A Showing of Guilt: The Movie

In the entire panoply of emotions, I cannot think of even one emotional pairing less engaging than guilt and shame. There are other emotions held in disrepute, even disdain, but only guilt and shame can evoke this scenario: a friend otherwise interested in the topics I write about suddenly recalled a heretofore forgotten appointment and took an immediate leave—mid-conversation. A conversation that he initiated.

We are, as a culture, that uncomfortable with guilt and shame, we leave our own conversations when shame rears its hideous head. Furious hatred is a more pleasant topic, at least promising a smidgen of righteous gossip. Even suicidal despair is more easily understood and diffused. Really.

Fear not, this article is a description of the mechanics of these states, not an inducement into to either state. The movie reveals the purpose of guilt. Yet, the very words guilt and shame have such inchoate meanings that definitions are necessary to have a meaningful discussion. It seems that we would rather argue about the undefined rather than to stay with the discussion of exactly what guilt and shame really are. What are we even discussing?

Believed to be extremely unpleasant amorphous feeling states, guilt/shame are experiences we seek to avoid. Even if we are uncertain of the meanings of guilt/shame, we can know precisely who instilled such misery upon us.

To further complicate the issue, there are ideologies and individuals who condemn guilt/shame as useless or negative feelings. This, in turn, increases the shame of the person feeling shame. This phenomenon is known as a shame spiral—feeling bad and then feeling bad about feeling bad which makes one feel worse, for which one feels worse for feeling worse, ad infinitum. Our cultural ignorance about these two feeling states can too often entrap us into such shame spirals.

Addictions, depressions and other shame-based disorders seem epidemic in this shame-shaming, shame-denying culture. Years ago, I heard this definition: guilt is feeling bad for what one does and shame is feeling bad about what one is.

That seemed an acceptable, if unsatisfying, definition, and a start perhaps, yet I just had to dig deeper. Surely, that alone would not be the reason that my friend bolted from a conversation that he initiated. Surely, there was much more? The topic of guilt/shame causes such predictable reactions that I simply had to get the shovel and go psyche-digging.

Fair warning: this material is not comfortable in places. Some may not find it simple. I am making a leap of faith that there exists an audience for truly adult psychological material. Anyone can take off clothing and rub body parts—delving into guilt and shame requires a modicum of maturity.

Let’s go to the movie theater now. To see the movie that no one wants to attend.

Guilt: The Movie is Showing at a Theater Near You

So, imagine that Guilt: The Movie is showing at a local multiplex. Theatergoers are uncomfortably making their ways into the theater before the movie starts. Some have slipped into another movie or out the side door. Inside the theater, nervous chatter and the occasional giggle punctuate the preview trailers. No one wants to be here, for certs.

The theater audience is comprised of the following character types: (and I limit myself to the masculine pronoun here)

Mr. Happy-Talk-Pop-Psychology (Denial)

Mr. Rage-Against-the-Guilters (Power over)

Mr. I-Gotta-Go-Now (Dissociative avoidance)

Mr. My-Addiction-is-Calling-Me (Numbing)

Mr. My-Mother/My-Ex-Stars-in-This (Blaming)

The first to attempt to pierce the tension is usually Mr. Happy-Talk-Pop-Psychology who will state loudly enough for all to hear that guilt is a useless/negative emotion. His pronouncement commands everyone in the theater to feel better. Right now. If you note Mr. Happy-Talk-Pop-Psychology’s has no genuinely intimate relationships, you might want to consider his blanket denial of guilt as something more than acausal to his extreme emotional isolation. Take note, also, of his moderate to extreme exploitation of others. Notice that he kills his popcorn instead of chewing it. You just have to wonder.

Sometimes shame and guilt invoke a barely-contained seething rage. Which makes sense if one understands that guilt and anger are both very connected sentry emotions; each has information regarding our interactions with others. They are both social justice emotions if you will. I will return to the function of the feelings following a primer on the structure of the human psyche.

Mr. Rage-Against-the-Guilters takes this a wee bit further. He wants to frighten/control/dominate anyone who would ever again stir the feelings of shame in him. An otherwise nice fellow can be downright scary if Guilt: The Movie is playing.

