#but i didn't know to look into specifically narcissistic abuse just more general emotional abuse and manipulation

[bettycrockercorp]

.

[shrimpmandan]

You can be narcissistic without NPD. Narcissistic abuse is a very specific pattern of abuse. My narcissistic abuser didn't have NPD (BPD actually, and being abused by one person with BPD hasn't stopped me from forming plenty of meaningful friendships with others with personality disorders including BPD and NPD) this is the way my therapist explained it to me. It's about the self centered nature of the abuse, turning everyone else into an accessory for one thing or another.

Say these. These are the words you're looking for. Because even the word "narcissistic" wouldn't be all that accurate to what you're specifically trying to describe:

The reason your abuser w/ BPD showed patterns of "narcissistic abuse" (besides the fact that it's just emotional abuse with an ableist coat of paint) is because BPD and NPD are in the same cluster of disorders and have quite a lot of overlap. This does not mean people with BPD are narcissists. I know this because my mother has BPD and emotionally abused me for around 8 years. Part of this was due to stress, but a lot of it was also the fact that she never resolved her own trauma and all that was lashed out onto me when I wasn't just being emotionally neglected. My biological father was also heavily suspected to have NPD, though we never got confirmation. He was extremely neglectful and saw the entire family unit as proof that he was a "good father/person", rather than actually caring for us, but he ultimately had a similar story of never dealing with his trauma and hiding behind it like a protective shield.

8 fucking years of that shit. MORE than that, actually, the 8 years is just what I actually remember.

All that, and I STILL don't think "narcissistic abuse" is a good term.

The word "narcissist" outside of the context of the disorder (which people WILL conflate with the disorder regardless) is used to describe someone like Narcissisus, who literally fell in love with his reflection so badly that he fucking died. I wouldn't describe any of my abusers as having an. Er. Erotic interest in themselves.

Self-absorption and insecurity can ABSOLUTELY lead to you mistreating others, but that doesn't make it a distinct type of abuse, nor does it justify potentially throwing an entire group of people under the bus. Like it or not, when people hear the word "narcissist", they are most likely going to think of people with NPD because that is where the word is most commonly applied. And the more we shift away from using "narcissist" as a generic insult and begin to treat it with actual weight in a mental health context, the better.

I'm not trying to invalidate your specific experiences, but at the end of the day: anything you can describe "narcissistic abuse" as being is something you can apply the term "emotional abuse" to. There is no reason to go to such lengths justifying a phrase that is redundant at best, harmful at worst, describing a "type" of abuse that's incredibly nebulous and can be done by anyone. In fact! Let me take a look at a wholeass Psychology Today article about "narcissistic abuse" and cross-compare it with an article from the same site about emotional/psychological abuse.

Narcissistic Abuse:

Emotional Abuse:

And from ANOTHER article from the same site:

Yeah. They're the same fucking thing. You were emotionally abused. Trying to stretch it like "oh well it's different because my abuser was Cluster B--" sounds fucking horrendous. Narcissistic abuse is an ableist term that acts as if narcissists (or Cluster Bs in general) have some sort of inherently more evil form of emotional abuse when they... really don't. Anyone can act like this, and it'll hurt the same regardless. All that changes is whether you blame the person or the disorder.

It gets sillier if you try to apply this to other disorders. Borderline abuse. Autistic abuse. Depressed abuse. Anxious abuse. Insecure abuse. See how it sounds when it isn't someone you see as uniquely or inherently more dangerous.

[mischiefmanifold]

Hello. I would like to learn more about something and your post about it is the closest I got to "they seem like someone I can talk to learn more about the topic, calmly, because right now, I am confused." Mainly, it's the post that has: "terms like “narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic/etc abuse” shift blame from the abuser onto the disorder".

This is going to be long, so I appreciate your time reading and the answers you could provide. Hopefully Tumblr ask system if cooperative today.

The thing is, I know about stigma in relation to mental health and abuse. I know how abuse is a choice affected by many factors. However, I didn't know that the use of " X abuse" as a term has that big of a negative impact. The reason why is because in my head, I treat the "X" in the "X abuse" term as a descriptor based on my understanding of English (not my first language). Of which X describes or narrows down something general. Like "blue ball vs rainbow ball" or "technical support vs customer support". So mainly, in my head it's "X abuse" because it has X(when it's a noun)'s traits. X is an adj. "Xpd" where X describes the PD, which all has a link to when X is treated as a noun. And all of those are different things. Linked because of their connection to the noun, but still distinguishably different.

That's how I've always understood the term whenever I've seen it and how I then used it. So my questions are:

1. Is the "X abuse" term then inherently bad because of the connotation it gained, like how "manipulation" as a word has an evil connotation when dictionary/googling the meaning wise, it doesn't have any moral leanings until intent and context are included in the picture/sentence?

2. If it is then inherently bad, what then is the settled word/s to use that isn't bad? Or what do you advice/suggest be the words to use? Where X is being used as a descriptor/adjective or as a way to narrow down the general term that is abuse?

