It's been a while since I recorded this, so sorry the description is not more detailed!
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Friday, April 26, 2019
Killing Eve and Bisexual Sociopaths
When the Confessions book came out, the publicist from the publisher asked me if there were any niche audiences that might be interested in the book. I told her that the gay/bisexual community might be interested, because they (especially at the time, in somewhat a dearth of gay themed books and other media) seemed to highlight anything with a touch of gay. I gave the publicist a list of such media outlets, but nothing seemed to come of them, which surprised me then, although it wouldn't surprise me now. The publicist basically shut down my inquiry, but reading between the lines I could see that they weren't interested in the sociopath angle.
Why the big reluctance to have homosexuality or bisexuality associated with sociopaths? I'm a little loose on the facts here so feel free to verify sources, but homosexuality was not only considered a mental health disorder until about the middle of the last century (unless the homosexual acts were done as part of an incarceration or military service, which was considered something that non-disordered people would get up to in those situations as well) -- it was also associated for a time with psychopathy. In my quick and dirty searches for this association, I found a reference in Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity wikipedia page: "He also notes he no longer considers that homosexuality should be classed as sexual psychopathy, on the grounds that many homosexuals seem to be able to live productive lives in society." But does say that sociopaths often show deviant behavior, and several of his case study subjects appear to be bisexual. (Click on the homosexuality link at the bottom of this article to read more).
Enter the BBC drama "Killing Eve," which features a bisexual sociopath that actually is so accurately portrayed that I'm 90% sure that the writers have done decent amounts of research, including reading the Confessions book? Here's why I think so, without too many spoilers. In Season 2, Episode 1 the sociopath is in the hospital with a serious condition. Her roommate says she's not looking too good and the sociopath starts responding she's fine and then passes out. This is almost identical to what happened to me on the 10th day of a ruptured appendix when nurses came back with my lab results, told me that my white blood cell count was through the roof and that I needed to immediately go to the hospital, asked me if I needed to sit down, I said I was fine then promptly passed out. When I came to everyone was freaking out and threatening to call an ambulance. My dad talked them down from it, saying that we were only blocks from the hospital and it would be quicker (and, I'm sure he also thought, infinitely cheaper without health insurance).
But how do people who identify as gay or bisexual love the fact that the character is both sociopathic and bisexual? (Which given the dozen plus sociopaths I've met in the past year or so is quite common in the sociopathic community, even if the reverse may not be true.) Not too well. A Buzz Feed writer complains (some spoiler-esque parts here): "Villanelle is bisexual, and for all the nuance we see around femininity and desire, Villanelle’s bisexuality is portrayed in a way that is both tired and damaging. Her need for sex with multiple genders is tied to her depraved and insatiable appetite, which she is only able to feed because of her total lack of a moral compass."
But I think the Buzz Feed writer actually gets it mostly wrong here. The sociopath character is not portrayed as being inherently depraved or having an insatiable appetite at all, I didn't think. In fact, if anything, she seems to have a classic sociopathic sort of indifference to sex. Even when she finally connects with the object of her obsession, there's no sex, there's just the visceral physical presence of the two. A lot of eye contact! And the Buzz Feed author goes on to describe not just this character but other classic sociopathic bisexual characters (e.g. Frank Underwood) with their voracious appetites that they can't control -- because a character eats ribs for breakfast? Come on. This is the trope that is tired, the sociopath whose appetites drive him or her to commit greater and greater atrocities. Sociopaths aren't engaged enough in the world for all of that. They're not driven by their appetites, so much as (aimlessly) seizing upon anything that intrigues them for longer than a moment, and as a remedy from the boredom that so often plagues them.
I get it that not all bisexuals are sociopaths, but I don't think these characters are chosen in these narratives because they're bisexual, but rather because they're sociopaths. And of course not all sociopaths are killers. But again, I guess if you need a killer for a narrative, a sociopath is a common choice for a reason -- because they're interesting and can be compelling without being offputting for the audience about that whole murderer thing. And if you're going to choose a sociopath character, accuracy demands that there's a good chance they're either bisexual or you'll see some other quirky features about the way they think about, desire, and engage in sex. Because sociopaths in real life don't have normal sex with all of the emotional underpinnings and awareness or acknowledgment of the intimacy of the act with another person. In my experience, they think of sex a lot like they think of exercising regularly or peeing or taking their boss up on that invitation for dinner with the family -- probably a good idea to do and maybe even in a certain way necessary and desirable.
Why the big reluctance to have homosexuality or bisexuality associated with sociopaths? I'm a little loose on the facts here so feel free to verify sources, but homosexuality was not only considered a mental health disorder until about the middle of the last century (unless the homosexual acts were done as part of an incarceration or military service, which was considered something that non-disordered people would get up to in those situations as well) -- it was also associated for a time with psychopathy. In my quick and dirty searches for this association, I found a reference in Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity wikipedia page: "He also notes he no longer considers that homosexuality should be classed as sexual psychopathy, on the grounds that many homosexuals seem to be able to live productive lives in society." But does say that sociopaths often show deviant behavior, and several of his case study subjects appear to be bisexual. (Click on the homosexuality link at the bottom of this article to read more).
Enter the BBC drama "Killing Eve," which features a bisexual sociopath that actually is so accurately portrayed that I'm 90% sure that the writers have done decent amounts of research, including reading the Confessions book? Here's why I think so, without too many spoilers. In Season 2, Episode 1 the sociopath is in the hospital with a serious condition. Her roommate says she's not looking too good and the sociopath starts responding she's fine and then passes out. This is almost identical to what happened to me on the 10th day of a ruptured appendix when nurses came back with my lab results, told me that my white blood cell count was through the roof and that I needed to immediately go to the hospital, asked me if I needed to sit down, I said I was fine then promptly passed out. When I came to everyone was freaking out and threatening to call an ambulance. My dad talked them down from it, saying that we were only blocks from the hospital and it would be quicker (and, I'm sure he also thought, infinitely cheaper without health insurance).
But how do people who identify as gay or bisexual love the fact that the character is both sociopathic and bisexual? (Which given the dozen plus sociopaths I've met in the past year or so is quite common in the sociopathic community, even if the reverse may not be true.) Not too well. A Buzz Feed writer complains (some spoiler-esque parts here): "Villanelle is bisexual, and for all the nuance we see around femininity and desire, Villanelle’s bisexuality is portrayed in a way that is both tired and damaging. Her need for sex with multiple genders is tied to her depraved and insatiable appetite, which she is only able to feed because of her total lack of a moral compass."
