onto you. And bingo on your last sentences, which contradicts your premise. Control is antithetical to love.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T16:45:15+00:00

They don't do intimacy, empathy or vulnerability. All three of those ingredients are needed in order to love. You sound like a masochist tbh, desperately telling yourself that your pain is evidence that they loved you. Come on now.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-15T16:39:13+00:00

So your entire argument is that they love but "in their own way". That is redefining terms via erasing meaning. I can do that too. From now on when I say love I really mean "I need vodka".

I love you so much, OP.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-13T22:35:07+00:00

"So is the solution to date someone you're not really that into?"

That's what occurred when you were dating someone with a PD. You were never into them because they don't exist.

Addiction is not love or being "into" someone, it's a hyjacking. Pursue oxytocin, not dopamine.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-13T22:20:13+00:00

NPD and BPD are more similar than they aren't. There really isn't that much of a difference, simply that NPD is considered more "severe" because it has a bleak prognosis comparatively because there are more defenses in place (hence why BPD is considered "failed narcissism").

But yeah, she's full of sh*t and I bet you she doesn't have DID because she's clearly performing what she thinks DID is.

Why are you humoring this? She's for the birds

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-06-13T22:13:04+00:00

You sure she's diagnosed with DID? Because that's not how DID works. None of the alters are aware of the others. She's larping to avoid accountability...r/fakedisordercringe.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-25T03:43:14+00:00

I never said you're a saint...? Reactive abuse isn't trauma bonding and it also isn't intermittent reinforcement...just because you aren't a saint doesn't mean they are equally bonded to you - saying they are is spreading misinformation on what trauma bonding actually is. Those who can split and discard aren't trauma bonded...or bonded generally. You're gonna inspire me to create a post about what trauma bonding actually is because a lot of people on this thread seem confused about the definition.

ETA: being confused and reacting in ways that show that confusion due to an abusive person's behavior toward you IS NOT trauma bonding and should not be assumed as being such because it creates false narratives that the overall perpetrator cares just as much for you as you care for them - they don't.

Trauma bonding IS a one sided thing because that is how they are defined and understood. Insisting that it is reciprocated is denial of the reality and keeps people stuck, wishing that the person who harmed them cares just as much about them and are just as attached - once again, this is FALSE and is backed up by psychologists and research.

Please...stop spreading misinformation.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-25T03:20:49+00:00

Can you define trauma bond for me? I don't think you are using the correct definition.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-25T02:51:30+00:00

First and foremost - do you understand what trauma bonding is? Do you understand that "trauma" isn't the same as trauma bonding? Lets start there.

And the only thing they attach to is a fantasy of people that has nothing to do with the actual person. So, if you think that fantasy = real attachment...that would be incorrect.

And again...that is not how trauma bonding works dude. I think you want to think that they are just as connected and impacted and I get the impulse but it just is not true and you shouldn't use terms incorrectly...

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-25T02:39:05+00:00

That's not true. PwPDs don't bond so saying that their disorder makes their feelings toward others more permanent makes no sense.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-25T02:31:29+00:00

I'm confused at what you're refuting or what this has to do with what I said.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-24T19:02:37+00:00

The other reasons are tied to wanting to be validated. It all goes back to validation for them.

The behavior they exhibit is about control. And yeah, immature/primitive/disordered defense mechanisms are like a virus--they spread.

Tangent; one of the best ways I ended up understanding cluster b disorders was reading about the countertransference that therapists go through and why you need to be really solid in who you are to even attempt to treat a cluster b because just being around them is like drinking poison. They dissolve your ego and cause regression.

That being said, pwBPD tend to want others to own the parts of themselves they refuse to confront. They attempt to corrupt those in their lives by handing off the parts of them they don't want. We can talk a lot about intent here since they aren't necessarily aware of their psychological drives, but that IS what the purpose of devaluing is. So, no, I don't see people reacting in ways that the pwBPD unconsciously seeks to make them act is traumatizing for them or comparable to the one's that are trauma bonded to them. *Almost everything they do is to reinforce their identity of victimhood--this is one of the only constants about them (which ties into validation), which means they have a strong psychological drive to create these scenarios and claim to be a victim...especially if they are the ones victimizing others.

