Homosexuality A Sin... Because It's In The Bible

Let's talk about "sin" for a moment. 
The Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with very specific examples of what is considered "Sin". So if we are going to call one of those a "serious sin", and take it literally, then it would be actually a sin of Blasphemy not to take ALL of them literally.

James 2:10 

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

Let's start with this one, for example:

Deuteronomy 22:25
But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim.

Man rapes woman, he must DIE. That's what it says. 


1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Sexual immorality means sexual immorality, there's not one that's "more okay".
You don't get to PICK THE ONES YOU WANT to be either "okay" or "not okay", if you're using the Bible to condemn OTHER people, and to rationalize and excuse your own behavior.

And since we're being literal, MOST of the Bible books are written in male point of view, BY males, FOR males, as if the only "real" humans WERE males, so when it specifies women, it only means women, and when it specifies men, it only means men, like in the above Cor. passage. There is no condemnation of female homosexuality in the Bible, and most of the instructions about sin and behavior were directed specifically AT MEN, not at women. So keep on taking it all literally... and watch out for those CONTRADICTIONS... you can't exactly Honor Thy Mother (or any other of God's children) if you're going to judge her, condemn her, or stone her to death, can you?

If you are going to use the Bible for an excuse to condemn people, then the first person you need to examine is yourself, because being Christian is about SELF-REFLECTION, Humility (the genuine kind, not the stage act), and controlling one's OWN BEHAVIOR and sinful tendencies. We need ALL OF OUR TIME AND ATTENTION FOR THIS if we're actually DOING IT, we wouldn't have the time (or the right) to stare at and scrutinize everything someone else does, or place judgement or condemnation on them.
(Pretty sure the other religions that follow the Bible or the God of Abraham are ALSO about SELF-REFLECTION, SELF-control and SELF-education, not about condemning others as well, but I can't speak from a personal point of view about it.) 

And to "haters" of Christianity and Christians, shove it far, and shove it wide, my incredibly hypocritical pal, if you are one of those who CONDEMN and JUDGE Christians and Christianity... because you think Christianity is about CONDEMNING and JUDGING other people... YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T "GET IT" EITHER, and you don't get that you're a hypocrite, so why are you even HERE? Go pound.


So, anyway, let's briefly review some things if we're going to use the Bible to judge, condemn, or control other people, either who are OUTSIDE or WITHIN the church :

~If you EVER had sex outside of marriage, ANY kind of sex, you committed sexual immorality. 

~If you desired/ LUSTED AFTER a person outside of your marriage, you committed sexual immorality. And yes, that includes any person on the street, in a magazine, on tv, at your work, on your computer, in your neighborhood... ANY person.

~If you ever lusted after a person in your family, blood related OR NOT, you done REALLY screwed up... there's a WHOLE LOT about that. (as it should be... gross...)

~If you "explored" different kinds of sexual acts, you committed serious sexual immorality.

~If you watched Porn, hard OR soft, you committed sexual immorality.

~If you ever cheated on anyone, that's called "adultery", and you are an ADULTERER.

~If you ever cheated WITH anyone on THEIR sig. other, you are an ADULTERER.
Jude 7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Here's a SIN that no one seems to pay attention to, but if you "get" anything at all about humility, Christianity, personality disorders, and just generally not being a JERK:


If you COVET others, sexually or otherwise, you are committing  serious sin, breaking a commandment. "Covet" means "ENVY".
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

So if you don't like the pretty girl at work, or on TV, or at Church, or at school, not because she actually did something terrible to you, but because you think she gets more attention because she's pretty, then you are ENVIOUS, and that's one of the more serious sins, because envy is at the root of a good percentage of a lot of the other sins.
(That's just common sense psychology, never mind religion. Envy is the most common motivator behind bullying, sabotage, gossip, and cruel agendas).

If you think your brother or sister gets paid "too much", or gets too much credit or recognition, or YOU think that HE/SHE thinks that he or she is "all that" because he or she is "smart", "talented", or successful, then you are ENVIOUS.

If you think YOU DESERVE your neighbor's cool car more than he does, then you are not only COVETING and ENVIOUS, but you are ALSO HAUGHTY.

If you think YOU DESERVE more attention, recognition, or love than one of your relatives or friends, then you are COVETOUS, resentful, and hateful.

If you ever caused another person to suffer in any way, you DEFINITELY committed a serious sin.
If you have DISRESPECTED your MOTHER or your FATHER, you have broken a commandment and committed a serious sin.

If you have "sold out" by doing anything for the sake of obtaining MONEY, you have committed a serious sin.

James 2:10 

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

And...

Matthew 7:1-5 

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Romans 2:3 

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

James 4:11-12 

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

If you're going to take one thing literally, and condemn another for it, then you'd better be prepared to take ALL of them literally, and pay your own price.