Mr. I-Gotta-Go-Now is long gone by now. He did not even finish his popcorn.

Mr. My-Addiction-is-Calling-Me breaks open the hip flask of his drug-of-choice. He cannot be bothered with anything to do with guilt. Bottoms up.

Mr. My-Mother/My-Ex-Stars-in-This will regale everyone with the crimes against his noble spirit. Notice I said spirit, not integrity. His integrity left him long ago, probably no longer able to inhabit being so profoundly unwelcome.

None of these audience members even like each other. Just before the theater breaks into an all-out brawl, the previews suddenly stop. The projector light flickers a bit, and, for a moment, the theater is quiet. Everyone feels worse than ever. What gives?

A Primer of the Human Psyche

Because I find the Jungian concept of the psyche and its dynamics the most complete, I have created this diagram from several Jungian sources, primarily from Joseph Campbell’s Mythos I series. Everything above the horizontal line is conscious material: memories, reality, learning, thinking, anything that you know and that which you know that you know.

Think of each of us floating around—partially above the surface and partially below the surface of the collective unconscious. The diagram depicts one psyche, but it is actually quite crowded in there. Floating about in the unconscious are all other psyches.

All things below the horizontal line are unconscious—one cannot identify the contents of the unconscious, yet, from time to time, those contents can be felt as an amorphous mood that one cannot identify. Everything within the partial circle beneath the line is the personal unconscious; that is, the contents are or were real enough, but are not available to the conscious mind. Repressed, denied, minimized events and feelings are in the personal unconscious along with events that occurred prior to one’s being able to comprehend, both traumatic and mundane.

Within the personal unconscious is the personal shadow—that repository of all things that we have not claimed as our own, that which we both despise and that which we admire. The shadow is made of two parts: the things we have done that do not jive with our concept of ourselves, our morality—the dark shadow; and things that we admire in others, yet doubt we can ever be—the golden shadow.

On the diagram, the upper crest—the persona (or mask) one shows the world—is the place that one meets the others consciously (both other individuals and the collective consciousness), through the porous persona. A healthy persona has about the porosity of a jellyfish. It takes in from others and the collective and breathes out from the deeper self when appropriate.

That intersection with the world, the persona, is the place being monitored by both sentry emotions: anger—which looks outward for boundary violations; and guilt—which looks inward for relational violations against others and the self. If another transgresses unfairly or predates upon one’s psyche, anger is aroused to restore justice. Conversely, if one’s actions or inactions violate another, guilt is the means of alerting us to make amends, to behave in a fairer manner.

Guilt is a Social Sentry Emotion Looking In at Our Own Behavior

Anger, necessarily, makes us feel larger, more capable and powerful. Guilt reminds us that we need to contract, to consider others, that our own actions are threatening valued connections with others. Guilt, consciously knowing that we have caused offense to others, allows us to remain in integrity. Without guilt, there is can be no integrity. Guilt is our personal assessment that we did something wrong or that we failed to do something that was right.

The thought of shrinking in deference to others is often most unwelcome information that is promptly shoved into the personal unconscious. Guilt is conscious until it is too painful and then it is deposited with other information that one cannot process into the unconscious and/or personal shadow.

The overarching patterns of guilt-inducing behaviors are hidden in our personal shadows while the actual shame floats around freely in the unconscious untethered from the behavior from which it originated.

At this point, I would like to include that no one consciously chooses to make guilt into shame. When guilt’s information is too threatening or painful for the psyche, it is deposited in into the unconscious, this is not a choice, it is survival. At that point, guilt becomes shame.

Shame is Unconscious Guilt
When guilt is made unconscious it becomes personal shame. The collective unconscious also contains shame. The specific behavior(s)—that which would make it conscious—is removed from the emotional content when it falls into the unconscious and it remains an intense feeling of leaden unworthiness which periodically connects with a specific guilt/anger or undeniable shame and surfaces as an overwhelming sense of shame. The helplessness one feels around these upcroppings is usually close to overwhelming.