But I think the Buzz Feed writer actually gets it mostly wrong here. The sociopath character is not portrayed as being inherently depraved or having an insatiable appetite at all, I didn't think. In fact, if anything, she seems to have a classic sociopathic sort of indifference to sex. Even when she finally connects with the object of her obsession, there's no sex, there's just the visceral physical presence of the two. A lot of eye contact! And the Buzz Feed author goes on to describe not just this character but other classic sociopathic bisexual characters (e.g. Frank Underwood) with their voracious appetites that they can't control -- because a character eats ribs for breakfast? Come on. This is the trope that is tired, the sociopath whose appetites drive him or her to commit greater and greater atrocities. Sociopaths aren't engaged enough in the world for all of that. They're not driven by their appetites, so much as (aimlessly) seizing upon anything that intrigues them for longer than a moment, and as a remedy from the boredom that so often plagues them.
I get it that not all bisexuals are sociopaths, but I don't think these characters are chosen in these narratives because they're bisexual, but rather because they're sociopaths. And of course not all sociopaths are killers. But again, I guess if you need a killer for a narrative, a sociopath is a common choice for a reason -- because they're interesting and can be compelling without being offputting for the audience about that whole murderer thing. And if you're going to choose a sociopath character, accuracy demands that there's a good chance they're either bisexual or you'll see some other quirky features about the way they think about, desire, and engage in sex. Because sociopaths in real life don't have normal sex with all of the emotional underpinnings and awareness or acknowledgment of the intimacy of the act with another person. In my experience, they think of sex a lot like they think of exercising regularly or peeing or taking their boss up on that invitation for dinner with the family -- probably a good idea to do and maybe even in a certain way necessary and desirable.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Sociopaths in Television: Bart Simpson
Apparently Bart was diagnosed (wrongfully?) as a sociopath in a recent episode of the Simpsons, "Paths of Glory". Spoilers follow.
In a play off of Ender's Game, Bart is sent to a special facility with other sociopathic children:
As all the kids there have no reactions, an army general says that they're perfect to test U.S. Air Force Drone Simulators. Bart manages to destroy all targets, but later the kids are informed that they were actually controlling a real drone, killing real people. Bart is the only kid who gets worried about it, so he's diagnosed as being sane and is free to go back home.
It makes you wonder who is actually running the drones currently.
Also on television, in the BBC's "Call the Midwife," Season 4, Episode 3, the show explores how homosexuals were handled in the late 1950s, early 1960s in the UK, with some interesting parallels. for this audience First gay people are criminals. Second, they're thought to be degenerates. Third, if caught they either end up in prison or undergoing "treatment" to "cure" them, apparently most commonly either electroshock therapy or feminine hormone treatments for the men.
Dr. Turner: You will be prescribed Stilbestrol by the hospital. You will be allowed to take this, largely in the privacy of your own home, but you will be monitored to make sure you’re taking it. There are other treatments. ECT, aversion therapy, but I’d say this is less brutal and more private.
Marie: That’s all right. You’re not funny about tablets, are you?
Dr. Turner: They contain a form of estrogen, the female hormone. It will stop your body from producing testosterone, which in turn will suppress your urges.
Marie: But he’ll be all right, otherwise?
Dr. Turner: Impotence occurs, as the testosterone reduces.
Marie: We’ll already have our child. Is that it?
Dr. Turner: There may also be gynecomastia, development of breast tissue, there is often a loss of muscle and body hair.
Tony: Dear God.
Marie: Well, it’s not prison. And that’s all that matters.
A parallel story line involves an infestation of rats, and the attempts of most to brutally kill them. One of the nun attempts to fight the brutality: "We are all God's creatures. It's just some are easier to love than others. It's the others that need us most.".
The end monologue talks about how important it is to have some place at which we can be truly ourselves despite the world's constant demand that we conform in some way or another:
A world is not just made of bricks and mortar, but of minds. We can rebuild cities, paint beautiful facades, invent new ways of living. We can protect all that we have. But that place which we call home must be the place in which we are ourselves with no facade, no foundations weak below us. Only then can we face outwards with our heads held high, playing the roles assigned to us with open, honest hearts.
In a play off of Ender's Game, Bart is sent to a special facility with other sociopathic children:
As all the kids there have no reactions, an army general says that they're perfect to test U.S. Air Force Drone Simulators. Bart manages to destroy all targets, but later the kids are informed that they were actually controlling a real drone, killing real people. Bart is the only kid who gets worried about it, so he's diagnosed as being sane and is free to go back home.
It makes you wonder who is actually running the drones currently.
Also on television, in the BBC's "Call the Midwife," Season 4, Episode 3, the show explores how homosexuals were handled in the late 1950s, early 1960s in the UK, with some interesting parallels. for this audience First gay people are criminals. Second, they're thought to be degenerates. Third, if caught they either end up in prison or undergoing "treatment" to "cure" them, apparently most commonly either electroshock therapy or feminine hormone treatments for the men.
Dr. Turner: You will be prescribed Stilbestrol by the hospital. You will be allowed to take this, largely in the privacy of your own home, but you will be monitored to make sure you’re taking it. There are other treatments. ECT, aversion therapy, but I’d say this is less brutal and more private.
Marie: That’s all right. You’re not funny about tablets, are you?
Dr. Turner: They contain a form of estrogen, the female hormone. It will stop your body from producing testosterone, which in turn will suppress your urges.
Marie: But he’ll be all right, otherwise?
Dr. Turner: Impotence occurs, as the testosterone reduces.
Marie: We’ll already have our child. Is that it?
Dr. Turner: There may also be gynecomastia, development of breast tissue, there is often a loss of muscle and body hair.
Tony: Dear God.
Marie: Well, it’s not prison. And that’s all that matters.
A parallel story line involves an infestation of rats, and the attempts of most to brutally kill them. One of the nun attempts to fight the brutality: "We are all God's creatures. It's just some are easier to love than others. It's the others that need us most.".