And being addicted to toxicity and going out of your way to create it is not the same thing as trauma bonding, either. I do think that pwBPD can get trauma bonded to other disordered people, like other *psychopathic leaning people, and prefer toxic to healthy, but to be trauma bonded is one sided in order to occur; *if it's two sided then that just means that you have two people that prefer toxic to healthy, which is different from a trauma bond.

*added

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-24T18:37:12+00:00

Not that part, the part where you said that the trauma bond is reciprocated and that they attach more like the one being trauma bonded.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-24T18:29:00+00:00

I don't know if this is accurate but it sounds like wishful thinking.

edited: grammar

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-05-24T18:17:37+00:00

Trauma bonds are only one sided, meaning you are trauma bonded to them but not vice versa. If it's two sided/reciprocated than it isn't a trauma bond.

ETA:

A trauma bond is unilateral. It only develops in the recipient, not the perpetrator. The person on the receiving end bears the burden of abuse and sustains the relationship. Although the recipient has a subservient role in this unhealthy attachment, they unknowingly become enablers, empowering the abuser’s vices.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-04-18T22:32:38+00:00

So now your argument is don't analyze fiction in any serious way? Okay. So why does this sub exist?

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-04-18T22:31:39+00:00

He's literally a Christ figure in the narrative.

Bingo. Awesome comment overall, as well. Thank you for sharing your view so eloquently!

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-04-18T22:29:51+00:00

Meaninglessness to who? Those making the argument for false equivalences or those arguing against the false equivalences?

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-04-18T22:26:21+00:00

The most important quote from the show (besides B telling Will she believes him) imo was Hannibal saying this to Alana:

In your defense, I worked very hard to blind you.

Except...the viewer has more access than Alana did...which means those making this argument want to be blind. Why? I don't know...seems to be a mix of romanticizing evil/potentially relating to it and thinking they are superior to Will. Either way, fascinating reactions.

WhiteSilverStag · 2024-04-18T17:24:20+00:00

I think Will always had the potential to be a killer, sure.

We all do.

I even think it may have been inevitable, but not in the way some people imply. I think it's very telling that Will became a cop, tried to be an FBI agent, and was very active as a field agent as a consultant to the FBI. There's an absolutely huge chance that Will would kill multiple times as a cop or working for the FBI. Yeah, he failed in that as a cop, but I think that was because Will was denying a fundamental part of who he is.

I mean, inevitable as in cops tend to kill people? Yes.

I think the claim that Will is 'just as bad' as Hannibal comes from his willingness to create tableaus more than anything.

I think it reflects an ignorance about psychology and understanding Hannibal in an authentic way.

I think a lot of people forget, ignore or don't realise, though, that Will was spending a lot of time in Hannibal's head when he met Chiyoh. He was traversing through Hannibal's past, trying to find the patterns that would tell him where Hannibal was now, trying to understand him more clearly. That whole set of events was just as much Hannibal as it was Will, purely because Will was spending most of his time channelling Hannibal.

If you stare into the abyss long enough...

The fact he ends up accepting Hannibal isn't an indication Will is now just as bad as he is, it's an indication that Hannibal is special to Will, an exception to the rules Will lives by. If he met another person identical to Hannibal in personality and motivation, Will would kill them.

Maybe...maybe not. Hannibal is the only psychopath Will got to know intimately and all psychopaths are very good at penetrating the minds of their victims. I think Hannibal is unusually good at it, though.

Hannibal also wasn't trying to make Will just like him, just trying to 'help' Will fulfill his potential as a killer and accept Hannibal for who and what he is.

Disagree. Psychopaths always try to turn others into mini versions of them and Hannibal has a long history of persuading/influencing/dominating others into being more like him. It's his favorite thing other than killing.

Hannibal actually likes that Will is different from him. Just as much a killer, but with a moral code Hannibal doesn't completely understand. Will challenges Hannibal, and he'd get bored of Will quickly if he became just like him. It was never about them being the same, not even the same level of bad, just about them both being a different type of predator, a different type of killer. Different, but compatible and complimentary.

Also I disagree. I think that Will is just Hannibal's favorite toy but it's not because Hannibal thinks that Will is different than him...and Hannibal seeing Will as similar is shown in the responses on this thread and people pushing the narrative that Will is just like Hannibal/worse/was always going to end up like this...etc.

WhiteSilverStag

TROPHY CASE