But really, the bottom line is this:

Romans 13:8-10 

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

blog.thenarcissistinyourlife.com: Narcissistic Therapists Cause Psychological Harm t...

blog.thenarcissistinyourlife.com: Narcissistic Therapists Cause Psychological Harm t...: There are many highly qualified therapists who have fine clinical training and are excellent working with clients and helping them to heal. ...

Immune To Mental Illness

If a person is a Human and has a Human brain, then they are susceptible to "mental illness", like having a physical body means they are susceptible to illness and injury in general.
The brain is an organ of the body, and it's by far the most complex, and extremely delicate, and completely attached to the rest of the body and blood supply, just like every other organ. Any organ of the human body can become "ill" or be affected by all kinds of factors.
Human beings seem to have no problem accepting that any of their OTHER organs are delicate and susceptible to illness, but when it comes to the main one inside of their skull, most people desperately want to believe that THEIRS is different than everyone else's (and different from all their other organs) and therefore immune to any kind of pollution, injury, illness, or malfunction. 

(If a person's brain is made of silicon or play doh, then they are not susceptible to mental illness.)



Play Doh ROCKS!!!

NEWSFLASH: BABY BOYS, NOT BORN SEXIST

"Our beliefs about men have been twisted to where we actually lay this shit on our little boys.

"YUP, THANK YOU Cici Cummins! (Click anywhere to read Cici's article)

On a personal note, I find it very disturbing that more MALES tend to refute that "boys are not born sexist" than females; it seems that there are more males who WANT IT TO BE TRUE that
"males just can't help being bigots" because of their... testosterone levels?!? 

WHY would you WANT to be FORCED into naturally being trapped by BIAS, unable to escape, because of your biology?

That would imply that males are UNABLE to THINK objectively, to make logical decisions and choices, and therefore are the LAST people who should be "in charge" of anything at all, or even allowed to handle certain equipment (like cars, or kitchen utensils).

So, WHY are SO MANY MALES more likely to argue when someone says that boy babies are not born with bigotry?

Let's ponder that for a while, shall we?

The Difference Between Sexism And Racism

The difference between racism and sexism is the different list of excuses used to justify each bigotry.

They are essentially the same; a desperate desire to hide one's own fear of having weaknesses and flaws, and therefore trying to project those things onto others.

Separating humans into groups based on their physical bodies is a way to fantasize that all those of this one race, or this one color, or this one sex, or this one anything, all have specific weaknesses and failings, and all members of this other group (race, sex, age, ancestry, height, hair color, "class", etc.) all share certain strengths and assets.  

The difference between bigotry and actual oppression is the degree of belief in a certain bias in a given group or region. HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT, PERPETUATE IT, or GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE OF ANXIETY OR FEAR? So in a country where there is oppression, then obviously one group will have power and another will be kept from obtaining power, resources, and positive reputation, and enough individuals will go along with that being "THE WAY THINGS ARE", either because they LIKE IT, or because they're AFRAID.



ONE OF THE BELIEFS THAT CONTROLLERS TRY TO CONVINCE OTHERS OF IS THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN GROUP SHARE THE SAME PREJUDICE AND BIGOTRY.
Believing that all members of an entire group are against you increases the fear and feeling of powerlessness, causes a person to stop seeing other people as "good" or "neutral", and increases the "hatred" factor.


THIS IS PART OF THE OPPRESSION PROCESS:  SPREAD FEAR AND PREJUDICE SO THAT ONE MAY MORE EASILY DIVIDE AND CONQUER.


It's simply not true; if all males were "anti-female", then wherever there are males in "power", there would be no females who have rights; no males would even entertain the notion, never mind vote in favor of it.







If all females were "anti-male", then there would be no females who CARE ABOUT,
or CARE FOR,
male infants, male children, male adolescents, or adult men.

If all "Whites" were anti-"Black", then wherever there are "Whites", there would be no "Blacks" who are treated like human beings, and if all "Blacks" were anti-"White", then wherever there are "Blacks", there would be no "Whites" who are treated like human beings, etc.





HUMANS WHO SEEK EXCUSES TO TREAT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS BADLY OFTEN USE RACE AND ANCESTRY AS AN EXCUSE, AND TRY TO RALLY OTHERS TO HATE AGAINST THAT GROUP.

(It is important to note that in earlier eras in Western culture (and in this current era in many other countries) speaking out against racism, sexism, or slavery meant knowingly putting one's very livelihood and physical life on the line, and people did it (and do it now) ANYWAY. Because it's the right thing, because it's right, because it's a horrific thing to stand there and watch another person get treated horribly by another person, to stand there and allow it.)



The reasons that OPPRESSION is perpetuated are NOT SOLELY because the group IN POWER believes in their own superiority. Oppression is maintained and perpetuated because OTHERS in the country, including many members of the oppressed group, ALSO buy into that group's "superiority" and power. 

