Why Am I Drawn To Toxic Behaviours?



You are an empath.

There are many great things about being an empath.

However, there are downsides and a significant one is that you are drawn to Toxic Behaviours more than other people.

Why is this?

This material will assist you in understanding, in clear and concise terms the following :-

The distinction between Toxic Behaviour and Toxic People

Who engages in Toxic Behaviours

Understanding the Empath-Narcissist Spectrum

Understanding the nature of narcissistic and empathic traits within this spectrum

Understanding the position of Emotional Empathy on the Empath-Narcissist Spectrum

Understanding the concept of Proxy Narcissism

How this operates to draw you to Toxic Behaviours

Why other people are not drawn to Toxic Behaviours

How your involvement with Toxic Behaviours pans out

As part of building your Logic Defences, understanding the impact and reason why you an an empathic person are drawn to Toxic Behaviours is fundamental.

Access this unique material through an audio file provided by email.

Understand yourself here

17 thoughts on “Why Am I Drawn To Toxic Behaviours?

  1. Asp Emp says:

    “There are many great things about being an empath” – Well said, HG.

    Absolutely. Words of Empowerment.


    Don’t mean to gush, but this guy has saved my life (maybe even literally). He’s given me or helped me to understand a mindset which is the absolute core of protecting yourself and removing yourself from toxicity. What I really like is that I’ve retained all my lovely squishy empathy, rather than becoming bitter, which I often see with people who have suffered from toxic relationships. I know how to keep my empathy safe, only letting it out for those who “deserve” it instead of laying it out on a plate for any ol’ passing narcissist to gobble up 🙂 Another great thing I’ve discovered is that it’s a mindset which I can apply to all areas of my life – goodbye silly emotional thinking and hello hard facts (keeping a bit of silly emotionalness for the trusted inner circle :)) Thanks HG

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Good to read and you are welcome

    2. Asp Emp says:

      IN, it was inspiring to read your comment. I liked “keeping a bit of silly emotionalness for the trusted inner circle” and I agree 🙂

  3. Lea says:

    Jordan Peterson tells people to stop being so damned nice. He says you have to be a monster sometimes. He points out that all super-heroes such as Batman appear mild-mannered but they are also capable of being monsters when necessary. He isn’t promoting dealing with people through physical violence but explains bunnies are nice and they are prey. You can’t be a bunny. You have to expose your monster to keep narcissists and other toxic people at bay. Makes sense to me. But it also shines a light on how we socialize young people. We tell them to be polite, don’t be rude, don’t speak your mind, don’t disagree, be civil at all costs…We should be telling them how to recognize toxic people. We should tell them normal non-toxic people will accept and respect their boundaries. If they appear rude, disagreeable, or frank, in getting others to respect their boundaries, who cares. Normal people get over that and will even accept it might be necessary to behave that way once in a while.

    1. MP says:

      Hello, I appreciate what you shared but I disagree. Having strong boundaries doesn’t mean you have to be a monster. I think it’s best to just be ourselves. I am honestly suspicious of people who think that being a monster or abusive to someone is equivalent to asserting strong boundaries. My husband is a normal and even though it’s so effortless and natural for him to assert and maintain boundaries I have never seen him be a monster to anyone. The most he does to people that he cannot tolerate anymore is avoid them. He can articulate very well a wrongdoing but he never becomes abusive or be a monster to anyone.

    2. MP says:

      Just to clarify, when I said it makes me suspicious I was not referring to you but I’m referring to the guy that you said we should be a monster sometimes. I’m not saying he’s a narcissist, I don’t know anything about him, but I wonder why he chose the word “monster”. A monster to me is unhinged and a healthy person doesn’t go into “monster mode” to assert boundaries. Just my opinion.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        MP, my impression of this one is he’s being expressive in using the word “monster” and not suggesting people go full bore nasty or aggressive towards others. If someone is testing our boundaries then we need to be firm at times and certain situations will call on our “super hero” to appear (since he is making the comparison to a super hero I’m assuming he means Saviour type). It could mean a dimming of empathic traits and allowing narcissistic traits to shine as in a Supernova event. That’s the way I would take it, but I don’t know the context in which it was said. I do know many people find Jordan Peterson challenging. I have seen him speak. He also tends to waffle … a lot!