Sometimes the guilt assessment is skewed by incorrect information or immaturity. The accuracy of the assessment does not change the emotional response of guilt. A four-year-old child may decide that if he were a good enough boy his alcoholic father would sober up, stop beating his mother, be a good father and love him as his beloved son. The assessment is incorrect, but the intensity of the resultant guilt and shame remains in spite of the accuracy of the assessment. When his father continues to drink and things only get worse, the child almost necessarily slips into shame. Even though the child lacked the ability to accurately assess his familial issues, he is entreated to the guilt as if it were his fault.

You Can Run, But You Cannot Hide

Occasionally, shame can pierce the veil of consciousness with great intensity. Usually, only the horrid feelings are conscious with little or no information available. The usual Western response at this point to push the shame back into the unconscious with active addictions, depression, acting out, rage, compartmentalization, denial, intellectualization and a variety of other defenses, strategies and combinations of strategies. We believe that by making shame unconscious again that we have banished it from our lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Shame is drawn from the collective unconscious traveling through the personal unconscious before cresting onto our emotional radars. In the unconscious, we are all surely one.

We invariably project the contents of our own personal shadows onto others. By seeing “out there” what we most despise and admire, we can begin to learn to relate to those characteristics without being overwhelmed by them. Projection is the primary way that we know the contents of our personal unconsciousnesses. It is perfectly normal, in other words.
Sometimes the contents of the unconscious make themselves known through other means, a mood that will not go away, and another unwelcome repeating pattern.

It is impossible to be alive, to interact with others, without feeling both guilt and anger. Why? Because they are the sentries of our interactions with others, sentries of our integrity, if you will. If one accepts exploitation by others, anger is aroused. If one exploits others, guilt is aroused.

Sure, one can numb one or both feelings and therefore be forever careening from exploitation to exploitation. Numb anger only and one will experience being exploited. Numb guilt and one will exploit others ruthlessly. Numb both and every interaction becomes a duel: the winner exploits the loser. All scenarios are unattractive and all lack integrity.

Stepping off the exploitation roller coaster and developing integrity is the most difficult adult undertaking. It is a lifetime process.

Mr. Happy-Talk-Pop-Psychology is at the concession stand trying to con the attendant into a free popcorn refill.

Mr. Rage-Against-the-Guilters is fuming onto the hairdo in front of him that is partially blocking his view. Of course, moving to Mr. I-Gotta-Go-Now’s empty seat has not occurred to him. Actually, the public has stayed away in droves from this movie. There are plenty of empty seats.

And Mr. My-Mother/My-Ex-Stars-in-This is still nattering on about the wrongs done to him. Oh, the guilt he has borne, year after year…um, does he remember a grocery list as well as he remembers the wrongs he has endured?

The theater lights dim.

Guilt: The Movie

The curtain opens.

Two old rivals, Anger and Guilt, learn to exist together and then discover how much they really need each other, finally uniting to fight exploitation together, Anger dealing with outside influences and Guilt with internal ones. Discernment played a supportive role in advising how and when pugnacious Anger should make itself known and how to mediate Guilt’s sometimes heavy-handedness.

Full of action, tension and reclaimed shame, Guilt: The Movie has character depth and action galore.

When Anger thought he could throw his weight around, Guilt promptly took him into a dark alley and Anger emerged with a two black eyes and a limp. Not a terribly quick study, Anger tried it again. Guilt took him to the same alley. The result was two more black eyes and a worse limp. The third time Anger got too big for his britches, he just walked to the alley without Guilt’s help and waited for the inevitable.

However, this time, Outside Danger lurked in the alley and Anger got them both out safely. Guilt discovered that he needed Anger as much as Anger needed him. After that, they were inseparable comrades-in-arms.

They reached in and unburied lots of shame while fighting evildoers. An action flick all the way around.

Spoiler alert: What was most astonishing was the surprise appearance of Integrity accompanied by Intimacy at the very end. Clearly, neither Anger nor Guilt was expecting that, although both knew that if they did not continue to cooperate with each other, Integrity would be leave and take Intimacy with him.

