I was going to leave this but feel impelled to answer after all as I personally see some things occurring which I believe are less than ideal. I am going to leave my personal feelings (in how these apply to me) aside as I have looked at them and am OK. I am also only briefly going to look at the personal and relationship aspect of loveneverfails concerns towards the end as it seems a lot of what is relevant has already been said.
So what I am left with are things that I genuinely don't think are in the interests of supporters or the big picture when it comes to PTSD relationships. Especially when the other party has co-dependency, abandonment issues.
I think there is an element of truth in what Loveneverfails said and I believe there are certain things underpinning these problems.
The biggest concern I have is seeing isolation being labelled as emotional abuse. That seems to be happening more and more. For that matter singular acts of verbal aggression are also not verbal abuse. And I suspect the main reason for the incorrect labelling of behaviours is that people don't realise that what is considered emotionally abusive in adult relationships is different to that for adult - child relationships.
Here are a few examples of how this works and what it means:
1. In order to be abusive there needs to be an element of gratification involved when it comes to adult relationships. It needs to fulfil a role of control, passive or overt aggression or undermining.
2. An adult cannot perpetrate emotional neglect on another able bodied and minded adult.
3. Verbal abuse becomes verbal abuse between adults only if it is a pattern of behaviour rather isolated incidents. Verbal aggression such as threats to harm is different; one incident is then considered abusive. That also obviously goes for any physical or sexual aggression.
4. When one sees the term "isolation abuse" referred to it does not relate to emotional needs being withdrawn in adults and is rather the active separation of the other person from friends, finances and freedom.
5. The things that are commonly applied to children, such as neglect, refer to adults only if the adult is considered vulnerable which means elderly, with a relevant mental disorder or relevant disability.
Why do I think this is very importantly bad for the supporter apart from being unfair to the PTSD sufferer and unhelpful for the relationship ? I see it as infantilizing and slightly patronising as well as not helping the person take responsibility for their own happiness. Anything that does not look at the truth as the truth tends to distort things.
I think that is especially unhelpful for those who are codependent. If the only way anyone can get someone who is codependent to look after their own emotional needs is to rile them up into anger and resentment then they are not going to learn very much long term at all. "He is an abusive SOB" may break the relationship off more quickly or make the person make demands more quickly but at what cost? Recovery from co-dependency is not going to happen if the person can only take care of themselves when seeing behaviour as abusive. Especially when it is not.
I do think there are times when really pushing things and doing so (riling someone up) can be necessary but think that it is when the wellbeing of children or the physical safety of the spouse is at risk.
I do think that it is possible that something such as isolating behaviour could be abusive. But it would need to be passive aggressive or intended as control. It would need to be a pattern of manipulation through isolation rather than an attempt to protect others from their symptoms or an attempt at coping.
Does that mean that a supporter just needs to lump it? Of course not!!! That is the point. As adults we don't need to stay in relationships just because they are not abusive. We can leave or discuss our needs if the alternative is damaging to us or if it is not what we want for our future. I certainly could never be in a relationship where someone isolated in the way that is often described.
How do I think it should be approached? I think supporters should be being encouraged to consider if the behaviour is about negative gratification and if it is then by all means call it abusive. They should also consider what their minimum needs are and present them to the sufferer resulting in an attempt to find a compromise for both if they still want to try to save the relationship. They should be encouraged to grow in being able to look after themselves and make decisions according to that rather than needing to increase their resentment enough to leave.
Sadly anger and resentment is the one thing that is most likely to make sure there is no hope for the relationship when the sufferer is displaying non abusive isolating behaviour. It is likely to exactly increase the problem between the two parties.
More insecure and upset supporter who now sees the behaviour even more as an aggressive act against them or a rejection of them and a probable more shamed and self hating sufferer with increased symptoms who will need to isolate more or want to end the relationship.
That is fine if it is what is best but it is something to consider.
The following are about what is abusive and what isn't:
Man's Search for Meaning to answer l
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domesti...handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100310003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse
The only I think I don't agree with in this last one is the "control" aspect. I think some with Stockholm or even co dependency sometimes feel they can't leave a relationship and therefore do feel there is control.
http://sfhelp.org/relate/abuse.htm
When it comes to how isolation and such affect children then it is a different matter. Even then there has to be a pattern and certain other conditions for it to truly be considered emotional neglect or abuse.
The following relates to children:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse
My Combat PTSD
I think it serves supporters to encourage consideration of their own thought processes. The bigger issue is about both parties, their feelings and their behaviours and how each affects the other. And all importantly how it affects any children involved.
The reality check too is that a combat PTSD sufferer who has been trained to go into "fight" mode, has just recently been diagnosed and has not yet had enough training to control their fight response may be likely to act out aggressively if they do not isolate initially at times. And that could have a much worse affect on the child especially if there is another caretaker there who is not disabled and is providing for that child's needs. That does not mean that it is OK or should remain that way but it can still be a better evil initially. Obviously with strong boundaries set down of how it needs to be longterm as the emotional distancing of a parent is always devastating to a child.
