The Expanded Narcissistic Truths No. 6

we-see-you

You want to be someone to my kind and me.

That will not happen.

You are a something to us, not a someone.

I do not relate to you. Why should I? I regard myself as superior, elevated and special. The petty concerns which govern your life do not apply to me. I do not do accountability. Certainly I have some understanding of what it means to be you, after all I have listened to you tell me so many times about how you feel and I have watched you and others like you so often. I do not feel it however. I cannot put myself in your shoes. I do not want to and even if I did, I am unable to do so because I neither have that emotional empathy or the even stronger emotional contagion that you experience.

Yes, I can see the differences between you and her, him and them. I can see the contrasts in height, body shape, she has green eyes and you have blue eyes, he has no hair and he has dreadlocks. I recognise physical attractiveness, I see the different clothes that you wear, the variances in shoes worn, jewellery displayed and such like. I notice all of that but that does not make you more of a person to me. It is merely the distinction between a washing machine that is white and one which is silver.

Take my television which is placed at the far end of the main sitting room. It is a Samsung Curved SUHD HDR Dot Smart TV 78″ television that I primarily watch sport on. It provides me with a picture which is in pinsharp crikey vision with a scintillating array of colours. The sound is impressive and it looks sleek and attractive. It delivers an outstanding display and therefore delivers what I require of it.

Take you as my primary source. I can see that you stand 5ft 9″ in height, you are slender, with pale skin and long brown hair to the small of your back, which becomes slightly wavy towards the end. Your face is oval. Your eyes are green. You look sleek and attractive. You are an outstanding display of physical attractiveness. I know all this but your primary purpose is to provide me with positive fuel and you do so impressively. You therefore deliver that which  I require of you.

You are no different to my television. You are there to provide a function. You are to deliver in accordance with the Prime Aims, which are the provision of fuel, character traits and residual benefits. If you do and you do so in a fulsome manner, you are a high functioning appliance. If you do not, you are a malfunctioning one.

You and the television are there to do things for me, because I am entitled to that.

I press your buttons by seducing you or later provoking you and you must churn out fuel for me. You at the time of the golden period are my favourite appliance. I have many appliances, other objects which spew out fuel in varying quantities and differing potencies. I have connected all of these appliances to me because again my objectification of you is also linked to the need to exert control. If I want to eat some toast, I place two slices of bread in my Alessi toaster and press the lever down, adjust the relevant control to govern the degree of toasting required and a minute or two later I have two perfectly toasted slices. It works each and every time. I control it. It does what i want. It does not refuse to toast my bread, it does not only toast one side, it does not fire the bread back at me or instead produce a different outcome altogether by presenting me with a leg of lamb. I expect you to be equally compliant and effective. I do not understand why you should not be. You are there to do what I want, I am entitled to receive the Prime Aims and since I installed you as my primary source, you should be delivering them repeatedly, consistently and without interruption. I am not interested in the vagaries of your life which impacts upon your ability to function because of my sense of entitlement, my notion of superiority and of course my incessant needs and demands.

Objects are far easier to control. They are installed, powered and they function. If they stop functioning then they are thrown away and they are replaced. Accordingly, when you stop delivering in accordance with the Prime Aims you suffer the same fate. I do not have time to repair you, you are put to one side and a better, shinier, more effective model takes your place. How did I ever manage without it? Why did I put up with you as a faltering appliance for so long?

You may look at your replacement and wonder why on earth that appliance has been chosen over you. It might be because you gave everything you could to us. It might be because you can see that you are more capable, more interesting, more intelligent and better looking than your replacement. Perhaps you are, perhaps those distinguishing features are there, but you were not delivering in accordance with the Prime Aims and your replacement is doing so which means that they are infinitely superior to you. You are dispensable. Ally the fact that we see you and others as objects with our necessity for performance, our lack of remorse and conscience and you can understand (or maybe begin to understand) why we find it so easy to dis-engage with you and place you on the scrap heap and choose another appliance with such ease.