In a very simplified analogy, but one that can be witnessed in many places, when adults BUY INTO the children in the school or region being "too hard to control", they end up ALLOWING those children to "take over" and run around behaving any way they can get away with behaving. Without the belief that the children have power, the adults would not have given the power up. This is a REAL and RAMPANT occurrence in modern society, and has happened over and over again throughout history. When a group of humans who are obsessed with domination over others GET TOGETHER and SCARE other groups into allowing them to dominate them, they are QUITE OFTEN successful. USUALLY, these groups will have some physical trait in common, such as skin color, ancestry, or gender, but often also AGE, one trait that seems to get overlooked.

It is quite true, that "Oppressors" have and DO, throughout human history, often gone as far as one can go with the use of violence and imprisonment against those they are trying to oppress.
However, in nearly every case, the success of their oppression lays in their ability to make people BELIEVE in both FEAR and HATRED.
    

The general myth in that region or country that many people there have bought into either subconsciously, or consciously, is that the group who holds power actually IS superior in some way.
Even if they don't believe that the group is innately superior, such as in intelligence, they can still believe that the individuals in the group are superior in force and strength. And that will keep enough people fearful enough to take the supposedly superior group so seriously that they don't think there's anything they can do, so it's not uncommon for various oppressed groups to caution:  "don't rock the boat; it will only get you hurt"; and they will often prevent others from doing anything as well, including even TALKING ABOUT oppression.)

"Don't Rock The Boat"
A favorite saying of both oppressors and those who fear oppressors.

When a person believes that another person is superior to them, they tend not to challenge the person.
When a person believes in the superiority of one TYPE of person, they tend to treat those who are NOT that type of person as "inferior".

It can look much like treating one person as a PARENTAL figure, and another person as "one of the children".

The most common oppression in the human species is obviously against females.
(Which is NOT the same as all males having or wanting superior power.)
This power struggle and projection of superiority and inferiority based on SEX can be found in almost every country, nearly every culture, every race, in most religions, and in government, business, and education.
It crosses ALL "divides". 

HOWEVER, the oppression against females DOES NOT MEAN that MALES are not ALSO oppressed, based on their sex. Males are ABSOLUTELY oppressed and controlled, just because they are MALES. They are most frequently oppressed by OTHER MALES who sit in positions of "power" and who are invested in KEEPING their "power".

Female oppression could not be so widespread if it was not for so many females buying the belief that males actually are superior. Many females will go along with this belief either unconsciously, because that's just what they were taught, how they were raised, and how they were indoctrinated, or with full awareness. Getting "ganged up on" or rejected by those around them who are supposed to be friends, family, and fellow citizens is the most common reason for women backing down from standing up for themselves or for other females; the consequences are often immediate, and can be very serious, even in relatively wealthy cultures in the West that pose as "moral", "equal", or "enlightened". This behavior coming from others starts early during childhood, and increases as a female child looks and sounds more and more like a "woman" as she gets older.

Many of the females who consciously go along with it are simply doing it so that they can have power over OTHER FEMALES, and use the existing dynamics of a male-biased culture to perpetuate this CONTROL.
Infantalizing other females is one of the common behaviors of women who seek control over women; treating other females as if they are less capable than males, or less capable than other women; treating other females as if they are weak, silly, unstable, inexperienced, uninformed, and undeserving of the same courtesy and respect given to other human beings (male or female) of the same age.

Women who do this will condescend to other females in similar ways that men will who are male-biased: talking "down" to other females whom they've targeted, trying to "prove" that another female is of bad character, or is incapable, weak, or stupid, and trying to render the other females' point of view as unqualified, crazy, or unfounded. 

Obviously, MEN who also seek control over females are not going to stick up for a female who is being bullied by another female, because he has a similar motive and agenda.
So women who do this to other females (both children and adult females) usually feel safe in this behavior from consequences.

*Sadly, many women who use the dynamics of a male-biased culture to bully other females actually believe that because they are participating in the bullying of females, that they are accepted by the men around them as "one of they guys".  There is a gap in their "logic"; they think that by performing the same behaviors and prejudice patterns, that they're creating their own membership in the "superior" group, in this case, anti-female-biased males, and are therefore fully accepted by them.

They don't seem to realize that anti-female-bias applies to ALL females, not just certain females.

This same kind of behavior (if you can't beat em, join em) can be seen in all manner of other forms of oppression as well, including racial and religions group oppression.

There is a term in American culture, more specifically in African-American culture, that refers to a person who purposely behaved in ways to win approval from oppressive Caucasians ("whites") from a novel of the same name by Harriet Beecher Stowe.