The end monologue talks about how important it is to have some place at which we can be truly ourselves despite the world's constant demand that we conform in some way or another:
A world is not just made of bricks and mortar, but of minds. We can rebuild cities, paint beautiful facades, invent new ways of living. We can protect all that we have. But that place which we call home must be the place in which we are ourselves with no facade, no foundations weak below us. Only then can we face outwards with our heads held high, playing the roles assigned to us with open, honest hearts.
Monday, August 31, 2015
The Courage Game
I have historically alternated between trying to understand how I work and trying to understand how the world works or what my place in the world is. When I first started the blog, it was trying to understand myself. After a few years, it went back to the world. After the book was published, it went back to myself again -- this time with the help of an aggressive therapist. Now, I have a sense that I should sort of move on from this simple but comfortable and relatively safe life I have carved out for myself post book publication and trashing much of my previous life. I feel like my gaze has been slowly turning outward, and sometimes in some somewhat dispiriting ways.
This was an interesting video about a 12 year old boy who came out as being gay to his friends. Even in this day in age, that didn't go over well. Probably of most interest to me and people that come here is how he describes how society turned on him, how he reacted to the social ostracization. Starting around 4:20, he talks about how his peers chose to shame him, and how he withdrew as much as he could from society, how he desperately wished he was normal. The most poignant quote from him for me, though, was "I would always want to go to sleep and like never wake up you know because I just didn't want to deal with what like society had come to, and I thought, nothing would ever get better." He eventually stumbles upon a youtube video of an interview openly gay professional lacrosse player from a decade ago, and they strike up a mentorship. At the end, his mentor infers that one day the boy will be able to perform a similar role for other boys in similar circumstances.
I have felt what this little boy has, the feeling that every time you wake up one of the first things you think of is what type of world this is that you are waking up to -- where you don't want to deal with what society has come to. Sometimes I think about other sort of sociopaths that have gone public about their status (oddly only older males?) and how well they seem to be doing. I wonder why things seem more ok for them and their lives than they do for me -- why people don't seem to be as eager to witch hunt or to ostracize or to shame them as they seem to do for me. I could come up with a list of reasons (and some of you may feel the need to tell me why it's my fault), but could anyone of those reasons really explain the drastic difference between one man's and the others? I sort of don't want to believe it, because if I do the world will seem more arbitrary to me, although it may seem less arbitrary to others to want to blame victims, e.g. the rape victim for leading men on or dressing provocatively or putting herself in those situations, or the gay hate crime victim for rubbing it in people's faces. I understand the urge to blame the victim, because if you've never experienced victimization like this, you want to believe that you never will as long as you make all of the "right" choices in life.
But I guess the real answer is that there probably isn't an explanation for who gets victimized and who doesn't, or it's just so complicated. Why does this little boy get ostracized when so many other other young people nowadays have no problem coming out? And if you tried to think about how people would react all of the time to your honest expressions of identity, they would cease to be honest expressions of your identity. And as much as you can try to plan for the right moment and the right way and balance all of the competing interests and variables, everything can go wrong quite easily, like Gettysburg for the South. But in social situations like this, not only is there a large degree of risk and uncertainty and any planned or unplanned social maneuvering like a coming out, there's also a large degree of irrationality.
And I guess that is what I am actually really grateful for, for the opportunity to finally understand what it feels like to go through something a little like this boy did. I understand better now what it must feel like to be an abused spouse, where everything can seem like it's going fine and suddenly for some reason (but really no reason, or no rational reason, or not any reason that could be a reasonable response to the alleged trigger), you are something that is so reviled that you deserve to be treated like human garbage. It reminds me a little of an interview I watched with a youngish black man who had been raised by white parents and never really experienced the worst of racism in his sheltered middle class community until one night he was pulled over by police who proceeded to pull him out of the car, antagonize him, and then beat him to within an inch of his life. There is no rationality to it. There's no predictability to it. Or Sandra Bland. Did she really deserve what she got for not being deferential to the police? That's the reason why? And I know that not all of you will see it this way, but to me it's as ugly to me to hear people try to justify the police officer's behavior as it is for people to justify the homophobic bullying of a little gay boy. And now I can see better how people would just not want to deal with what society has come to. And this is not an indictment, it's just an expression of gratitude that before when I used to feel very little ties to society outside of my close family and friends, I now feel a sort of kinship to everyone else who has had a similar experience. And I don't know. If this is the way the world is going to keep working, at least for the foreseeable future, then I feel a little bit of an obligation to make my life work so that maybe eventually my example can help others who endure similar fates. But it's still a huge struggle for me right now to reconcile myself to this being just how the world works. Maybe that's a good thing too. Maybe eventually there will be enough people bothered by this sort of thing that it will cease to be as socially condoned as it still is. Because I wonder what the world would look like if people got as outraged by senseless shaming as they did senseless killing. In a lot of ways, I think victims of shaming would rather be dead -- that's why the suicide rate is so high among young gaysters, as the video points out. But also what good does the outrage at senseless killing accomplish? Maybe moral outrage of any kind is not the solution that it sometimes seems to be in our moments of deepest frustration with the world.
This was an interesting video about a 12 year old boy who came out as being gay to his friends. Even in this day in age, that didn't go over well. Probably of most interest to me and people that come here is how he describes how society turned on him, how he reacted to the social ostracization. Starting around 4:20, he talks about how his peers chose to shame him, and how he withdrew as much as he could from society, how he desperately wished he was normal. The most poignant quote from him for me, though, was "I would always want to go to sleep and like never wake up you know because I just didn't want to deal with what like society had come to, and I thought, nothing would ever get better." He eventually stumbles upon a youtube video of an interview openly gay professional lacrosse player from a decade ago, and they strike up a mentorship. At the end, his mentor infers that one day the boy will be able to perform a similar role for other boys in similar circumstances.
I have felt what this little boy has, the feeling that every time you wake up one of the first things you think of is what type of world this is that you are waking up to -- where you don't want to deal with what society has come to. Sometimes I think about other sort of sociopaths that have gone public about their status (oddly only older males?) and how well they seem to be doing. I wonder why things seem more ok for them and their lives than they do for me -- why people don't seem to be as eager to witch hunt or to ostracize or to shame them as they seem to do for me. I could come up with a list of reasons (and some of you may feel the need to tell me why it's my fault), but could anyone of those reasons really explain the drastic difference between one man's and the others? I sort of don't want to believe it, because if I do the world will seem more arbitrary to me, although it may seem less arbitrary to others to want to blame victims, e.g. the rape victim for leading men on or dressing provocatively or putting herself in those situations, or the gay hate crime victim for rubbing it in people's faces. I understand the urge to blame the victim, because if you've never experienced victimization like this, you want to believe that you never will as long as you make all of the "right" choices in life.