The curtain closes.

The End…

The lights come back on.

Wait, Mr. Happy-Talk-Pop-Psychology, Mr. Rage-Against-the-Guilters and Mr. My-Mother/My-Ex-Stars-in-This are long gone.

Oh, the men that are in the theater as the lights come on? They are men with integrity. Did they sneak into this movie? Are they men transformed? Men who stepped aside from their former defense mechanisms? I cannot know. They certainly do not seem to be anything at all like the men who entered this theater.

They look like they enjoyed the movie. They got it. They seem to be calling some of their guilt back from the depths…something sacred is occurring.

I would volunteer to be an usher at this movie. It would be such an honor.

The Beginning of Integrity

So how does one work with guilt and shame? Well, first, it is not easy. It is not simple, there are no Seven Habits of Highly Effective Guilt-Handlers. It is not fast, it takes a lifetime.

This is no job for ninnies. It takes full-on adulthood. If your definition of adult material is nude sexual posturing in front of a camera, you probably are still enjoying your adolescence.

If you are prepared, I suggest starting Robert A. Johnson’s Inner Work (plus anything else Johnson ever wrote) and Karla McLaren’s The Language of Emotions. A wise therapist can be very helpful. Being accountable to a group of some sort seems to help sustain emerging integrity. From there, trust your guilt to oversee your interactions (with others and intrapersonally), ever asking, “Who has been hurt/dishonored? What needs to be made right?”

(Questions courtesy, The Language of Emotions by Karla McLaren)

Terre Spencer

10/2011

Sex-Positives: The New Puritans

It struck me the second time I was called a conservative in a matter of a few months. Well, after I stopped hysterically laughing, that is. There was something familiar, well trodden about the accusations. Yet, me, a conservative? About anything? Twice? Seriously?

Before I identified that nebulous familiarity, memories of my late father-in-law Wally Laird, came to mind. Yes, he was the person with whom I would most enjoy discussing this, were he still alive to do so. In the nearly 25 years since Wally has been gone, I have never been compelled to actually speak aloud to him. Being called a conservative was impossible enough to attempt to speak to Wally, why not after all? Things had suddenly become surreal enough to have a conversation with dead people.

“Wally, I was called a conservative!” I laughed aloud, hoping to invoke my first contact with a spirit world if there is indeed such a thing. “Hey, Wally, you there?”

No spirit came, but long-ago memories of ongoing verbal jousting with Wally came back with fondness. Wally, a lifelong Republican, called me “a pinko, commie, heart-on my-sleeve bohemian. There might have been more descriptors in the string that he used for me, but that was the essence of his nickname for me. We adored each other although we were as politically different as any two people could have been.

Me, a conservative? Barry Goldwater, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be horrified at the thought of incorporating any my political ideas into their ideologies. Maybe worse than horrified. Likewise, no religious conservative would welcome one iota of my theology. Wally, were he alive, would rail at anyone calling me a conservative of any stripe and then we would laugh over such a preposterous event over an after-dinner scotch. Damn, I miss him.

The memories of Wally faded into the current circumstances that brought me to be called a conservative, although I was still chuckling about these peculiar accusations. That I had been called conservative twice in such a short time gave me pause, what on earth was going one, what was that unidentified, and distantly familiar sense about this?

For failing to embrace the exact sexual mores of the two accusers, I was practically spat upon as an anachronistic conservative. Yep, that was it. For failing to embrace free love and porn-saturated imagery for myself, I was dismissed as a conservative, by two persons who claimed to be sex-positives.

Sex-positives? So if I somewhat disagree, I am, by inference, a sex-not-so-positive? And if I really disagree, I am a what? A sex-negative? Tricky devils. That was it—the familiarity—just like the danged Puritans. The sex-positives were behaving just as the Puritans did. Right down to accusing me of being conservative.

The Puritans—Radical Reformers

First a brief history refresher: Who were the Puritans? What were the characteristics of Puritanism? Let us look at the Puritans within the historical context from which they emerged as Protestant reformers. After failing to bring England to their way of practicing Christianity, this group later largely emigrated en masse to the English colonies, now the United States.