If you end a relationship, you may be concerned to ensure that the other person is not too devastated, that they are doing okay because even though you may not want to be in a Formal Relationship longer you largely still care about the well-being of another human being. To us that is pointless. Why use your energy dealing with something that is ineffective? That is a waste of time.

Your objectification makes it far easier for us to function. By regarding you as just another object which is there to perform for us, that is to be controlled by us and can be readily replaced when we deem it necessary, we achieve our aims far more readily. Performance and control are key and this is what objects do. Whether it is an ornament which looks beautiful and we can place where we want, to a motor vehicle which delivers us from A to B or a dishwasher which provides us with clean and streak free shining glasses, we control them all and they perform.

This objectification extends into how we regard different objects. For example, when you are seduced and embedded as the intimate partner primary source, you are our most prized possession. You are the one which will give us the necessary positive fuel each and every day in large amounts and with considerable potency. This means you will be looked after, you will be treated well, you will be paraded and shown off, like some prize piece of art or an expensive necklace. You will be placed carefully on that pedestal, polished, cleaned and maintained.

The tertiary source which works in the garage where we fill up with petrol every week is like an old teddy bear. We always say hello and receive a pleasant dollop of positive fuel as we feign interest in this person’s humdrum life. We have known this person for years and like that teddy bear, we see no need to throw them away, not yet, but nor do we regard there as being any necessity for maintenance. Accordingly, the corresponding teddy bear has a eye missing, some stuffing is spilling from inside and the fur has faded.

In the same way that one is careful with a delicate and expensive mirror, we will treat our appliances in the same way. Some can be kicked to one side, scuffed and stained, like a pair of old trainers, others are handled with care until we decide otherwise. Our appliances in our fuel network are regarded and handled in differing ways.

The trophy appliances, the primary source in the golden period or the longstanding inner circle successful friends who are non-intimate secondary sources, are displayed and shown off regularly. The much maligned familial non-intimate secondary source, a scapegoated sibling or child, is the hideous jumper that is only ever worn when it really has to be done and is otherwise derided and ridiculed. Our Lieutenants are our tools, the devices which we depend on to do our bidding as they are deployed to achieve our aims.

Our objectification of you is necessary for the purposes of maintaining control and achieving the Prime Aims. This objectification is achieved because of our lack of empathy. I no sooner can relate to how an iMac feels as to how you feel. I have no concern about whether my Mont Blanc pen feels. It is there to perform. I have a vested interest in you feeling for the purposes of providing fuel, but I am not concerned as to how you feel because I cannot empathise with you.

This objectification manifests not just in how we parade you as a trophy, devalue you without any concern for the impact on you and then how we dis-engage and replace you, but also in the way we interact with you. The use of pet names Pet is a way of dehumanising you. We refer to you as her, she, he and him, rather than your actual name, stripping you of identity (see It for an extreme method of doing so). We reject the legitimacy of your needs and desires by placing ours first. A fridge freezer has no aspirations, no life plan or goals and we reject their applicability to you also. This objectification appears in how we interact with you, especially during devaluation

“Just do it.”

“Do what I want.”

“Get on with it.”

“Stop disobeying me.”

“You will do it or else.”

There is no asking, no politeness, no consideration given. We do not ask the washing machine if it wouldn’t mind washing our clothes so why would we ask you if you wouldn’t mind doing something for us?

You and everybody else, from our parents to our friends, to our colleagues to our children are all objects which are expected to do our bidding. Perform and we will keep you. Fail and you are replaced.

Now, why is there a flashing light on your forehead?

 

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “The Expanded Narcissistic Truths No. 6”

  1. Seeing as The Shieldmaiden is one hell of a good washing machine – could I borrow her over the Easter break? There’s a couple of delicates I’d like to spin her on regarding the Narcissistic cycle.

  2. This exact concept was what I had the most trouble with with MMRN. I didn’t need to be his wife, I didn’t even need to be the only mistress, I just wanted to be SOMEONE to him. Something so I could make the sexual intimacy less tawdry, more meaningful (spoken like a true empath).

    But, lacking in charm, he was never able to convince me this was the case, even when he was genuinely trying to with his words. Honestly when he did try he was climbing an uphill battle. He did too much in the very beginning (triangulate, avoid intimacy, marginalize me) to be able to overcome it later. Not that he cared, he still got his fuel…..