I understand how it could be harmful especially when posts are getting cross tagged and the like. However, from my meager browsing of the tags (I usually stay on the general CPTSD/etc tag), most of the first things I saw were "X abuse is bad and ableist" vs " X abuse is real" and I see both points, and it's just that from my point of view the conflict is a matter of how the X word is used, given meaning, and understood by people. A blurring of the distinctive line between "WHY" it's being used and "HOW" it is being used.

And once more, from my meager tag checking, almost all I am welcomed with is a "black and white: if you use/not use this term, you're enemy/ally." without any direction or educating on how to actually be able to address two (from my understanding) linked but different things without hurting or dismissing the validity and things being explained by both sides.

I don't want to hurt anyone, but I have learned the hard way that I need to be specific when it's about specific matters to avoid being misunderstood, especially being an ESL person.

Again, I appreciate your time reading through this and the answers you could give to clear my confusion.

In regards to your point about how “X abuse” has little negative impact, let me point you to the “narc abuse” community on Instagram (and also on TikTok and Tumblr).

Here are a couple images I found that have tags for both “narcissistic personality disorder” and “narcissistic abuse”:

(I would also like to take a look at the username of this account: narcissistic torture)

1. X abuse, when X is a specific disorder (e.g. “narcissistic abuse” or “anxiety abuse”) is inherently harmful because it takes the blame off of the abusers and it implies that the disorder is the reason someone became an abuser. I like your example with manipulation, and I think it could apply here.

2. Emotional abuse would be the correct term, or just abuse. When emotional abuse and “narcissistic abuse” are compared it is seen that they have the same signs and traits. The term emotional abuse is a specifier of abuse, where you could use abuse on its own but choose to put “emotional” in front of it to specify its meaning.

I hope this makes sense, and if you need me to explain more please feel free to ask!

[villains-with-benefits]

Playing the blame game, and other pointless endeavours

A reflection on BNHA Chapter 291

Before and after: or, How to violently radicalise an abuse victim in five easy steps

I think a lot of the people throwing blame around or trying to declare that one character or another is the One True Villain™ or the One True Victim™ need to stop seeing personal responsibility as a zero sum game, because it really isn't.

Arguing about whether Dabi and Endevour should each have 50% of the blame or if it's more of a 60/40 or 70/30 split (in either direction) is pointless. Endeavour is 100% responsible for his abuse of his family and general failings as a human being, and Dabi is 100% responsible for the lives he's taken and people he's hurt in retaliation because of it.

Sure these two things are absolutely related in that good ol' cause-and-effect sense, much like how an earthquake at sea will cause a tsunami. And much like them neither happened in a vacuum, the surrounding environmental conditions needed to be just right for a perfect storm of this magnitude to occur. It just so happens that in this case both the earthquake (Endeavour) and the tsunami (Dabi) are not faceless forces of nature, but human beings with superpowers who chose to take action based on their deep-set mental and emotional issues at everyone else's expense, either because they think their needs are more important, they think the price paid is worth being the means to the end or (most likely) a combination of the two.

Please note, I don't say this to excuse or condemn either character, the readers who are taking sides, or even Horikoshi's writing. It's pretty well established by now that one of the biggest themes in BNHA is that there is no perfect black and white when it comes to people and society and morality, and just about all the conflict is driven by just how badly their entire system (which is built and determined to die on that hill) messes it up for absolutely everyone on all sides. Saying Dabi is a Bad Victim while Shouto is a Good Victim is just as pointless, because you're missing that the real villain is their broken society, of which everyone is a victim, even Endeavour.

Again, Endeavour was the one to abuse his family and he gets no passes for that so don't even try to argue that's what I'm saying, but he didn't wake up one day and just decide to do it. If Chapter 291 has done anything it's shown how escalation is nine tenths of the law in cases like this. He was already an asshole narcissist with a raging inferiority complex, we've heard from his own POV in an earlier chapter that he purposefully chose Rei to have kids with to eugenics a solution to his problem, he was never an upstanding guy.

While we don't see Endeavour's own upbringing there's a reason he's been such a strong narrative parallel with Bakugou, so we can make an educated guess from what we've seen of his what it must have been like having a powerful Quirk and ambitions being fed by the people around him, and the way Bakugou has clashed with characters like Deku and Shouto when he was confronted with the reality that he wasn't going to get Number One effortlessly, we can guess how well he took realising he was always going to be Number 2.

Pictured: the hero equivalent of always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

At least with Bakugou's rivals they're his own age and acknowledge him as a rival, All Might is at least a decade older than Endeavour and he's always been a loner who didn't get to know his colleagues that well. As readers we know All Might keeps his distance because he's kinda awkward socially, and because between the threat of All For One and maintaining the flawless image of the Symbol of Peace he wasn't ever able to let his guard down or it might risk people's safety. But just like Bakugou assuming Deku was looking down on him, from Endeavour's perspective it probably looked like All Might was looking down on Endeavour too.