But I guess the real answer is that there probably isn't an explanation for who gets victimized and who doesn't, or it's just so complicated. Why does this little boy get ostracized when so many other other young people nowadays have no problem coming out? And if you tried to think about how people would react all of the time to your honest expressions of identity, they would cease to be honest expressions of your identity. And as much as you can try to plan for the right moment and the right way and balance all of the competing interests and variables, everything can go wrong quite easily, like Gettysburg for the South. But in social situations like this, not only is there a large degree of risk and uncertainty and any planned or unplanned social maneuvering like a coming out, there's also a large degree of irrationality.
And I guess that is what I am actually really grateful for, for the opportunity to finally understand what it feels like to go through something a little like this boy did. I understand better now what it must feel like to be an abused spouse, where everything can seem like it's going fine and suddenly for some reason (but really no reason, or no rational reason, or not any reason that could be a reasonable response to the alleged trigger), you are something that is so reviled that you deserve to be treated like human garbage. It reminds me a little of an interview I watched with a youngish black man who had been raised by white parents and never really experienced the worst of racism in his sheltered middle class community until one night he was pulled over by police who proceeded to pull him out of the car, antagonize him, and then beat him to within an inch of his life. There is no rationality to it. There's no predictability to it. Or Sandra Bland. Did she really deserve what she got for not being deferential to the police? That's the reason why? And I know that not all of you will see it this way, but to me it's as ugly to me to hear people try to justify the police officer's behavior as it is for people to justify the homophobic bullying of a little gay boy. And now I can see better how people would just not want to deal with what society has come to. And this is not an indictment, it's just an expression of gratitude that before when I used to feel very little ties to society outside of my close family and friends, I now feel a sort of kinship to everyone else who has had a similar experience. And I don't know. If this is the way the world is going to keep working, at least for the foreseeable future, then I feel a little bit of an obligation to make my life work so that maybe eventually my example can help others who endure similar fates. But it's still a huge struggle for me right now to reconcile myself to this being just how the world works. Maybe that's a good thing too. Maybe eventually there will be enough people bothered by this sort of thing that it will cease to be as socially condoned as it still is. Because I wonder what the world would look like if people got as outraged by senseless shaming as they did senseless killing. In a lot of ways, I think victims of shaming would rather be dead -- that's why the suicide rate is so high among young gaysters, as the video points out. But also what good does the outrage at senseless killing accomplish? Maybe moral outrage of any kind is not the solution that it sometimes seems to be in our moments of deepest frustration with the world.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
The usefulness of labels (gay, sociopathic, etc.)
From a not so recent comment:
Labels do not have to be limiting. I like to think of labels as being entries in a dictionary, you can get the general information from them and then turn to the etymology to find out the unique story behind it. In my part of the world, in talking with "queer" sociopaths, labels are invaluable. I get to spend much less time talking about the nouns of a person and much more time discussing verbs and adjectives (what makes them distinct). However, I also fully believe that a label must only be a 'first step'. Let the presence (or absence) of it light a fire that causes that introspection. Labels simply the big picture but the onus is on the one using the label to add the detail.
Rather than rehash what I've written many times to the queer sociopaths and sociopathic-leaning individuals that I communicate with, I'll just paste one such instance. It was in response to a homosexual sociopath that feared adding one more label to his list of many.
"Receiving a diagnosis of psychopathy did not change the person that I am. It merely gave a new vocabulary for the person that I always had been. I could then begin to learn about myself further. There was a word, a diagnosis, for the facets of my life that seemed so alien to others. This diagnosis had research associated with it, which would be a treasure-trove of valuable information for learning. No longer was I a seemingly unconnected mess of behaviors and thoughts. I was able to retain my individuality and complexities, but I now had an idea of what a large part of me was. Like early humans mastering the spoken word, I could now communicate with myself and with others a cherished and important of my being: my psychopathy.
Many argue that the use of labels reduces the individuality of those associated with such. I believe this can be true. I am much more than my gender or psychopathy. I am a complex individual with many nuances and quirks. I am unpredictable, wild, and not caged easily. Would not the diagnosis of psychopathy cage me or put me into a box that I could not escape? I don’t believe so. The individual’s use of the label means much here.
A label can be vital for understanding the conditions one lives with. The chronic pain sufferer the learns they have arthritis can take steps to change their activities as well as accept the potential lifelong pain. The psychopath can learn behaviors to rein in impulsivity and better understand the path they must walk to stay free, while also accepting (which is usually not a problem) that they will forever be psychopathic.
As importantly, this vocabulary allows for concise conversation with others. That said, no two psychopaths are exactly alike: we have our individual differences as well as strengths and weaknesses. However, with a proper explanation, the word ‘psychopath’ can turn volumes of explanation into a few sentences. With those that I correspond with, we can can get to the interesting qualities of the person without belaboring the condition. With myself, I can have a similar conversation, focusing on the quirks that make myself who I am and setting a good portion of the larger picture aside as a single word.
There is no shame in being a psychopath. The diagnosis was a gift for me in many ways. It allowed me to see a bigger picture, even if some details are murky, and allowed me to research the condition in order to live the most fulfilling life possible. It let me realize that there are others like me and it gave me the vocabulary to speak articulately with my confidants as well as my psychopathic brothers and sisters. I am a label? No. However, the label makes many things much easier."
Labels do not have to be limiting. I like to think of labels as being entries in a dictionary, you can get the general information from them and then turn to the etymology to find out the unique story behind it. In my part of the world, in talking with "queer" sociopaths, labels are invaluable. I get to spend much less time talking about the nouns of a person and much more time discussing verbs and adjectives (what makes them distinct). However, I also fully believe that a label must only be a 'first step'. Let the presence (or absence) of it light a fire that causes that introspection. Labels simply the big picture but the onus is on the one using the label to add the detail.