~("The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly.
The popular negative connotation of "Uncle Tom" has largely been attributed to numerous derivative works inspired by Uncle Tom's Cabin in the decade after its release, rather than the original novel itself, whose title character is a more positive figure.These works lampooned and distorted the portrayal of Uncle Tom with politically loaded.American copyright law before 1856 did not give novel authors any control over derivative stage adaptations, so Stowe neither approved the adaptations nor profited from them.")

>>>If ONLY males believed in male superiority, there would be either much, much less oppression of females, or it would look much different than it does today.
Believing in the superiority of a group can mean actually believing that the members of the group are innately superior, OR, one can believe that they are TOO FORMIDABLE as a group, and as individuals, to risk offending.

Females can be (and are) taught to believe in male superiority, just like male children can be. They may also FEAR standing up for themselves, but that fear is learned, it's not automatic.
~If a given group, a region or a country, was biased for females and against males, then male children would be taught to believe in female superiority in the same way, for the same reasons: keeping the status quo, making sure that those who have power keep it.
People learn that they are a member of an oppressed group when they stand up for themselves against even just a random, seemingly trivial injustice or unfairness, but get invalidated, ignored, shut down, or further threatened or bullied by members of their own group.
Members of the supposedly "superior" group of course may try to shut them down, but it's when members of their OWN group shut them down or refuse to stand up with them or for them that "Oppression" reveals itself.



It is no different in regions that one race or ancestry keeps others oppressed, or in regions where one race or ancestry is oppressed by all of the others.



In order to understand oppression, one must understand that sexism and racism are TOOLS that oppressors use in order to get others to GO ALONG WITH THEM in their plays for power. 

A PERSON WHO OPPRESS ANOTHER RACE DOES NOT ACTUALLY WANT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN RACE TO HAVE POWER AND CONTROL, THEY JUST WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.

A PERSON WHO OPPRESSES THE OTHER SEX DOES NOT ACTUALLY WANT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SEX TO HAVE POWER AND CONTROL, THEY JUST WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.



Humans also use religion (and anti-religion) as an excuse for supremacy and oppression of others.All oppression comes from the same origin.

Control-seeking humans will ALSO USE the oppression or past oppression of their own group as a weapon to try to control other people, both people of their OWN group, and people of other groups (race, sex, religion, etc.)
Projecting SHAME onto others for the oppressive actions of others of the same race, sex, age group, or ancestry is a common tactic,
as well as projecting SHAME onto those of their own race, sex, or group who refuse to go along with HATRED or attempts to "oppress BACK".


HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

If an individual person is seeking "evidence" to show that one group is superior, or that another group is inferior, they will do that WHEREVER they are, and WHOEVER is around them.
So for example if Jason (who seeks to feel naturally superior) lives in New York, he would be surrounded by nearly every type of human being that can be found on the planet. Jason can simply pick any "type" of human being to label as "inferior".
So while Jason is living in NYC, he chooses a couple of groups to be "inferior": women of all races, and anyone of Asian or blond-haired ancestry. There are women of all races all around him, and there are also both male and female Asians and blond-haired people all around him, all the time. He can get his fix of feeling superior just by walking out of his front door.

But when Jason moves out of NYC to a smaller town in a Northern state, there are no Asians there. So now Jason changes his bias to being against Hispanics, because there are a few Mexican families there, and still blond-haired people and women of all races.

When Jason moves to a different country, he finds that there are no blond-haired people, and all of the people have dark skin, like himself. So Jason can still get his "fix" of belief in his own superiority from being around women, but his ancestry bias doesn't work so well.

However, Jason finds that he is able to break down people into sub-groups INSIDE of this group of "dark-skinned" people, and finds satisfaction for his desire for supremacy that way.
So those who are of one certain ancestry within this group are supposed to be "superior", and this other group is "inferior".

Jason finds that there are others like him in the group who use things like shades of skin color, subtle differences in speech, and exactly what part of town a person lives in to separate people into sub-groups and cast "inferiority" on them.
Jason also finds satisfaction in separating people within this group of people by specific beliefs, and by the possible financial status of a person's family.
(Jason thinks he knows how much money other people have by the way they look and act.)
When Jason's JOB causes him to have to move to a compound where there are ONLY men, who all receive similar pay, AND who are all of the same ancestry, at first he feels VERY insecure; there are no people who he can point his finger at and call "OTHER", so he doesn't know how to get his "fix" of superiority.
Worse still for Jason's supremacy addiction, he is not the most skilled nor the most experienced, so he can't use either of those; he's starting to fear that he won't be able to get his fix.
 
Eventually, he finds that most of the people there who are like himself (seeking ways to feel superior) tend to bad-mouth the business-hierarchy in his company. 

After a while, bad-mouthing the "higher-ups" wears thin, especially since they rarely come around and show their faces, so Jason starts separating the other men in his work-group into even smaller sub-categories. 