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Well he does like the sound of his own voice.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Haha, HG. I guess that explains it!

        2. MP says:

          Thank you LT, that makes more sense to me now. The word monster still feels wrong to me but I understand he’s using it to be expressive and probably his way of getting people to pay attention to what he is saying. I think for people who were raised in abusive environments it is unnatural and difficult to assert boundaries and sometimes learning to speak up can feel like letting that monster out which can be awkward, uncomfortable and unnatural. But the more we practice the more natural it becomes and we don’t have to go off the deep end to protect ourselves. I think that the healthier we become the more consistent and balanced our behaviors become as well. And being healthy to me means getting to the point of knowing ourselves solidly well and being able to resolve inner issues inside us.

          In terms of kids I also struggled at first when my son for example came off a little rude to another kid in the playground that was violating his boundary and I told my son to just ignore etc. And it felt wrong to me so I talked to my husband about it and he said that it’s good that our son is standing up for himself. And he explained that kids are learning all the time how to socialize etc. so it’s best to just let them learn on their own and figure it out. So I stopped intervening and just let them be as long as it doesn’t get physical. Although from what I learned, a lot of empath’s difficulties with maintaining boundaries come from how our parents treated us more than what they taught us.

          What I also didn’t like about the comparison with monsters is that some unaware narcissists sometimes get really nasty or abusive at someone and they justify it by saying the other person deserved it. A Karen for example can believe that she is just asserting her boundaries when the truth is she was just asserting control or lashing out because she was wounded. So the word monster bothered me because I think that we should still try to have some control with out behaviors even as we assert our rights and boundaries and not go on full attack to destroy someone.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            MP, what a great explanation and insight. I think you’ve explained it better than Jordan Peterson, at least for me. And I think what you’re saying was probably what he was getting at in his own roundabout way.

            I’ve just remembered when I was a child and playing in a sandpit at our local playground, some kid threw sand at me which got into my hair. My mother had just washed my hair. I went home and when my mother found out she marched me back down to the playground made me pick up a handful of sand and told me to throw it in this kid’s hair! She was p*ssed. I was scared. If I retaliated it might start WWIII. I’m not sure if in the end she relented, and maybe the other kid got the message, but that felt very uncomfortable to me at the time. I did not like to be confrontational. And probably learned in my home that to be confrontational or stand up for yourself was dangerous. It certainly wasn’t accepted or encouraged.

            That might be where the message of the “monster” comes in. I should have stood up to that kid, like your husband is encouraging your son to do. I would have been within my rights. There’s also the element of picking your battles. That kind of discernment probably only comes with maturity and sometimes it is OK, even recommended, to walk away. As we know from our learning here. A Supernova event might bring out the “monster”, but it’s a short term dimming of empathic traits and a rare event when it comes to the narcissist. And not everyone is up for the fight. Much depends on your opponent, but acknowledging the narcissistic side to our nature and utilizing it as necessary (in defense of ourselves or others) is probably a very healthy thing to do. And as you suggest, much of it is also about getting the balance right.

          2. MP says:

            Hello LT, I have a reply but I will not be able to write my thoughts for a few days. I wanted to reply to both of you tonight but I ran out of time. I just don’t want you to think I ignored you. 🌸🦋

          3. lickemtomorrow says:

            No worries, MP. Appreciate your thoughtfulness in responding re: any delay. It’s not necessary as I understand it can take some time to gather thoughts and sometimes just a ‘like’ will suffice 🙂

            Or not … depending on how you are feeling 😉

        3. A Victor says:

          The summer Narc loved him. I had not heard of him prior to that. His drug issues speak to a lot, in my mind.

      2. WiserNow says:

        MP & Lea,

        I agree with what you have said about being a ‘monster’ and also about boundaries.

        On being a monster, it makes me think of lyrics from U2’s song ‘Peace on Earth’:
        “And you become a monster,
        So the monster will not break you”.

        It also makes me think of a storyline in the UK fictional TV series about world war 2 called ‘World on Fire’. In this storyline, a group of Polish civilians worked together to secretly lure German soldiers into a secluded place before shooting and killing them. The Polish civilians were actually pro-social and peaceful people who saw their family and friends killed by the invading German army. They then progressively became desensitised and decided to fight back resulting in them deliberately and coldly murdering young German soldiers.

