Free Will, Coersion and Consent - Laura's Master Thesis

I am currently finishing up a masters degree in philosophy. I am ABD (All But Defense), which basically means I need to write and defend a thesis. Originally my thesis topic was "Sexual Consent." This isn't a typical philosophical paper topic and I wasn't quite sure where I would take it.

My personal experiences with NPD and sociopathy have moved my thinking toward the philosophical debate surrounding the existence of Free Will and how consent fits into this existential question.

My own victimization included an underlying sensation of losing myself and my ability to maintain my own convictions and desires. I became him, or at least an extension of him. My extensive research on NPD shows that this experience is universal for VoN's and that what we've experienced is a kind of Stockholm Syndrome brainwashing. The more survivors of N-abuse that I come in contact with, the more familiar I become with just how similar our experiences are. The main question for my thesis is whether or not informed consent, or any kind of consent can be freely given in circumstances of emotional or physical abuse.

Several weeks ago I posted that I intend to apply to law school to "defend victims of abuse." and pointed out how upside down that concept seems. Why on earth should victims need to be defended? That question has led me to a plethora of research on a new brand of blaming victims for their own abuse (also previously posted on) based on the premise that survivors should take responsibility for consenting to the relationship.

Another N-survivor recently pointed me to a book called, Stalking the Soul: Emotional Abuse and the Erosion of Identity written by Marie-France Hirigoyen, from which I offer some excerpts below. Hirigoyen is a Victimologist. When I saw this neologism I first thought, oh brother another "ism." But Victimology is a legitimate and important branch of psychology and criminology that is widely recognized and respected. Hirigoyen recommends that anyone dealing with survivors study victimology. She specifically mentions lawyers. " A degree in victimology can be of particular interest to professionals in the field of helping victims: emergency-trained doctors, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and lawyers." (Hirigoyen p. 9) I intend to seek out as many relevant resources as possible before applying to law school.



Excerpts from Stalking the Soul*

• It is effectively possible to destabilize or even destroy someone with seemingly harmless words and hints, inferences, and unspoken suggestions; usually those close to the situation will not intervene. A narcissistic abuser grows in stature at he expense of the other; he also avoids any inner or spiritual conflict by shifting responsibility for what is wrong onto the other person. If the other is responsible for the problem, wrong doing, guilt, and suffering don't exist. This defines emotional abuse. (p. 5)
  
• In order to satisfy their insatiable need for admiration and approval, these individuals must degrade others to acquire first self-esteem, and then power. Because they are not concerned with relationships, they show no compassion or respect for others. To respect a person is to value their humanity and acknowledge the suffering we can inflict upon them. (pp. 5-6)
• Psychiatric illness does not cause abusiveness. It arises from dispassionate rationality combined with an incapacity to respect others as human beings. (p. 7)
• Whether the subject is serial killing or pervasive abusiveness, the matter remains one of predatory behavior: an act consisting in the appropriation of another person's life. (p. 7)
• ...predators first paralyze their victims in order to prevent any possible counter attack. The lack of defense mechanisms keeps the victims from understanding what is happening to them. (p. 8)
• There are fairly innocuous manipulative tricks that leave behind traces of bitterness or shame at having been duped, but there are much more serious manipulations that affect a victim's core identity and become a matter of life or death. Emotional abusers directly endanger their victims; indirectly, they lead those around them to lose sight of their moral guideposts and to believe that freewheeling behaviors at the expense of others are the norm. (pp. 8-9)
• Even if a victim's reactions to emotional abuse contribute to a sustained, even seemingly equal, relationship with the aggressor, one must not forget that this person suffers from a situation for which he or she is not responsible. (p. 9)
• There are individuals whose road through life is strewn with people they have wounded or irreparably damaged. This doesn't prevent them from fooling most people and from seeming to be totally adjusted social beings. (p. 14)
  
• The most intimate other will become the subject of the greatest abuse because too much closeness can terrify the aggressor. A narcissistic individual imposes control on his partner in order to hold her back, while simultaneously fearing her closeness and invasiveness. In order to maintain complete power over her, she must be kept in a dependent or even proprietary relationship. The partner mired in doubt and guilt cannot react. (p. 15)
• The unspoken message is "I don't love you," but it remains indirect and hidden so the other won't leave. The partner must stay put and be permanently frustrated; she must be prevented from thinking on her own and becoming aware of the process. (p. 15)
  