First, Jason notices that a couple of his co-worker men have different hair styles, so that's the first thing he tries to use to separate his co-workers into sub-groups that are either superior (like him) or inferior (not like him).
Then he notices that some of the men are shorter in height than he is, so he starts trying to insult their stature. He implies that they're not as capable as he is, that they're weaker than he is, and that they're emotionally or mentally less stable and secure (ironically).
When that doesn't work well enough to give him the "fix" he craves, he starts honing in the weight and body types of his male co-workers. He singles out the couple of men who are a little heavier around the mid-section, making fun of their weight, implying that they're in poorer health, and that they have weaker self-control.
Then Jason notices that there are a couple of men who have slender builds, so he starts making subtle and not-so-subtle remarks insulting their bodies, implying that they're "breakable" like "twigs", and not as strong as everyone else. 

Jason tries to get others to join with him whenever he targets someone to project inferiority onto.

After a while, he notices that there are others in the group who already have separated the men by subtle political differences, and he jumps on that bandwagon, although he doesn't actually care one way or the other about those political beliefs.

When the group has become divided enough for there to be two DISTINCT sub-groups, based on "political beliefs", then Jason starts to separate the men inside of these groups, and make "his" sub-group the "superior" one.

Jason will continue to create excuses to split others into groups, and sub-groups, and sub-categories, and sub-sub-groups, as long as he lives, because he does not realize that he
DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A VALID HUMAN BEING unless he feels like he is a member of a "superior" group. And he will use anything he can in order to get that "fix" that he craves.

Jason associates being "superior" with having power and control over the group, over RESOURCES, and over decision-making.
Jason feels that if he's not one of the "superior" people, then someone else WILL BE, automatically. Because this is how JASON thinks, he assumes that everyone else thinks the same way, and that therefore everyone else is competing for superiority, control, and power.

Whatever group, sub-group, or sub-category Jason decides he belongs to, that's the group he sees as "deserving power" and "deserving credit" because they are "superior" in so many ways.

Narcissistic Parents

"You used to think that by the time you were in your twenties and definitely by your thirties you’d have your act together – you’d be establishing a successful career, have your own place, be in a committed and stable relationship, visit the gym enough to have the body you always wanted and your social life would be vibrant.

But, you’re nowhere near where you thought you’d be, and the tiny boxes next to the list of achievements that you’d hoped to accomplish are still unchecked.
As your confidence deflates, you look back on your own upbringing, and think about your father – Mr Self-Assured. He seemed to have it all – charm, success, popularity and he never seemed to be plagued by self-doubt, unlike you. He was the... 

(Narcissistic Fathers: Mark Banschick, M.D.)

The Narcissistic Parent :Light's House

When Mothers and Daughters Compete: Narcissist Mothers

The Repetition of Trauma with Narcissistic Spouse/PartnerSo often those who are married to narcissistic spouses or who have narcissistic partners are repeating an abusive cycle of behavior that they experienced in childhood and beyond. They move from the traumatic home where they were continually in a psychological state of siege to marriage to a narcissistic partner who always has them in a state of apprehension and in some cases–all out terror. Each moment they know that their narcissistic partner might come unglued and go into a violent vituperative rage. They know it will happen–the question is When? The narcissistic spouse is predictably unpredictable.

Psychiatry? Psychology? Or Blowing Smoke On Occam's Razor?

Let us ask, in the name of science and Occam's Razor, why it seems so much easier for humans to diagnose behavioral and apparent emotional or mental issues in ANIMALS, but they make it such a mysterious and "highly intellectual and academic" process in diagnosing human beings?

When someone's pet dog barks and howls when the owner leaves them alone, no one questions a trainer or a veterinarian when they simply say "the dog is obviously anxious because it was left alone; dogs are pack animals, so being left alone in a confined area, and being separated from their owner can of course cause them to become upset and anxious... etc.. The dog is a social animal. The dog naturally wants companionship and leadership. The dog naturally does not want to be separated from its owner/pack leader. Therefore the dog is anxious. ALSO, the dog becomes more anxious because of certain noises in the area.
In order to HELP THE DOG FEEL BETTER, simply do this..." (whatever they prescribe).

So, why exactly does a human child who is also a "social animal", who cries when Mother and Father leave her with someone else in an unfamiliar or scary environment get weird speculations about some kind of "emotional illness" slapped on her?
It's not the fact that she's getting left in an unfamiliar, foreign environment, or that human children naturally want to be with their parents, or that human children have natural boundaries that prevent them from simply trusting any stranger or acquaintance. Nor could "excessive crying" possibly be an effect of something else that may have happened to the child either in the past or recently... right?
(But if we think something did happen, we'll immediately blame the mother OR father first...) 