Rather than rehash what I've written many times to the queer sociopaths and sociopathic-leaning individuals that I communicate with, I'll just paste one such instance. It was in response to a homosexual sociopath that feared adding one more label to his list of many.
"Receiving a diagnosis of psychopathy did not change the person that I am. It merely gave a new vocabulary for the person that I always had been. I could then begin to learn about myself further. There was a word, a diagnosis, for the facets of my life that seemed so alien to others. This diagnosis had research associated with it, which would be a treasure-trove of valuable information for learning. No longer was I a seemingly unconnected mess of behaviors and thoughts. I was able to retain my individuality and complexities, but I now had an idea of what a large part of me was. Like early humans mastering the spoken word, I could now communicate with myself and with others a cherished and important of my being: my psychopathy.
Many argue that the use of labels reduces the individuality of those associated with such. I believe this can be true. I am much more than my gender or psychopathy. I am a complex individual with many nuances and quirks. I am unpredictable, wild, and not caged easily. Would not the diagnosis of psychopathy cage me or put me into a box that I could not escape? I don’t believe so. The individual’s use of the label means much here.
A label can be vital for understanding the conditions one lives with. The chronic pain sufferer the learns they have arthritis can take steps to change their activities as well as accept the potential lifelong pain. The psychopath can learn behaviors to rein in impulsivity and better understand the path they must walk to stay free, while also accepting (which is usually not a problem) that they will forever be psychopathic.
As importantly, this vocabulary allows for concise conversation with others. That said, no two psychopaths are exactly alike: we have our individual differences as well as strengths and weaknesses. However, with a proper explanation, the word ‘psychopath’ can turn volumes of explanation into a few sentences. With those that I correspond with, we can can get to the interesting qualities of the person without belaboring the condition. With myself, I can have a similar conversation, focusing on the quirks that make myself who I am and setting a good portion of the larger picture aside as a single word.
There is no shame in being a psychopath. The diagnosis was a gift for me in many ways. It allowed me to see a bigger picture, even if some details are murky, and allowed me to research the condition in order to live the most fulfilling life possible. It let me realize that there are others like me and it gave me the vocabulary to speak articulately with my confidants as well as my psychopathic brothers and sisters. I am a label? No. However, the label makes many things much easier."
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Power hungry
A reader asks why sociopaths are so power hungry, do I suspect any historical or contemporary figures were/are sociopaths, e.g. Machiavelli, and how to learn to think like a sociopath.I honestly don't know why sociopaths are so concerned with gaining power. I don't think it is necessarily unique to sociopaths, obviously, but I would say that it seems to apply to the vast majority of sociopaths. Perhaps there is something evolutionarily implicated here, that for the same reasons that sociopaths were evolved to not have a conscience, they were also evolved to crave power?
There's something very primitive about the sociopath's drive for power, like the sex drive, but it can manifest itself in many ways. For instance, I think a lot of sociopaths just want to make people jump, or at least know that they can. Some of them want the classical form of power, for example some political or business position or the money that can buy the power. Some of them, like me, channel the drive for power to include power over oneself, one's impulses and inclinations.
I do think that Machiavelli was a sociopath. There are a lot of people that I sort of suspect are sociopaths, but it's really hard to tell if anyone is without being privy to their thought processes. Anything else is complete speculation. For instance, I got in this idle debate once about whether Angelina Jolie was sociopath leaning. In my mind she had some of the clear identifying factors: creepy attachment to family, volatile, bisexual, and loves Ayn Rand (libertarian leaning politically). The person I was arguing with could not get over her humanitarian work, which to me is a nonstarter because there could be plenty of reasons why she does that. You know? Like why do I write this blog? People always want to know stuff like that, but there could be a million reasons, including accumulating power, respect, being able to influence the dialogue about a particular subject, etc. And with Angelina Jolie, how can you explain the other stuff? Like the fact that she has a look that makes people want to cry and she can be equally seductive with straight women as she is with men? But really I could go either way with her, and without looking inside her head there's no way to know for sure.
There are few people that I would feel confident to say are sociopaths, most of them literary because we actually get to see the "honest" picture of how they think, e.g. Tom Ripley, Cathy from East of Eden, and some others I have mentioned on the blog.
How to learn to think like a sociopath? I don't know, find one to apprentice with? But I would be careful. I think after you learn to think like a sociopath, there is something about you that changes and you can never really go back. I think this is particularly true if you learn to think like a sociopath at a young age and had all of those sociopathic neurological pathways reinforced instead of the "normal" ones.
For more information, please visit our Web Community.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Almost sociopath (part 2)
The main issue in my hesitation at self-diagnosis is this...I know enough people similar to me - in and out of my own family - that also fit these parameters to a certain extent to still be unsure.
My mother seemed to have had similar experiences in her past. She is a control freak with those around her (though especially with me) and has to be right (Dr Phil asks "would you rather be right or happy?", to her being right IS being happy). She is very charming, people seem to like her a great deal, but when they prove to be less-than in some way to her she'll grow a tad nasty with them...this includes me with whom she's grown overly aggressive to the point of abusive - emotionally and mentally if not, once or twice, physically.
My grandmother is the same...though seems more borderline/narcissistic in personality and her behavior may also be due to other medical issues. My grandfather was known to have many behavioral problems as a boy/teen and was, even by his own confession looking back, abusive to his children ("it was the way it was back then"), but did well in the navy and, after the birth of his children, did not have criminal issues at all to my knowledge. One aunt was known to be promiscuous and switch her entire personality with each mate (I always imagined borderline more than anything) while the other settled happily into a marriage in which both her and husband live beyond their means without much concern for the future consequences - :cough: IRS audit :cough:. My uncle is the most clearly the "typical sociopath" with a string of moves, jobs, and even (easily debunk-able) lies in his wake - he is also, though, the lowest-functioning person in the family so that could be why I'm most aware of his "typical" sociopathic behavior.
Some of my friends often seem to have the same viewpoint and will make similar-type jokes as me - including those others have called "wrong", "mean", etc - and will both laugh at and repeat my own. They seem amused by the same things, to wanna do the same things, and believe the same general things as I do...but I wonder if this one isn't a bit of a chicken and the egg situation. Are they conforming to me or am I conforming to them?
