We See You As An Object

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?

35 thoughts on “We See You As An Object

  1. Dorion says:

    For me, posts like this kinda feel like like sci-fi about Artificial Intelligence. If there wasn’t all the psych literature, evidence from the people who experienced this with their narcs and only my own life experience, I probably would not believe it and would think it’s just for entertainment. We need better programmers to create these machines early on, but I guess they carry a bug from start that inherently destines them for destructing even the best code to alter the system’s processes and behavior. The machine then just takes every piece of information and writes its own code, optimized for effectiveness it has developed autonomously, solely to serve The Prime Aims.

    I use AI for my work though and, in reality, it does its own thing but is quite controllable by skilled humans. It has very high capacity and speed but also makes lots of errors of judgment and prediction. Maybe it thinks it doesn’t but a lot of the output won’t pass other means of reality testing than the machine’s own.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Interesting observations Dorion.

    2. NarcAngel says:

      Errors of judgement and reality being subjective, does that then mean that AI dares to be original and authentic to itself by rejecting the programming deemed successful for control of the masses?

      1. Dorion says:

        NA – Not the kind of AI am using (just tools for data analysis and predictions), which more has issues trying to handle a huge amount of information and process it fast but it lacks the complexity of perception and processing mechanisms inherent to a human system. Its capability is bigger in some ways but very limited in other ways.

        But the idea about developing more humanoid AI (robots) is that it would develop its own learning mechanisms and could become autonomous to a certain extent, including integrating perception of human emotion-related manifestations and behavior into its own system. If a machine can only perform exactly what it’s been told (by a programmer), it is not AI yet. So there is definitely autonomy involved, but it still uses the original instructions and programs to be somewhat independent. It cannot be birthed out of nothing, or by other machines alone without human interference, not where the technology stands now.

        Whether there is such a thing as self (the notion “dares to be original and authentic to itself”) is a huge other area…, a lot of it is of course more philosophical (or sci-fi) at this stage rather than something we can realistically define and investigate. But the reason I personally sometimes engage in those fantasies about going into hibernation and waking up in a few hundred years would be to see where it all evolves – humans and technology. Who knows, maybe Earth will be taken over by AI machines that learned their methods from the narcissists that programmed them originally 🙂 Many computer scientists definitely have some of those traits and a sense of superiority/omnipotence over “mere mortals” that do not possess their skills. They can also be quite ruthless when it comes to teaching the computer methods that can be used for bad things.

        I am quite sure though that HG and his kind is still made of flesh and blood like any of us, in this era at least!

        1. NarcAngel says:

          I wonder also the future of AI. The concept still seems the stuff of fantasy for the most part if/when discussed, but how many things do we experience now that we, or the generations before us, could never have envisioned and openly scoffed? If anything, the fear/threat of machines or robots taking over jobs is being recognized, and that is becoming reality in our lifetime, but the bigger threat (to my mind) is what is envisioned for those designed for different types of policing in future, and the potential for rogue programmers. Might the friendly C3PO become the early inspiration for development of his narc cousins 3C POs? (Conflict, Combat, and Control Policing Officers). AIs developed and programmed for malicious intent? These are some of the things I think about while people continue to focus on recycling. Yes, for now they are flesh and bone and still we struggle to manage them.
          Well that was a bit of dark contemplation. Say……what did you put in this Christmas drink?

  2. Pingback: We See You As An Object ⋆ NarcTopia
  3. Dr. Harleen Quinzel, PsyD. says:

    I’ll bite lol…

    Okay, so you objectify yourself and refer to yourself as a machine…a bot. I wouldn’t expect a bot to feel anything towards…well…anything because duh it’s a machine. The bot uses other things to get what it needs. When the appliance breaks or becomes obsolete…well… pfff throw it away and get another… because it ceases to function and there’s nothing worse than an obsolete appliance. Makes logical sense.

    Now, just for fun … let’s play try another perspective on for size…not even the Neurotypical one…

    You’re a drug dealer with some bad ass drugs. Those drugs create an intense dopamine rush that feels fantastic. Just temporary chemical reaction. Drugs may feel awesome and well provide an escape. If you’re a drug addict you essentially escape but at the expense of self-destructing – but I digress lol. Anyway, the addict wants that hit and if you keep cutting your intense drugs with some cheap shit you will kill off ur customer by accident or they won’t want your drug anymore because it’s watered down and cheapened. The addict will stop going to the dealer because after all….there’s always another dealer and well … everyone is replaceable lol….

    She’s an appliance and you’re a drug dealer

    As long as everyone’s needs are being met lol?

    Both are replaceable….

    Now gimme another hit of that good shit I know you’ve got 😏🤪😂

  4. always coffee says:

    as long we don’t understand “object” “supply” no way to defeat …
    in german they call it the “Hirte” which is the nasty

  5. Anna Belle Black💙 says:


  6. Pingback: We See You As An Object — Knowing the Narcissist : HG Tudor – Views from the Zone
  7. Stefanie says:

    This is a text exchange with a narc I am soon divorcing:

    Me: This is a perfect example of how you take minutia and escalate it, then play the victim.

    Narc: What did I escalate?

    Me: Nothing of course, you do nothing wrong.

    Narc: You’re right about that.

    Me: This is classic NPD btw, thanks for putting this gem in writing.