Apparently, the DOG is "legitimately anxious" because of nature and external situations, events, and factors, but the HUMAN is just CRAZY, or has some kind of inner DEFECT when SHE is anxious. It's not because of anything, it's just HER... she's just "screwed up". Or, her mother is "screwed up..." It can't be anything else that we might have to find out about.

And further, if anyone connected to the child wants to share information with us about the child's life, or about that environment, we'll treat them like they're acting strange, even histrionic or codependent, or BPD...
 
The capacity for DENIAL in humans, ABOUT other humans, is absolutely MIND BLOWING, both in and out of psychiatric, medical, and social fields.

This is not an article to demonize every person who works in these fields. There are plenty of individuals who are competent and objectively scientific, and who actually respect and care about other human beings, both male and female, young and old. But in general, these fields don't seem to care much about gathering FACTS and actual INFORMATION. They tend to be quite used to getting away with "practicing" on pure speculation and assumption, and JUDGMENT and BIAS, and not a little arrogance.

If you want to find out for yourself, set yourself up as a patient in a psychiatric hospital and see what happens. You're "sane" and of sound mind, right? So what do you have to worry about...?
Surely the staff will recognize you right away as "one of them", one of the "sane people", and not try to diagnose or medicate you ..... right...?   

So, the cat at the shelter who HISSES at everyone that comes in is simply defensive because of what he's been through. You can't get near him, you have to be careful when you feed and water him, he doesn't seem to like other cats, he tries to bite and scratch, the veterinarian has to sedate him, but you can "understand why he's like that because of what he's been through"..! Right? Sure. Someone abused him at some point. He was living in an abandoned barn because someone abandoned him. All of his behaviors are completely understandable, and they're OBVIOUSLY from what he's BEEN THROUGH, what he's ENDURED, the POOR CAT, let's give him all the CARE and UNDERSTANDING we can muster.
RIGHT?

YES, in my personal opinion, YES, that's what should be going on, absolutely. The poor cat, he deserves to be understood and given CARE, and treated with RESPECT, especially given what he's endured.

So... how does that go again when a HUMAN walks into a doctor's or psychiatrist's office? Or the average counselor's office? Does anyone take that human's entire history seriously? And connect that human's current apparent emotional effects, affect, reactions and behaviors with that human's actual life events, either in the distant or recent past? Either or both, or is it just BARELY acknowledged, and REALLY, we treat this human as if they dropped out of the sky with all these "issues"? Like they were just born this way, and they would have been the SAME if they were raised in Atlantis by the Utopian royal family?

So the CAT'S behavior is because of what it's been through, not because he was just BORN "mean".
But the HUMAN's behavior and emotional profile is just "because", umm... that's "how she is"... she's just some kind of nutjob with a defective brain.
Yeah... that's it... so break out that prescription pad and give her something to affect her brain, and SEND HER ON HER WAY, get her OUT of our hair, and collect that paycheck.
In the meantime, let's make sure that poor cat is comfortable, protected, fed, and taken care of.

"Science" even fully recognizes the effects of the SOCIAL CLIMATE on the emotional and mental well-being of all other animals, and on their behavior, but apparently NOT on the animal called "human".

When an animal in a group seems to behave differently or oddly, the humans observing them IMMEDIATELY jump to finding out WHY, and they look to only a few factors:

The way the OTHER animals in the group are TREATING it,
the environment itself (food, water, terrain, weather, predators, etc)
physical disease that's affecting the animal's health and nervous system. 

They don't just single out the animal and call it "mentally ill"!
They actually LOOK at what's going on, and what has happened in the animal's life.
And they do that FIRST, and in a thorough manner until they find out what's going on,  not as an afterthought..

So... why exactly DON'T medical, psychiatric, or psychology "professionals" do that when it comes to HUMANS who behave "differently" or who are "more emotional" or "more reactive", or "can't get along well with others", or who don't seem to be interested in school or work, etc,, etc.

There is no good reason. Occam's razor is about looking at the most obvious factors about something FIRST. That means NOT making things more mysterious than they really are, not introducing all kinds of theories when the factors are right in front of you.

If a child is cutting themselves, I would bet TEN TO ONE that the child has been traumatized or abused in some way by another human being in their personal life. Direct abuse, neglect, or witnessing the abuse of a loved one is a safe bet. These are ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, the child wasn't born as a "cutter".
So treating the child as if they're simply "defective", and not dealing with trauma and external events is frankly just sick, and it's very irresponsible.
Medicate the CHILD and act like there's nothing else going on in the child's life, and that the child is just making things up? Is that any way to treat another human being? Is that how anyone would want to be treated by others, especially professionals who are supposed to be there to protect and help?

Let's give the person who comes in with social anxiety a diagnosis of a disorder, and throw some pills at them, and invalidate everything they say about what's really going on in their families or at their job.