Again, not excusing Endeavour. He's an asshole and needs to be held accountable for his actions. But just like Bakugou he didn't spring fully formed from the womb as an asshole, sure he had all the ingredients for it but their society is what decided it was a good idea to put the lime in the coconut and mix it all up, just like he's the one who broke Touya which ultimately led to the creation of Dabi.

Which brings us back to Dabi not just calling out his abusive dad but making a spectacle of it, and while again, yes, he's done a lot of murder and that's not okay either, he is absolutely justified in this. Especially because the part of his reasoning for his actions which isn't just maniacal laughter (also totally valid) is that he's correctly identified, much like Shigaraki, that while specific individuals have hurt them and must pay for it, that the overarching problem is hero society itself.

Shigaraki attacked All Might at first because Sensei said so, but later on because he was the symbol of everything he felt wrong with society, everything he's done has been to attack the pillars of the hero system like All Might and UA. Dabi attacked Endeavour, his abuser, but not just physically attacking him as a man and a father, but by attacking his reputation as the Number One Hero and the new pillar of society.

Pictured: an asshole who's realising that no matter how badly you think you done fucked up, another asshole can always come along and point out just how much worse it actually was than you thought.

Endeavour's sin was always acting as a hero first and a father second, if ever, and even then it was usually still to further his own ego and ambitions, which was tied so tightly to his role as a hero that Endeavour pretty much didn't exist outside of that. So Touya with his healthy sense of dramatic irony is naturally retaliating by treating him as a hero first and a father second, if ever, because that's the standard of behaviour that Endeavour himself set. Before discarding him for the new model he made it clear he wanted his son to be powerful, aggressive, independent, and to take down the Number One Hero without regard for anything else, and that's exactly what Dabi is doing. He's giving Endeavour exactly what he wished for and is making him choke on it.

Just like he said, Touya's making sure Endeavour reaps exactly what he sowed because it proves his point, that if he hadn't been such a violent, toxic narcissist none of this would be happening. His desire to call out his abuser is both personal and justified (regardless of how he's going about it), and it shouldn't be condemned because it has nothing to do with his family. His family, who he was the scapegoat of and who he hasn't seen in probably around a decade, and who are still keeping silent about the abuse even though as far as they know it killed him. I'm not saying he hates the rest of his family like he hates Endeavour (though it probably comes closest with Shouto, there's a lot to unpack there) but it would be a very complicated web of love and grief and resentment and guilt that he'd need a weapons-grade therapist to unravel, which he's clearly never gotten considering this is how he's dealing with the trauma.

tl;dr Touya is a victim just like Shouto, and all the awful things he's done as Dabi don't detract from that, just as his victimhood doesn't excuse his actions either.

In conclusion, you don't have to reconcile or find explanations or excuses for Endeavour's abuse or how any of the other Todorokis have been dealing with it, especially Touya. They are all established facts and exist as objective truth regardless of our feelings on the matter. Instead of making moral judgement on the characters (or the readers who love them/hate them) maybe we all need to stop and think about it critically first, especially when chapters are still incoming and we don't even have the full story yet.

If we can all spend some quality time thinking objectively about all the sides of the story and what lessons we can learn from them, I can guarantee that little things like 'having compassion', 'listening to victims and survivors before they have to resort to domestic terrorism to be heard' and 'learning from the mistakes of the past' will get us all much better results than just sharpening some pitchforks, no matter who they're pointed at.

[bleenks]

you keep on posting things regarding "cluster b abuse" and "npd abuse" and i wanted to let you know theres no special feature about abuse from a narcissist or otherwise cluster b person apart from them being cluster b. they dont use special emotional abuse tactics

Speaking generally, I'm most familiar with narcissistic abuse and somewhat familiar with bpd abuse. I don't actually know much of anything about antisocial or histrionic disorders.

Since people who have narcissism are often characterized by difficulty empathizing and a need to be right about everything, they tend to emotionally abuse others by expecting them to feel, think, and act only in ways the narcissist approves of. Deviating from the narcissist's personal script is a great way to get criticized, invalidated, gaslit, and punished. To some degree, my narcissist abuser didn't even seem to understand that my feelings differed from his. For instance, playing a song he liked, and when I didn't automatically start dancing to it, he gave me a weird look and stated that I had to be actively fighting the urge to dance. Which I wasn't.

People who have bpd are more strongly characterized by fear of abandonment. So the type of abuse you get from that is emotional enmeshment and the toxic expectation that you'll attend to their emotional needs and neglect your own. So basically codependency.

And to clarify: I'm only talking about parental abuse here. In other words: if you, a child, are at the mercy of someone who has narcissism or bpd, and they are NOT fighting against their own personality disorder, these outcomes are about what you can expect. Their personality disorder will affect their relationship with you, and the specifics of the disorder will determine what they'll do to you.

ANYWAY this is all very blah blah blah to you, I'm sure. You're just here to try to contradict my narrative however you can.