Going on to other aspects of support I don't see it as ideal to just put one strong view or the other across when we know no details of the situation. Both only, "he loves you and is isolating because he cares about you" and "he is just not that into you" is a bit off as we are not mindreaders and really don't know what the situation is. It is only the supporter than can figure out which applies as they are there in the front line.
The other thing I believe would benefit people would be to have their, "it will all be OK if they just let me fix them" thinking challenged. That screams co-dependent and I think support should be about peoples long term development, safety and growth and not just getting them out of the present relationship. That thinking is also really bad for the relationship.
Loveneverfails, when it comes to the supporters forum and PTSD relationships and how things are addressed I don't think the relationship comes first at all. The supporter forum is not about anyone other the supporters and PTSD sufferers personal feelings don't really belong there nor should their relationship come before their wellbeing. And the children's wellbeing is even more important of course. Often saving the parents relationship is not in their best interests either.
And regardless of what might be best for the PTSD sufferer in that relationship abusive behaviour should always be called out very strongly. I know everyone that has answered on this thread agrees about that.
Lastly I just want to say that I am not approaching this from an "us" and "them" perspective at all. There are a lot of experiences that supporters describe that sufferers have a lot of understanding of and so responses are often influenced by that. They are for me and can see many others where that is the case too.
Being on the receiving end of abuse or aggression is one. Being caught in co-dependent or Stockholm syndrome situation is another. As is domestic violence and poor self esteem. There is no "us" or "them in any of these things and I certainly don't view it that way.
As for "PTSD is no excuse", Loveneverfails, a lot of times it comes down to semantics. People are meaning that PTSD symptoms can contribute when they say PTSD is no excuse but are not necessarily going to spell that out each time. And I do think personality is a factor in how those symptoms are expressed. That and the particular past of the person with PTSD. That doesn't mean it can't change! Saying that it is a factor and saying it makes it OK are two different things. I know you are not meaning the latter but I believe that is what people are attempting to stamp out, and as clearly as possible, when they say what they say.
There are times I think it is unhelpful but most of the time it is a shortcut to getting the most important point across. The PTSD sufferer is not seeing the interaction and I think we need to put our personal feelings (as a fellow sufferer) aside.
Supporters obviously need to be strongly encouraged to look after themselves. That they should not allow abusive behaviour just because someone has PTSD. Encouraging enabling behaviour is not only damaging for them but also for the PTSD sufferer.
So what I am left with are things that I genuinely don't think are in the interests of supporters or the big picture when it comes to PTSD relationships. Especially when the other party has co-dependency, abandonment issues.
I think there is an element of truth in what Loveneverfails said and I believe there are certain things underpinning these problems.
The biggest concern I have is seeing isolation being labelled as emotional abuse. That seems to be happening more and more. For that matter singular acts of verbal aggression are also not verbal abuse. And I suspect the main reason for the incorrect labelling of behaviours is that people don't realise that what is considered emotionally abusive in adult relationships is different to that for adult - child relationships.
Here are a few examples of how this works and what it means:
1. In order to be abusive there needs to be an element of gratification involved when it comes to adult relationships. It needs to fulfil a role of control, passive or overt aggression or undermining.
2. An adult cannot perpetrate emotional neglect on another able bodied and minded adult.
3. Verbal abuse becomes verbal abuse between adults only if it is a pattern of behaviour rather isolated incidents. Verbal aggression such as threats to harm is different; one incident is then considered abusive. That also obviously goes for any physical or sexual aggression.
4. When one sees the term "isolation abuse" referred to it does not relate to emotional needs being withdrawn in adults and is rather the active separation of the other person from friends, finances and freedom.
5. The things that are commonly applied to children, such as neglect, refer to adults only if the adult is considered vulnerable which means elderly, with a relevant mental disorder or relevant disability.
Why do I think this is very importantly bad for the supporter apart from being unfair to the PTSD sufferer and unhelpful for the relationship ? I see it as infantilizing and slightly patronising as well as not helping the person take responsibility for their own happiness. Anything that does not look at the truth as the truth tends to distort things.
I think that is especially unhelpful for those who are codependent. If the only way anyone can get someone who is codependent to look after their own emotional needs is to rile them up into anger and resentment then they are not going to learn very much long term at all. "He is an abusive SOB" may break the relationship off more quickly or make the person make demands more quickly but at what cost? Recovery from co-dependency is not going to happen if the person can only take care of themselves when seeing behaviour as abusive. Especially when it is not.
I do think there are times when really pushing things and doing so (riling someone up) can be necessary but think that it is when the wellbeing of children or the physical safety of the spouse is at risk.