Continental Europe experienced a wrenching political, social and religious separation from Roman Catholic power upon the advent of Martin Luther’s defection from the Vatican. From 1560 to 1715, a period of 145 years, there only thirty years of peace. During the remainder of that time, there was a minimum of one and up to five religious wars occurring concurrently all over the continent. 1500 years of Roman Catholic religious and political domination required 150 years of religious strife and open warfare to release its grip upon the Western world.

France, for instance, was ravaged by 35 years of religious war bracketed by fifty years of strife both before and after the actual war itself. The region currently known as Germany fared worse, being pretty much in open warfare from 1562 to 1700. Known then as the Holy Roman Empire, the area lost 25 percent of its inhabitants to repeated generations of religious wars. Ultimately, the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Roman nor an empire) fractured into hundreds of petty fiefdoms, primarily because of nearly 150 years of religious warfare.

Brutal religious wars occurred in every other country in Europe as well, not one country was spared violent reform. Wars, burnings, sieges, beheadings, executions, murder, theft, famine, forced emigrations, forced conversions, decrees of banishment and kidnapping are a mere fraction of the legacy of Europe’s attempted religious reform and the resisting of such reforms.

England’s Reformation occurred at the level of the monarchy long before there was a sizable Protestant populace. Henry VIII defected from the Vatican in 1534 in order to divorce his aging Catholic wife, Katherine of Aragon, and to marry Anne Boleyn in the hopes of having a male heir. This set England apart from continental Europe that primarily had Catholic rulers and a burgeoning Protestant populace. England had a suddenly Protestant monarchy and a largely Catholic populace when Henry broke from Rome. The English Reformation was from the top down; the Church of England was created by Henry VIII and became England’s official religion.

Although England did revert to Catholicism briefly under the rule of Henry’s eldest—and Catholic—daughter Mary; her early death brought the Protestant Elizabeth I to the throne. Pragmatic and determined to hold the middle ground in religious matters, Elizabeth reveled in resplendent pomp for both court and religious ceremonies at the same time she reinstated the Church of England as the state religion. Although not as openly violent as the rest of Europe, the change from Catholic England to Protestant England resulted in reformers killing other reformers nearly as often as the Protestant/Catholic violence erupted.

Upon Elizabeth’s accession to the throne, a previously exiled group of English Protestants returned to England. This group was determined to enforce very strictly the Calvinist code they believed to be correct. They also believed that the English Reformation had not gone far enough. Elizabeth’s retention of lavish trappings for herself and her court were considered “popish” by these extremist reformers. In reaction, this particular group of reformers dictated black and white only garb for their members, because ornamentation was conservative, a remnant of the Roman Church that they strove diligently to eliminate from all of England.

For their efforts to purify English doctrine along Calvinism dogmatic lines, they were named Puritans by their detractors. They never gained political power in England and became increasing shrill and separatist. By the mid-1700s, the Puritans were no longer a political consideration in English politics at all—doctrinal infighting and several generations of emigration reduced their effectiveness, their numbers and their ardor.

In the New World, however, they had quite an influence. In the colonies, they practiced their doctrines that were considered radically extreme in England, and as a result, the Puritans’ beliefs shaped the emerging United States’ culture.

Remember, if you will, that the Puritans believed that the English Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. They were fighting against the established doctrines of the Roman Church, convinced that their interpretation of Christian scripture the only possible correct one. All others were in error from their viewpoint. An interesting aside: the Puritan declaration of doctrinal infallibility foreshadows the Vatican’s 1870 papal infallibility declaration.

So, in the Puritans we see a group of reformers who insisted that their doctrines must become the social norm with no latitude or questioning/discussion from either practitioners or others.

The Sex-Positive Movement

Fast-forward to 1999 and the founding of the Seattle Sex Positive Community Center, frequented by a group of reformers who believed that the sexual reformations of the 20^th century had not gone far enough. Is this starting to sound familiar? By calling themselves sex-positives, the implication is that if one does not agree 100% with their every doctrine, one is sex-negative.