Let's ignore the person's claims of childhood abuse when they show signs of depression or suicide, and keep telling them to focus on themselves instead of other people... and throw some pills at them and tell them to go home.


Let's deny the next patient's obvious need to tell their story and be heard and validated by a supposedly NEUTRAL human being ,who they're PAYING, treat them like they're not that bright, definitely not as bright as WE ARE, and throw some medication at them.

WOW.
So when HUMANS have issues, it's not from anything they've been through, lived through, the household they grew up in, the people in their lives NOW, the atmosphere of social interaction in their community, OR from events in their lives that would be traumatic or upsetting for anyone... Nope, it's just because they're DEFECTIVE, and need to be medicated.

And if they're DEFECTIVE, let's NOT EXPLORE anything MEDICAL!

RIGHT?

It's much more fun, and lucrative, to call it "psychiatric", and AVOID doing any neurological testing or exploration.
I mean, never mind about all that trauma or social dynamic stuff... that's just for every OTHER species on the planet.  That doesn't have a WALLET.

Narcissists Do Not Make Natural Bonds

One of the things that can be difficult to grasp about "Narcissism" is that people who have it do not make "natural bonds" with others, and then consciously keep and protect those bonds like non-narcissists do. Their family members are just people who happen to be family members, and they either "like" and therefore favor an individual, giving them extra attention, praise, and resources, or they "don't like" them and will treat them accordingly; either with indifference, or as a target/scapegoat.

A person who has Narcissism does not refrain from darkly envying a family member who they see as getting more attention than themselves, or having something they don't have, or being attractive or talented. They will show the same kind of cold envy and jealousy toward a family member that can be seen in some children toward classmates and peers.
They will throw a family member "under the bus" just as easily as they would a business rival, for perceived social or material gain, and to deflect accountability.They will willingly step back when a family member is slandered, manipulated, conned, or even abused if stepping back seems better for themselves, or if they envy that family member, OR if the person who attacked the family member is on their list of either favored or useful people. They generally don't like to stand up for those who are targeted by others, because they fear being targeted by the attacker, they don't want to "risk their reputation", and because they don't want to help expose the dynamics in the game of manipulation, since they are a player.

Because they don't feel the connected bond between themselves and other family members that many people feel, they don't feel automatic kindredness toward family members, except for a chosen favored few (or only one, or sometimes none, however "none" may be something other than Narcissism.)   They don't feel "familial" empathy, pride, confidence in, or the desire to protect all of the other members in their family.
This lack of kindred connection with other members is the same for any kind of group that they are a part of. They will often USE being a member of a group as a badge of status, but that's completely separate from their connections with the actual members of the group.

Family members are seen as just "other people" in their lives who happen to be connected to them, and ONLY those the Narcissist favors will receive what most consider to be something like "normal" treatment toward family, such as empathy, respect, care giving, sympathy, shared activities, guidance, assistance, validation, encouragement, support, understanding, and PROTECTION from danger or disrespect from either the outside world OR from inside the family. This favoring or disfavoring does include the person's children, and it includes any and ALL family members.
A scapegoated person will not only receive LESS of these "normal"-family-interaction things than everyone else, but will also be singled out to receive more abuse, more neglect, less or no resources or assistance, and less or no protection, and often direct sabotage.


In real life examples, a favored person in the same family may be given a brand new pair of skis with boots, helmet, poles, and padding for Christmas, and the scapegoated person may receive a pair of cheap gloves, maybe a scarf, and perhaps a candy bar. Resources and displays of approval and adoration are denied and  taken away from the scapegoat, and extra are given to the favored person. The favored person will be given the biggest piece of steak, the special piece of poultry, their favorite dish on a regular basis, and the scapegoated person will be given the smallest piece of steak (or none), and criticized for their food preferences.
If the favored person shovels snow, they'll be spoken of kindly and praised by the Narcissist and others, but if the scapegoated person shovels snow, they'll be criticized, corrected, and made fun of; and that precedent carries over to any task or accomplishment.

If the favored person starts a business, they'll be praised and held up as a "go-getter", and most likely given assistance in various ways, and promoted in the community. If the scapegoated person starts the same exact business, or a different one, they'll be ignored, or criticized, demeaned, or made fun of; they will receive little if any assistance, and any "promotion" they receive will be watered down or sabotaged with negative innuendos, something like "that's my sister's pizza joint~ if you go there, tell her I sent you, but don't blame me if the pizza sucks."

A scapegoated person is often expected to SERVE a favored person, even if they are PEERS (the same age, or siblings or cousins).