  8. Crystal says:

    HG, I’m coming to your house while you’re away and breaking all of your appliances. This means your actual appliances, not the pretend people appliances. Your toaster is toast. You’ve been warned.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Good luck with that.

      1. Terramagica says:

        The way you talk, smile, jokes, and even the replays are EXACTLY THE SAME like mine narcissist. This is sick… Stephen Harding is that you?

      2. Jacqueline says:

        The one I knew, says he likes a woman that is calm, now I know why.
        He says he has to have feelings, the same feelings for all his “friends”!
        Maybe you can help me let go of my grip!
        Please quide me for a personnel chat with you if that’s possible and your prices.
        Reaction to pain has got me on the wrong path)

      3. Crystal says:

        Your washing machine? Zippered. Zip zip, HG. Zip zip.

    2. empath007 says:


  9. BonnieLou says:

    Thank you HG. I am in Egypt at the moment and I am at Zero Impact! Without your work I would not have been able to come back to this beautiful land. I have crossed the emotional sea and reached the dry safe land of IDGAF! 😁

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You’re welcome

  10. empath007 says:

    So if we are something, not someone.

    Why do your kind become jealous of us? As it’s been stated narcissits are jealous of our contentment. Our lack of need for fuel.

    Are you also jealous of your television? Does Your televisions oblivious contentment whilst being thrown in the garbage for the latest model anger your kind?

    People are the only thing that can provide your kind with fuel and emotional output (perhaps animals could as well) Therefore we are not only far superior to the television… but also far more important.

    No need to post this if you’d rather not.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Our television does not threaten our control, not does it demonstrate contentment, therefore we are not jealous of it.

      1. empath007 says:

        I was being facetious asking about the television.

        The point made in this article is that people are disposable to your kind, we are nothing but a mere object… you will use us when you see fit and when we do not operate as wanted anymore you will then replace us with someone who operates better. You are able to do this for the vast number of reasons you have repeatedly explained all over this blog.

        What I am saying is…. if it came down to choosing between a television and a person… you would pick the person. Why? Appliances don’t actually have the capability to give you what you want. Which is fuel. The television doesn’t care if you smash it in a bout of anger. It does not feel, it does not think… it is the person you are with who will provide you with those reactions, you would seize to exist without SOMEONE (not something) who could not provide you fuel.

        You don’t Hoover televisions. You don’t see an old model you once owned at a friends house and think “ oh yes that TV made me feel so powerful” stuff it under your shirt leave the house with it and put your other television on a shelf until you’re ready to use it again. But you will do that with people… because we are superior to the television. We can offer you something the television will never be able too. Fuel. We are the most important emotional punching bag you have….

        You fear loosing control of us. Not your television.

        If you want to pretend we are the same
        For the sake of argument… then that’s fine. I understand you are illustrating a point that we are not important…But we are… people are probably more important to your kind… then anyone else not in the NPD spectrum. And we are
        Not objects. That’s a literal fact.

  11. Caroline-is-fine says:

    I read through this once – I was intrigued.
    I read it a second time – I was annoyed.
    I read through it one more time – and jotted down key aspects…for the next time I feel guilty about keeping my NC.


    1. HG Tudor says:

      Well done

      1. Caroline-is-fine says:

        Thank you, HG.🎁

      2. Jacqueline says:

        Is it that you dont allow yourself to feel more for her because you cant,
        or is it because you fear too, because you or the N. Are unable to deliver long term? Or you dont want to feel pain .?
        Trying to understand

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Since one cannot feel certain things, one cannot allow oneself to feel more.

          1. Jacqueline says:

            Thank you HG
            I feel for you compassion, and will try to let go of any feeling for my “false friend the N.man child

    2. Jacqueline says:

      Now I understand

  12. AR says:

    I can relate to your kind because i grew up in the same environment. My parents didn’t want me to go to a kindergarten. My matrinarc told me that i made them change their opinion by crying a lot. Of course it is easy to control when you are stupid, uneducated and can’t think for yourself. They thought i was crazy. Who won’t act crazy when you are treated like shit by your siblings and still your parents take their sons’ side. I was a rebellious child.

    The more i read your articles the more i hate your kind. My narc ex told me about his dad a bit to explain me why my dad behaves the way he does. He told me: “i don’t know from psychological perspective… They are people of old generation (he shared some stories)…”. He thought that it was because of our culture. And indeed treatment of women as if they are objects is common in my culture. I thought he was different from the rest.

    I had a hell of a past. Why did i share my past with him? So he could use it to hurt me?

    Never say never. But i will say it. I will NEVER forgive him for doing a number on me.

    There is no man in the world whom i will submit to.

  13. Diana says:

    How do you see another greater narcissist? Still as an object? No value at all? Same level or still you are the best of the best even if the other person is way more intelligent and higher in all levels in life…. than you.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Yes as an object.

      More intelligent? What do you mean?
      Higher in all levels in life? Impossible.

      1. Kim e says:

        More intelligent? What do you mean?
        Higher in all levels in life? Impossible.

        Please do not put Diana in the dungeon. She did not mean it.

      2. alwayscoffee says:

        that was good one 🙂

      3. Diana says:

        Smarter than you, richer than you, powerful than you… like someone that has access to things you can’t. Assuming that you aren’t the queen Elizabeth lol or some type of people like that. Btw thank you for the knowledge… ps everything is possible.

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

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

Next article

The Final Push