Or am I seeing a likeness that's not truly there for some self-denial/self-comforting (they're similar, thus like me, thus I'm "normal") reason?? (Other family members, to my knowledge, have not done any sort of cruelties to those around/close to them and they emote more frequently with more genuineness, it seems.) ....OR are they all also truly like me?
And, if both family and friends are truly like me, then am I not a sociopath at all? Or, maybe, am I an "almost" or "borderline" sociopath (most self-tests online came back as this or as "high-functioning")? OR have I been surrounded by enough my own kind for long enough that I never realized what, exactly, my "kind" was until your blog, which resonates so thoroughly with me I swear I could've written some of the posts myself?
Any help you can offer would be much appreciated, any thing you need answered in order to help me I'll answer (outside the details of true name, etc, of course). If you wish to put this up on the blog that is also fine...perhaps others are in a similar situation as mine and need the help.
Sincerely
"Skye"
PS: Please note I'm a tad late to the game on this - I'm 30 - but was always a late bloomer in personality, if I was to move to the next stage at all. (I only truly realized the gender of my mate is irrelevant to me a few years ago, I still live with my mother due to crap financial issues - I'm working to rectify this one now - and never moved beyond the "I shouldn't do that because, if caught, I'll get in trouble"...it is seriously the only thing that keeps me in line, if I think I can get away with something I will absolutely give it a go.)
Monday, August 12, 2013
Successful female sociopath
.jpg)
I am an older sociopath with a terminal illness, I am female, a retired law professor, bi sexual - and predatory too - when I want something enough or I want to have some fun.
I always knew I was different. I have clear memories from before I was able to walk, which I did at 9 months, so was alert and conscious very early. I was also a third child, with a non-maternal mother and a father who was often absent, but sociable. Both parents had high levels of hypocrisy. Like you I was trained to look beneath the surface at a young age.
I was cleverer than those around me, and looked at issues from a perspective not often shared by others. This was a boost academically and professionally as it meant I was 10-20 steps ahead, as I had coolly considered all permutations, not just the socially acceptable or obvious ones. I was always able to get children around me to do things for me and I enjoyed manipulating them. I was incredulous when very young about how easy it was to get others to do what I wanted them to do. By the time I was around 10 years old I knew it was not a common way of being. I could also lie straight to adults without them detecting it. I learned to say "the right thing" as it was always too easy to work out what people wanted. I had a slew of aunts who loved hearing I wanted to be eg., a nurse so I could "help people." I had no intention of being a nurse and sick people always repulsed me, so by a very young age I was lying to curry social favours. I always knew I was lying. There was no self delusion about it. I enjoyed getting away with it.
It has been interesting going through a life threatening illness [cancer] as a sociopath. Doctors and other health professionals are nonplussed at my lack of tears or panic for example and my interest in details that are important to me, but not to 99.9% of patients. Apparently 99.9% of patients go through these stages of grieving. I didn't. It certainly saved a lot of time on pointless emotions. I also never had a "why me" moment. Why not me? I wasn't born with a get out of jail free card and statistically it was always on the cards.
Many cancer staff felt relaxed as a result of my matter of fact presentation, lack of hysterics and self deprecating gallows humour. Part of my motivation was to get them to do more things for me, but also I enjoyed the thought that if they thought they liked me, they would be more upset when I died and would never forget someone they thought of as a stoic, funny and engaging patient.
During the course of my treatment I was referred to a Radiation Oncologist who I recognised immediately as a fellow sociopath. He let one comment slip as he thought I was a not particularly bright patient. The one comment/slip gave me my opportunity. Interestingly he did not detect me at the time, but as I questioned him later about the medical advice he had imparted and queried the statistical and other reasons for his treatment recommendations, he may have slowly cottoned on. It was fun putting him through the wringer especially as he had not even bothered to pay lip service to informed consent... and I had a witness, who was a hospital employee. He left the hospital's employ soon after. I had him on toast and he did not like it being exposed in front of his colleagues.
I was about to leave a long term [10 years] female partner when I was diagnosed with cancer. She is very service oriented, so it suits me to stay with her now as I know I don't have to bother with shopping, cooking, cleaning, bills etc. The woman I was considering leaving her for would not have been as attentive and did not have as large an annual income or the selfless mentality which would keep me more comfortable when ill. It was a cold blooded and practical assessment of how to ensure I was best advantaged.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Book responses (part 6)
I read your book (blew through it really) and it was interesting to say the least. Specifically when I find something written down by someone else that I had always felt. For example, you said "I feel I have no particular sexual identity. Even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of preference. I think equal opportunity is a more apt label in that I see no reason to discriminate."
I have said this to a friend of mine (almost verbatim) when trying to explain why I dislike sexual labels.
Sometimes, it becomes utterly exhausting to keep us this image of someone who gives a damn. Let it slip just a little and I have to deal with "What's wrong with you?" from all sides. It's comforting to realize that there are other people that think the way I do, though they may also have to keep everything under a tight guard.
I would love to be able to explain why I liked the book so much, but I haven't figured out a way to do that and not out myself (without flat out lying about why I read it). So my goodreads review is kind of empty, but I wanted to offer at least this much feedback.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Famous sociopaths: Julie D'Aubigny
Julie D'Aubigny was a 17th-century bisexual French opera singer and fencing master who killed or wounded at least ten men in life-or-death duels, performed nightly shows on the biggest and most highly-respected opera stage in the world, and once took the Holy Orders just so that she could sneak into a convent and bang a nun. If nothing in that sentence at least marginally interests you, I have no idea why you're visiting this website.
One of the most badass human beings ever produced by France was born in 1670 into a life of wealth, privilege, and one-percenter opulence that meant she could have just spent her entire life chilling out Real Housewives style without ever so much as having to shank a single human being in the eye in a hellacious fit of rage, but, as we shall soon see, that sort of malaise really wasn't this chick's bag.
***
Julie D'Aubigny moved to Marseille and started hooking up with a badass fencing master who just so happened to be on the run for murder after he stabbed some dude to death in an alley outside Paris. The homicidal fugitive swordsman trained D'Aubigny in the finer arts of fencing for a while, but as soon as she realized the student was now the master she ditched his broke ass and started giving sword exhibitions across Marseille to hone her skills and make a little extra dough. Basically it worked like this – she'd pull out her sword, sing a song or two, and challenge anyone in the audience to battle her in a duel. If someone stepped up, she'd sing a humiliating song about them, then make them look like assholes who couldn't tell the difference between a sword and a limp piece of linguine. Her skills were so lights-out gonzo that one time some jerkwad in the crowd called out that she wasn't really a woman, but was some badass cross-dressing cavalier musketeer motherfucker who was ripping everyone off. She responded by ripping open her blouse and telling the audience to "judge for themselves".