I do think that it is possible that something such as isolating behaviour could be abusive. But it would need to be passive aggressive or intended as control. It would need to be a pattern of manipulation through isolation rather than an attempt to protect others from their symptoms or an attempt at coping.
Does that mean that a supporter just needs to lump it? Of course not!!! That is the point. As adults we don't need to stay in relationships just because they are not abusive. We can leave or discuss our needs if the alternative is damaging to us or if it is not what we want for our future. I certainly could never be in a relationship where someone isolated in the way that is often described.
How do I think it should be approached? I think supporters should be being encouraged to consider if the behaviour is about negative gratification and if it is then by all means call it abusive. They should also consider what their minimum needs are and present them to the sufferer resulting in an attempt to find a compromise for both if they still want to try to save the relationship. They should be encouraged to grow in being able to look after themselves and make decisions according to that rather than needing to increase their resentment enough to leave.
Sadly anger and resentment is the one thing that is most likely to make sure there is no hope for the relationship when the sufferer is displaying non abusive isolating behaviour. It is likely to exactly increase the problem between the two parties.
More insecure and upset supporter who now sees the behaviour even more as an aggressive act against them or a rejection of them and a probable more shamed and self hating sufferer with increased symptoms who will need to isolate more or want to end the relationship.
That is fine if it is what is best but it is something to consider.
The following are about what is abusive and what isn't:
Man's Search for Meaning to answer l
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domesti...handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100310003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse
The only I think I don't agree with in this last one is the "control" aspect. I think some with Stockholm or even co dependency sometimes feel they can't leave a relationship and therefore do feel there is control.
http://sfhelp.org/relate/abuse.htm
When it comes to how isolation and such affect children then it is a different matter. Even then there has to be a pattern and certain other conditions for it to truly be considered emotional neglect or abuse.
The following relates to children:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse
My Combat PTSD
I think it serves supporters to encourage consideration of their own thought processes. The bigger issue is about both parties, their feelings and their behaviours and how each affects the other. And all importantly how it affects any children involved.
The reality check too is that a combat PTSD sufferer who has been trained to go into "fight" mode, has just recently been diagnosed and has not yet had enough training to control their fight response may be likely to act out aggressively if they do not isolate initially at times. And that could have a much worse affect on the child especially if there is another caretaker there who is not disabled and is providing for that child's needs. That does not mean that it is OK or should remain that way but it can still be a better evil initially. Obviously with strong boundaries set down of how it needs to be longterm as the emotional distancing of a parent is always devastating to a child.
Going on to other aspects of support I don't see it as ideal to just put one strong view or the other across when we know no details of the situation. Both only, "he loves you and is isolating because he cares about you" and "he is just not that into you" is a bit off as we are not mindreaders and really don't know what the situation is. It is only the supporter than can figure out which applies as they are there in the front line.
The other thing I believe would benefit people would be to have their, "it will all be OK if they just let me fix them" thinking challenged. That screams co-dependent and I think support should be about peoples long term development, safety and growth and not just getting them out of the present relationship. That thinking is also really bad for the relationship.
Loveneverfails, when it comes to the supporters forum and PTSD relationships and how things are addressed I don't think the relationship comes first at all. The supporter forum is not about anyone other the supporters and PTSD sufferers personal feelings don't really belong there nor should their relationship come before their wellbeing. And the children's wellbeing is even more important of course. Often saving the parents relationship is not in their best interests either.
And regardless of what might be best for the PTSD sufferer in that relationship abusive behaviour should always be called out very strongly. I know everyone that has answered on this thread agrees about that.
Lastly I just want to say that I am not approaching this from an "us" and "them" perspective at all. There are a lot of experiences that supporters describe that sufferers have a lot of understanding of and so responses are often influenced by that. They are for me and can see many others where that is the case too.
Being on the receiving end of abuse or aggression is one. Being caught in co-dependent or Stockholm syndrome situation is another. As is domestic violence and poor self esteem. There is no "us" or "them in any of these things and I certainly don't view it that way.
As for "PTSD is no excuse", Loveneverfails, a lot of times it comes down to semantics. People are meaning that PTSD symptoms can contribute when they say PTSD is no excuse but are not necessarily going to spell that out each time. And I do think personality is a factor in how those symptoms are expressed. That and the particular past of the person with PTSD. That doesn't mean it can't change! Saying that it is a factor and saying it makes it OK are two different things. I know you are not meaning the latter but I believe that is what people are attempting to stamp out, and as clearly as possible, when they say what they say.
There are times I think it is unhelpful but most of the time it is a shortcut to getting the most important point across. The PTSD sufferer is not seeing the interaction and I think we need to put our personal feelings (as a fellow sufferer) aside.
Supporters obviously need to be strongly encouraged to look after themselves. That they should not allow abusive behaviour just because someone has PTSD. Encouraging enabling behaviour is not only damaging for them but also for the PTSD sufferer.