        There are obvious monsters who lash out visibly with heated fury. They can become angry or violent and it’s obvious. Then there are also the monsters who operate more secretly or coldly. They may be self-aware or very careful about not appearing to be ‘monsters’. On the surface, they appear charming and friendly, however, underneath, they are actually devising their destructive plans. These ‘plans’ can be self-serving or vengeful, like smearing someone or stalking them, etc.

        Becoming a ‘monster’ is quite interesting. There may be times when it’s justified. ‘Fighting back’ is necessary sometimes.

        When it comes to a narcissist, they don’t recognise limits and can’t stop themselves through empathy or conscience. Their motivations are destructive, so some form of limitation to their destructiveness is necessary.

        How these ‘limits’ are exercised can either be by responding as a ‘monster’ or through using practical approaches learned from greater awareness and knowledge. Self-protective boundaries don’t need to be violent or abusive or ‘monstrous’. No contact is one effective approach that asserts limits without being abusive.

        All in all, responding to a ‘monster’ by being a monster results in a reinforcement of the destructive behaviours, which are based on fear, rigid thinking, and a lack of ‘real’ control. It makes the destructiveness even more ‘acceptable’. There are then two monsters instead of one.

        1. MP says:

          Hello WN, very well said, especially the last paragraph.

          Personally I don’t see a person with empathy fighting back as being a monster. My dad, I don’t know if he was an empath, I believe he was as he had a very big heart, killed people during WW2. He was a sniper and one of the medals he got was because he killed a German sniper. He even had a funny story where his best friend since childhood was jealous of my dad’s hole because of the amazing view my dad had. They were the first Mountain X division and they were in the Italian Alps. My dad was trying to kill the German sniper shooting at them and the sniper was inside a small house and my dad was trying to figure out which window he was. So my dad told his best friend to run in zigzag form to his hole. His best friend understood that he was going to be a bait but he wanted to see the view from my dad’s so he did it and the German sniper shot at his best friend repeatedly and that was how my dad killed the sniper and then it became quiet. I told my dad that it was really cool and he got a little sad because he said the sniper was just a kid too. My dad did really well in life after the war but he was very sensitive when it comes to war stories. I remember he always had tears forming in his eyes when he saw soldiers die in the news. I brought Saving Private Ryan with me for us to watch together and he couldn’t watch it. He said he cannot watch war movies. When the war ended they offered my dad a high military position which he declined because he said being in the military is not for him. I cannot in my heart of hearts consider my dad a monster for killing people during the war. I believe that when people with empathy do something bad it is for some necessity such as defending ourselves. There’s sometimes revenge but I doubt that it will be in a degree where we can be considered a monster. My dad had captured a German soldier alive and a letter opener that he used which I now have was actually a knife that he found hidden inside the soldier’s boot. My dad asked one of his men to bring the POW somewhere where they were supposed to be held. Then they heard gun shots and the guy came back and told my dad that the POW tried to escape and kill him so he killed the German POW. My dad had a strong feeling that the POW was murdered but he couldn’t prove it. He was always bothered by it. I think a monster wouldn’t be bothered by that. HG describes a Super Nova as: “ But, if you find that you are exhibiting such traits and you are deploying them against the narcissist, what has happened is that you are allowing your inherent narcissistic traits to have greater prominence. You keep them under control and you are not allowing them to harm or hurt innocent parties, but rather you are applying them against the narcissist in order to strike back.” So I take note that there is still control when a Super Empath has Super Nova and they do not become monsters which in my definition is being unhinged and destructive. I can only relate monsters to people with no empathy which as you have perfectly described as having no limits except maybe for a Mid Ranger and Greater the maintenance of a facade.

          I personally think that it’s best for empaths to stay as authentic to who they are as possible. I don’t think it’s healthy for a rabbit to try to be a predator when it’s body and system was designed to not be a predator. I think that the best way for us to stay safe is to know our enemies and stay away from them. Also to know ourselves very well so if a narcissist tries to redefine us, we know it’s just bullshit.

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

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