    Nothing made him more furious than when I refused to believe he was a good guy, or when I wouldn’t believe his lies (typical mid-ranger I guess), or when I wouldn’t fight to have a more permanent and important place in his life.

    The entire dynamic with him is absolutely a recreation of my childhood. I just wanted to be a person to my parents. Have them acknowledge my personality, my likes, dislikes, interests, feelings. But it was never to be. You would have thought I didn’t exist, didn’t have feelings, my likes had to be my mothers likes etc.

    The amount of silence in my household growing up is astounding now that I can see it through a different lens. It was normal to me then, but tense also, its no wonder I had chronic belly aches and could never sleep as a child (textbook anxiety symptoms in a child).

    I suppose this explains why silent treatments from MMRN seemed unbearable but also expected, even deserved by me. I always apologized. Every damn time, just to make the silence end, to be acknowledged again, to exist again to him.

        1. Supernova. It is hard enough to be in the area as a sipss. I can understand your pain. ((Hugs))

      1. NA,
        Thank you for taking the time to type that to me.
        I am so grateful to have this forum, without it I would be so alone in dealing with all of this.

        1. SupernovaDE
          You are never alone here. Even when HG is off blog we are all still connected to each other and witness.

    1. Thanks Supernova, that sounds very accurate in terms of charm and convincing ability where the MRN is concerned. I was kind of taken aback the first time I read the term love-bombing when I first found HGs blog.

      Btw, given your profile name, are you a super?

      1. Narc noob,
        No, I’m not a super. When I was first reading here I thought I might be, hence the screen name. But apparently I am just a pain in the ass challenging standard empath lol!
        Once I realized this, it was too late, everyone here knew me as SDE, so I’ve never changed it.

  3. One of the first posts I ever saw here. And I do mean saw as in “see”: the photograph depicts perfectly my role in my relationship with my Narc Ex. I “got it” instantly.

  4. What you become to the narcissist is their latest story, added on to all their other stories. The story changes depending on what stage the narcissist is at with you and where you fit in, but your just a story to tell in the narcissists fake life.

      1. Sarah Jane
        Ha Ha horror stories is right.
        Mine was full of them he’s somewhere between an upper lesser and lower mid range there’s some cross overs, but complete victim. It’s amazing how many bad things have happened to him ha ha.
        He’s a victim of everything and everyone but it’s not his fault.
        He is the horror !!

        1. Haha Lisa
          Oh, if the mental scars of the MRs were physical, he’d just be a pair of eyes through a plaster cast – like something from the Carry On Doctor film.

          1. That’s hilarious Sarah Jane, I’m imagining Kenneth Williams as the doc with a shocked look on his face !!

    1. Lisa,

      This is SO true!

      “What you become to the narcissist is their latest story, added on to all their other stories. The story changes depending on what stage the narcissist is at with you and where you fit in, but your just a story to tell in the narcissists fake life.”

      I actually have physical proof of this too – because I found a document (that he, unintentionally, left in my care after I escaped and shut him out off my life). The narrative on that paper was the same story of persecution that he was spewing about me and those close to me – the names were different (past victims of his). Take out the names; insert my name and names of people connected to me and – Voila!

      1. Hi WhoCares
        Proof indeed !!
        Not that we need it, we’ve all listened at some point to an ex narc droning on about how women have let them down or probably men if it’s a female Narc.

        1. Lisa,

          Re: the proof…

          “Not that we need it, we’ve all listened at some point to an ex narc droning on about how women have let them down.”

          Come to think of it (I know that is the case in a lot of entanglements) it was not the case in mine. Yes, he certainly did speak poorly of his ex at first (and it suckered me in partly thinking how she had treated him) – but after that, nope – it was more about how family had let him down, and then interpersonal issues at work; which of course he was ALWAYS the victim of…

          But, stories about ex’s…not so much.

          1. WhoCares, mine was everything, exes, jobs, friends, work colleagues, neighbours, the weather ha ha

Vent Your Spleen!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.