• The narcissistic abuser introduces the element of control to paralyze his partner by putting her in a situation of uncertainty. Keeping her within limits and at a safe distance avoids commitment to a relationship he fears. By stifling and subjecting her, he forces her to submit to what he most dreads and must avoid at all costs: invasiveness by another person. (p. 16)
• He wants her to be financially independent but submissive at the same time; if not, he agonizes and rejects her...When she talks at dinner, he rolls his eyes. At first she says to herself, "What I just said must be idiotic!" and then she begins to progressively censor herself. (p. 18)
• It would be simpler if [the aggressor] were an absolute monster, but he was once a tender lover. [The victim believes he now] acts like this because he is not well. He can change, She will therefore change him. (p. 19)
• An individual with idealistic ideas about marriage carries on an apparently normal relationship with his partner until the day he has to choose between this relationship and a new one. Abuse will grow in proportion to yesterday's idealism. It is impossible to accept responsibility for a failure of this kind. The partner is held responsible when love is withdrawn because she has committed an unnamed fault. The denial of love is acted upon although verbally denied. (p. 21)
  
• Recognizing this manipulative behavior leaves the victim in a state of terrible anxiety she cannot get rid of alone. At this stage, victims experience shame as well as anger: shame at not being loved, shame at having accepted humiliation, and shame that what they have submitted to and undergone. (p. 21)
• He very skillfully provides a mirror for [the victim's] insecurities...He knows she doubts. (p. 23)
• He attacks with small, unsettling jabs, preferably in public, where it's difficult for her to react. When she tries to talk about it later, he coldly says that she bears grudges and makes mountains out of molehills. (p. 23)
• [He] never raises his voice; he only displays an icy hostility that he subsequently denies if the matter is brought up. [p. 25]
• An abuser needs to turn his previous partner into a scapegoat and project everything bad onto her in order to idealize the new love object and establish the relationship. Any obstacle standing in the way must be destroyed. For love to exist, there must be hate somewhere. The new relationship is founded on hatred of the previous partner. (pp. 29-30)
• [The victim believes] that if [he] rejects her, it's because she's "not good enough" to live up to his expectations. On the contrary, with abusive individuals, love must be split off and surrounded by hate. (p. 30)
• The goal of abusive conduct is to destabilize the other person and make them doubt themselves and others. Anything goes in order to achieve this end: lies, improbabilities, innuendos. (p. 31)
  

The Seduction

• [A]n emotionally abusive relationship goes through two phases: (1) identity erosion, and (2) open violence....The first phase , which psychoanalyst P.C. Racamier has termed "brainwashing," can take place over several years. It builds progressively through a seduction process at he beginning of the relationship. The victim is destabilized and gradually loses self-confidence during this initial phase. (p. 89)
  
• The seductive process consists not only in overpoweringly winning over the person, but also corrupting and suborning her. The manipulator bypasses reality, operating secretly and by surprise. He attacks underhandedly, gaining the admiration of another person, who is dazzled by him and sends back to him a positive image. (p. 89)
• Narcissistic seduction confuses and erodes the boundaries of one's own identity and that of another individual. This is not the world of transference--for example, when a lover's idealization, in order to sustain passion, refuses to acknowledge any shortcomings in the beloved--but a world of incorporation where the objective is to destroy. The other person's presence is considered threatening, not complimentary. (p. 90)
• The period of influence consists in leading someone, with out argument, to think, make decisions, and behave other than she would spontaneously on her own. During the "seductive stalking" period, the targeted person is unable to freely consent a priori because her sensibilities and vulnerabilities are influenced and manipulated. As in any manipulative process, the victim must first be made to believe she is free, even when she is insidiously deprived of the freedom to act. There can be no question of a discussion between equals; the abuser must subtly impose himself while preventing the other from becoming aware of the process and from discussing or resisting it. (p. 90)
• The victim's ability to defend herself is withdrawn, and her judgment is negated, thereby eliminating any possibility of rebellion. (p. 90)
• The victim is caught in a spiderweb, held captive at an other's disposal, bound psychologically, and anesthetized. She is completely unconscious of what's happened. (p. 91)
• Little by little, victims see their resistance and potential to oppose eaten away. They lose all critical ability. Prevented from reacting, literally "shattered," they are made accomplices to their own oppression. This has nothing whatsoever to do with consent.

More later...

love and hugs,
Laura

*I have made a conscious decision to change many of the she's to he's in the quoted text for ease of clarity. As bulleted items they are almost impossible to follow the way the author strayed back and forth in the original text.

That said, my thesis will consistently use the masculine pronoun to designate the N and the female pronoun the VoN because most N's are, in fact, male and because there is the added component of genuine male social power. I will never deny that women are N's and that they cause a great deal of destruction. But generally speaking female N behavior differs given the reality of social power, and their abuse is more ofen directed toward children. Therefore when talking about N romantic relationships I will generally stick to this format, but it is conscious and not accidental, just as I always use "she" as the general pronoun when writing academic papers.