Oddly enough, kicking peoples' asses for money eventually led to a completely unrelated job prospect – a career as the star attraction of the Paris Opera. Apparently, while this chick was singing songs to humiliate her enemies in the dueling circle, some powerful record execs were in the audience, and they were so impressed by her melodious contralto voice that they decided she should be doing better shit than stabbing people in the balls for spare change. In the span of a few months, the woman known in Marseilles only as "La Maupin" (meaning "The Mapuin") went from a completely untrained street performer to the lead actress in the world's most respected Opera, playing roles of badass Classical chicks like Pallas Athena, Medea, and Dido. In addition to her flair for the dramatic and innate musical talent, it also helped that La Maupin had a near-photographic memory and rarely needed to read her lines more than once before committing them to memory.
Of course, her fiery temperament in love and combat meant that she slept with or swordfought with most of the men and women in the opera at various points during her career. Like, one time some jackass doucheface pretty-boy actor was being overly-aggressive while talking to one of Julie's actress friends, so La Maupin told that asshole to take a chill pill and show the lady some respect. He told her to fuck off and mind her own bitch business. Later that night, as he was walking home, he found La Maupin standing in the street, weapon drawn, challenging him to a duel for honor. When the guy refused to pull his sword, she fucking beat his ass with a wooden cane, stole his pocketwatch, and left his dumb ass in an alley. The next day, the dude came to work with a couple black eyes, and when people were like, "WTF is up with your face," he told them he got jumped by three big black dudes armed with hammers and baseball bats. As soon as he said this, La Maupin pulled out the dude's pocketwatch and called him out a lying liar from Douchebagville. Then, to make matters more humiliating, she then forced the dude to kneel and beg forgiveness in front of all his co-workers before he could get his shit back.
La Maupin was also kind of a hardcore bisexual, and some of her tales of badass awesomeness dueling over female lovers and seducing chambermaids read like they were perpetrated by musketeers or pirates or some other ultra-daring swashbuckling male heroes of eighteenth-century literature. Of course, being a woman, Julie D'Aubigny could pull off some feats of romantic badassitude that most men could only dream of. The most notable example of this was the time that she became a nun just so she could hook up with one of the sisters in the convent. The story goes like this: One time the Mademoiselle D'Aubigny got some super-hot lusty blonde to fall in love with her. When the blonde's parents found out their daughter was a lesbo, they had their "ravished" daughter put into a convent, totally unaware that this wasn't going to be nearly enough to deter La Maupin – D'Aubigny took the holy orders, entered the convent as an initiate, created a diversion by setting the fucking convent on fire, and then kidnapped the blonde nun, snuck her out of there, and shacked up with her for like a month. Are you kidding me with this?
I don't know, maybe she had borderline personality disorder? If the contemporary portraits are any indication of what she looked like, her many conquests might have something more to do with her skill at seduction and confidence than her beauty.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Same sex cheating
I am always sort of charmed to read textbook examples of sociopaths, particularly when they include personality traits that aren't actually really emphasized (or even included) in most textbooks, like ambiguous sexuality. These descriptions are selections from a reader about her and her boyfriend (sorry for the choppy editing):
I'm uber reasonable, I like to travel a lot, I like to experience different cultures, most of my boyfriends have been foreign, they bring something different to the table and I value that, its interesting to see life from a different point of view and hear different perspectives. I am always right ;-) but there is not ever just one right answer and I like to have my world expanded by hearing other versions. I like that my bloke presents yet another perspective on life.
Re the sexuality thing, I'm pretty certain that he is "creeping on the down low." There have just been too many little incidences. Also he is always very good humoured every time I imply that he shags blokes. I'm quite sure that most men would be quite annoyed if it were not the case.
I was chatting to a girl a few weeks ago who works with male sex workers, she said that something like 80% of these guys did not consider themselves to be gay, most have wives or girlfriends, many with established families, I found it really interesting how it seems that these guys are so able to completely separate parts of their lives so that one has absolutely no bearing on the other, quite an enviable skill. I'm very fortunate, have lived abroad, travelled a lot, good job blah blah blah, but there are things that I wish I had done. I wonder if a sociopath is more able to achieve all these goals without some of the constraints life often presents. (does that make sense?) (that's not to say that all these guys are sociopaths or that all sociopaths are shagging both sexes).
I do not want him to think that I am stupid and that I just don’t know what he is up to. Obviously I don’t know the fine details, who, where, when etc. but I know that in general he shags around and for some reason I feel the need to make sure that he knows that I know, and that I accept it as my choice, not that I’m some stupid blonde that he is managing to fool. It’s petty really on my part, I’m sure he knows that I’m not stupid (I hope!) but I just need that confirmation from him, which obviously he can’t give without admitting what he gets up to – it ain’t going to happen.
It’s like I have an internal conflict going on, I suppose it’s to do with society and how we are brought up to expect people to behave etc. Society tells me that relationships are supposed to be monogamous, open and honest. But I know in reality that is not how it works, I myself cheated on my long term boyfriend, 5 times in fact, and it was never anything to do with him. I really did love him, had I thought he would find out and get hurt I would never have done it, but I knew he wouldn’t and it was fun so I did it. And so I have a conflict between what I think I am supposed to expect from him, what he delivers, and what I find I am able to accept in reality.
I accept it because I have done it and I’m not a sociopath, so I am in no position to tell him off for doing the same when he is ‘programmed’ to do so. I have also always known what he is like and allow him back in my life on that basis, I cannot therefore start complaining later on down the line. And at the end of the day I just like him being about, so I balance it and have the occasional spat at him. It will run its course.
As I mentioned, I caught him hitting on a guy, and obviously he has denied it since, at the time he had taken a lot of MDMA, coke and alcohol. I read on your blog that sociopaths often adopt a kind of code to live by. For my bloke being gay is a big no no culturally, so do you think that he maybe adopts a no gay code to live by day to day but that under the influence of a lot substances it slipped? I’m just looking for excuses here aren’t I, so I don’t have to face facts right? Which is weird because I have dated a couple of bisexual guys in the past, I guess it’s that not knowing thing. You get a lot of that dating a sociopath!