Conversely, the Puritans referred to themselves as “the godly.” Adopting this moniker certainly was a sly means of condemning those who disagree with their reformations as the presumably ungodly.

Now turning the same techniques (rigid fundamentalism, all-or-nothing insistence upon doctrinal agreement and judgments delivered to dissenters with rabid contempt), onto Protestant sexual mores, the sex-positive movement is taking a Puritan-like tack in its approach to sexual matters. Could anything be more ironic, really?

If one chooses monogamy and no porn in one’s relationship, the new “godly” call this conservative with great vehemence. Again, judgment delivered with a Puritanical intolerance with the intention to to dismiss them entirely or to shame the recipient into agreement/acceptance of their doctrines.

Shame? From a movement that calls itself sex-positive? How perfectly Puritanical!

Ah, it is still possible to be unbearably self-righteous and quite sly all in the same breath. The sex-positives invite no discussion with the likes of people like me and have no interest in exploring why someone would chose anything but a sexual free-for-all for himself or herself. The message is clear from this camp: “Agree to everything we endorse or we will attack and dismiss you as a sex-negative conservative.”

Somehow, I find this as quaint as the very Puritans against whom the sex-positives claim that they are rebelling. Will the sex-positives soon become marginalized by internal disagreements after they discover that the “yes” to everything sexual is just as ridiculous as the “just say no” approach is to drug use—oversimplified non-discernment? Surely, someday they will recognize that discernment is necessary, both personally and socially? That both individuals and the culture at large have to make ongoing determinations for sexual behavior? That to naively insist that any and all sexual behavior is good for everyone is as fundamentally puritanical as to insist that only highly proscribed sexuality is utterly necessary?

I would like to hear members of this movement explain their personal and collective discernment process in dealing with sexual matters. At this venture, I cannot see discernment of any sort from the sex-positive movement other than the extollation of safe-sex practices.

My call for monogamy and no porn is met with scorn and labels that really do not fit. If I want to have a life free of porn and mutually exclusive relationship, how is this threatening to sex-positives? Surely, the sex positives are not in favor of sex slavery that is the result of the flourishing porn industry? Surely, the sex-positives do not want children sexualized and women objectified and dehumanized? Surely there are some grounds for agreement and many more for discussion? Maybe my assumptions are incorrect. At present, I cannot know, as the only contacts I have with sex-positives are the times they call me conservative for my choices. I would really like a discussion with members of the sex-positive movement about a number of issues and hope that one day that is possible.

Are we doomed to 150 years of strife over this essential refusal to discuss our differences without absolutes being thrust upon us all one way or the other? To understand that choices are not always free and simple? My sense of history and the familiar gives me a sobering shudder.

In the meantime, two sex-positives have labeled me a conservative, which provided me hours of entertainment and brought back fond memories of Wally. My only regret is that Wally is no longer alive to guffaw about all this. We would have had a great discussion, probably never agreeing on much of anything other than that the sex-positive movement is as narrowly pinched as the Puritans were. After a belly laugh, we would have moved onto politics and other social issues, disagreeing and questioning each other, and then finally joining the rest of the family in great spirits afterwards.

Wally, did you get that? I’ve been called a conservative! Wally, I miss you way too much to enjoy this last laugh alone. In addition, I am not going to let these rigid fundamentalists, these new Puritans, shut down the questioning discussions that we so enjoyed. Nope, I am pointing out the narrowness and self-righteous inferences of any (no matter how attractively they might name themselves) who refuse to engage in discussions. Because when discussions are halted, a horrid extremism sets in. Wally, what I want is what we had. Affectionate, mostly respectful disagreement. Yes, we volleyed names back and forth and at the same time, the mutual admiration we held for each other was clear to all.

Is Civil Discussion About Sexual Mores Possible?

Although I am not seeing any indications that there is even a hint of an invitation to have sane public discussions with either the religious right and/or the sex-positives about sexual mores, I still hope against all reason that culturally and individually we can craft a mostly respectful means to have this conversation because so much depends upon us being able to do so.

Call me conservative; call me a pinko, although neither is accurate. So although I prefer to call myself discerning rather than conservative (or liberal, for that matter), I am not going to be deterred by labels lobbed at me from any camp, nor will I surreptitiously eradicate their use of porn. Conversely, others assume that I share their religious injunctions against porn. Neither is correct. Ditto with monogamy, which is neither a moral nor a political statement for me. It is what works for my psyche.

I have worked out what works for me, I am looking at human behavior and the humans behind the behavior. That is the place from which I would like to have the discussions. Is that at all possible?

Resign, Weiner

I work with spouses of sex addicts/narcissists. The incredible stupidity that any compulsive behavior demands of its subject seems exponentially multiplied when the addiction is sex/porn. When sex addiction is compounded with narcissism (a very common co-morbidity), we get men who do exactly the things Weiner, Edwards, Scwartzenegger, and the ilk have done.

Yes, he endangered progressive politics. What he has done to his wife is just as lethal to her precious trust and affections. That matters as much in the world—lest we forget that increasing the quantity of pain felt by others makes this world horrid in the micro, which is played out in the larger world.

Weiner’s actions have created a torrent of disappointment and pain on at least several levels.

Many years ago, I would have said that a politician’s personal life did not affect their ability to be a decent public servant. Now I know that we humans‚ try as we might—cannot successfully compartmentalize ourselves. A narcissist cannot be a good politician if he is destroying trust and hearts in his inner realms.

C.G. Jung best described the effects of such attempts: a shadow counter-side that acts out atrocities upon others, usually leaving less powerful individuals (wives, children and subordinates) to take on the shame, pain, despair and rage of the offender. That matters to me now. I do not want a seemingly great representative who is causing his wife, children, employees and volunteers to take on his shadow material. That is not making this world one iota better, no matter how many “good” pieces of legislation get passed while he is engaging in personal atrocities. Such sociopaths create so much pain in their closest realms that it is not worth it in the bigger picture.

Resign, Weiner.

Dear Maria Shriver,

I am not writing to ask anything of you. I am writing to assure you that I am not going to give your narcissistic, estranged husband the attention he so badly craves. He is not getting one iota of my attention on TV, the internet or any media. None. If I hear his name or see his face, off goes the media. 

We have a lot in common, you and I: we are both from Catholic families with philandering men that have been especially cruel to women and we have both wasted way too many years with a narcissist/sex addict. NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder and sex addiction are frequently co-morbid). And both of us eventually left the unrepentant narcissist.

I respect your privacy and will not follow your process in the media unless you choose to speak on your own terms. I am pretty sure I know how betrayed, angry, disgusted, lost and hurt you are feeling. I have been there. It is traumatizing to live with a sex addict/NPD. Please take care of yourself and I will keep you and the children in my thoughts. 

Because he treated you and the children as pawns in his sick game, his narcissism is all too evident. He abused his power as an elected official and an employer. That is predatory behavior. Now he is trying to show the world he is a good guy, stating that he deserves the frenzied media attention and criticism—which is intended to appear to be protective but is a cheap political ploy for garnering attention. If his intentions were to be protective of his family, he would not have had unprotected sex with an employee. Nah, he just wants our attention. You know that and we know it also. But I am not going to give him that. I am giving him the “Delete” button. Starving a narcissist of the attention he craves (and they do not care if the attention is good or bad) is the most punishing thing I can do to him. I am asking my friends to join me in ignoring him and asking them to ask their friends to do so as well.

Friends: will you ignore the narcissistic former California governor? Will you ask your friends to ignore him as well? Politics do not matter. How one relates to others matters, and I am asking you to refuse to be a consumer of this kind of behavior. Turn it off. Tell the media that you will not listen/read/view news that props up narcissists anymore. We will no longer feed their monstrous appetite for adoration/attention.

Maria, I cannot make your heart heal, but I can do this one thing and I am so hoping that my friends and their friends and their friends’ friends will join me in ignoring narcissistic predators in the news.

Thanks, 

Terre