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Young love (part 1)
From a young, female reader:
So, I think that I was very close to someone who is a sociopath, but I'm not sure. I'm writing to you seeking closure on this issue. We haven't spoken in over a year, and I'm still reeling from, what I perceive to be, abuse. I loved her, and still love her very much, despite everything that she has done to me.She had a very abusive childhood-her mother is a narcissist and her father, while brilliant (he's a professor at Cornell), seemed to have Asperger syndrome. When we first met, she was a bit strange. She seemed to be observing me, rather than interested in friendship. In fact, one of the first time we hung out, I fell asleep for two hours. And she just watched me.She would follow me around-and I was dealing with some very deep personal issues at the time-so, I didn't mind. It seemed to be a comfort, if that makes any sense. Soon enough, we became very close friends at a boarding school in NY. She didn't hang out with very much people-in fact, only me and one other friend. Many people suspected that she liked me-and I couldn’t deny the possibility of this to myself, but I certainly did to everyone else-it was too strange.Well, one night, I asked her if she did have a crush on me. She looks away for a minute, and then looks back at me, replying that no, she didn’t. Venturing further, I asked her if any of the issues I had told her about were at all important to her. She then replied no. Becoming anxious, I asked her if she cared about anything. She looked at me dead on, with empty, eerie eyes. "No."I felt hurt and angry that I had opened myself up to her. How could she have used me like that? I expressed these feelings to her, and she insisted, unflinchingly, that she still did not care. The next day, I went back to her, and she insisted on holding me for a little bit in exchange for getting the answer I wanted. After precisely ten minutes, she admitted that she was in love with me...but that she still didn't care about me. I felt so many mixed emotions. I told her that that's not possible. She either loved me and cared, or didn't care at all and therefore, didn't love me. But never having been in a situation remotely like this before, I chose to believe the former, rather than the latter. I wanted to be loved and I needed the support I felt that that could provide. Not to mention the fact that I wanted to solve this problem. I wanted to show her she was wrong, that she could care about something or someone.Overtime, we became very close. We spent every moment together. When we were together it was perfect, like floating on a cloud. I never wanted to be with anyone else or spend my time with anyone else. For her, it was even worse. She would wait anxiously while I was in the shower, and hated being apart from me. She was very vocal about this too.As much as we couldn't seem to get away form one another, there were tons of fights. She would call me names, press boundaries (sexually and emotionally-she would read my dairy, go through my papers, just violate my privacy completely). When we were in fights, I felt like I was being abandoned. Even when I had done nothing wrong, she would make me feel like i was the culprit of all of our problems. Moreover, she seemed moody and strange to everyone else. People always warned me to stay away from her-they claimed she was dangerous, crazy, dishonest, mean and horrible. Even teachers would warn me against her. When she was in a bad mood, or angry, she would lash out completely.But when she was ok, she seemed to be the perfect match for me. She would call us soul mates, saying I was her other half, that she couldn't function without me, needed me and that I was the only person who could make her care. She told me she would love me forever, even if we ever broke up and that she could never feel the same around or about anyone else.Eventually , I came to his point where I couldn't stand the idea of life without her, but i would ask myself this: "Why is it that I can't stand my life as it is, now, with her?" I decided better the devil I know than the one I don't. Don't get me wrong...I was completely in love with her.So I stayed.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sexuality and sociopathy
Sociopathy is a personality disorder. We are unusually impressionable, very flexible with our sense of self, and with our defining characteristics. Because we don't have a rigid self-image or worldview, we don't observe social norms, we don't have a moral compass, and we have a fluid definition of right and wrong. We can also be shapeshifters, smooth-talking, and charming. We can become your ideal mate, in a way described here and here. We do not have an established default position on anything. This extends, at least in some degree, to our sexuality.
The original diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM), released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The connection between the two was subsequently removed due to protests from the gay community that homosexuality was being equated with sociopathy. Many have commented since that sociopaths seem to have no particular sexual identity, that even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of a preference, albeit a shared one, and that "equal opportunity" is a more apt label. In fact, the sociopath seems to be the bonobo of the human world -- frequent, casual, utilitarian sex. As one person reasoned, "such an individual, in their quest for dominance and power would not feel the need to discriminate according to gender."
We see fictional examples of the sociopathic "bisexual" with the talented Mr. Ripley, Joker from Batman (depending on who writes him), and real life examples with Leopold and Loeb and others listed here. If I had to speculate about current celebrities, I would also include Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, and Lindsay Lohan, although narcissism could apply equally well for some of those.
I was thinking about all of this while reading an article on Sir Laurence Olivier's sexual predilections. Although married three times, he apparently also had many male interests, one of whom explained it as follows:
The original diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM), released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The connection between the two was subsequently removed due to protests from the gay community that homosexuality was being equated with sociopathy. Many have commented since that sociopaths seem to have no particular sexual identity, that even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of a preference, albeit a shared one, and that "equal opportunity" is a more apt label. In fact, the sociopath seems to be the bonobo of the human world -- frequent, casual, utilitarian sex. As one person reasoned, "such an individual, in their quest for dominance and power would not feel the need to discriminate according to gender."
We see fictional examples of the sociopathic "bisexual" with the talented Mr. Ripley, Joker from Batman (depending on who writes him), and real life examples with Leopold and Loeb and others listed here. If I had to speculate about current celebrities, I would also include Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, and Lindsay Lohan, although narcissism could apply equally well for some of those.
I was thinking about all of this while reading an article on Sir Laurence Olivier's sexual predilections. Although married three times, he apparently also had many male interests, one of whom explained it as follows:
"He's like a blank page and he'll be whatever you want him to be. He'll wait for you to give him a cue, and then he'll try to be that sort of person."Maybe larry wasn't a sociopath, maybe he was, but he shared with sociopaths the common characteristic of a weak sense of self, and he illustrates well how that might play out with one's sexual identity. In any case, the lesson learned here is not only does being a sociopath potentially make you a great thespian, it also gives new meaning to the old consolation, "there are plenty more fish in the sea."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