The favored person may be helped in buying a car when they're 16; the scapegoated person may not be allowed to even get their license until they move out.
The favored person may have college paid for, or mostly paid for, the scapegoated person may be told that there are NO funds for their college, even if there are.
The favored person may be taken to the hospital when their fever goes past 100, the scapegoated person may be ignored or told to stop complaining or go to sleep when theirs spikes to 104 or higher. The favored person may get a shoulder to cry on for any and every bump, bruise, and mistake, but the scapegoated person will be CHASTISED, scolded, and judged negatively for anything at all that they're upset about, no matter how terrible the event, even if it was something as serious as a physical assault on them, or an illness or injury.

When a favored person tells their account of an event, they are listened to and usually believed even if they're lying to get out of something they've done. When a scapegoated person tells their account of an event, or talks about anything at all, really, they'll automatically be argued with, countered, ignored, invalidated, or accused of lying.
If a favored person were to say that a terrible storm is coming, everyone would be expected to believe them, in the same way that the Narcissist would expect to be believed. But if the scapegoated person says that a small storm is coming, or even that it's raining outside RIGHT NOW, they will FIRST be doubted and argued with, before anyone even looks outside to see if it's true.

(The relationship between a favored person and a scapegoated person can vary widely, depending on both of their levels of awareness, and their own bonding abilities. But typically, Narcissists would rather the favored person did NOT bond with the scapegoated person, and will often try to prevent or destroy such bonding.)
The seriousness of favoritism and scapegoating is a very big deal; in many cultures, and even in the "West", being the favored person or the scapegoated person in a family or community can mean the difference between wealth or extreme poverty, or even living and dying. 

(It's important to note that a favored person, especially if the person is a child, is not necessarily being done any GOOD by the favored treatment, and it's not always as "favored" as it seems. The term "Golden Child" is used to describe a Narcissistic parents' favored child, and they usually end up having serious problems in their own lives as well that may be very hard to heal; and worse, very hard for the person to even figure out where the problems came from or what they really are. They may say things like "well I was never abused" or "my childhood was fine", so they don't even try to investigate there for origins of their issues.)

Outside of the family, the Narcissist still sees people as just "other people" who happen to go to their place of worship, or who work at their place of business, or live in their neighborhood or town, or who go to their school or have the same interests. They see potential or current romantic interests in the same way, including their spouse. They don't see the people in their church, school, business, or neighborhood, as all being members of a collective "WE".
They PICK and CHOOSE only specific individuals to associate themselves with for purposes of personal gain, either social or material, or both, and the rest of the people are just random people to them who they either FAVOR, DISFAVOR, or are INDIFFERENT toward.
"Indifferent" meaning treating others as if they're not really there, like they're shadow puppets who don't have real lives and who don't really "matter".

Narcissists only really take NOTICE of individual people who they see as a potential GAIN for themselves in some way, or a potential "THREAT" to their gain, or to their current "status".As an example of that: Jake the Narcissist is a member of the local Mason lodge; the only other members he associates with or knows anything about are the ones who have higher "ranking", and who are wealthy or have "important" titles in the community, AND the ones who he feels threatened by due to their good looks, pleasant personality, or apparent talent or ability. He doesn't know or remember much at all, or care to know much at all, about any of the other members, even though there are only 18 of them. He only accepts invitations to events and parties from those who he thinks he can gain from, and simply ignores the rest. He only attends ceremonies that he absolutely has to, or that he thinks will help him gain status and favor from certain individuals, or raise his "status" in the lodge or the community.
He goes along with the "status quo" all the time, and never stands up against negative or unfair treatment toward another member, UNLESS standing up against unfair treatment IS what the "crowd" is doing, and therefore will gain him "points".

Many have said that it may be better to be a person who a Narcissist sees as a "nothing" than to be a scapegoat target, but one can't actually control that and live a real or normal life. Narcissists always notice those who seem confident, skilled, brave, smart, attractive,  talented, or warm and caring, and they will either adulate them and try to associate themselves with them, or they will compete with them, and often try to diminish or knock them down somehow. But that's "what they do", like the Scorpion and the Frog fable; we do what WE do, and avoid their sting and protect ourselves as much as we can. Frogs are naturally fantastic swimmers, and they should not stop swimming just because there are scorpions around. Frogs can learn to recognize scorpions, and avoid them as much as possible, and not give them rides.

Narcissists often choose other Narcissists to associate with, and they'll often choose them OVER, and INSTEAD OF people who they have common interests with. In other words, a Narcissist who is into baseball would seek association with the Mayor of the town who DOESN'T LIKE baseball, and happens to be a Narcissist, but would NOT associate themselves with a person who loves baseball, who is very good at playing and very knowledgeable, but who doesn't have an important Title OR behave Narcissistically, or isn't the "right" race, sex, or age, or doesn't seem to be wealthy or popular.
 
A clearer example: If the Narcissist was on a Baseball Team with two players who had an equal level of interest in the game, and equal level of advanced skill and ability, and one of them was Narcissistic but the other was not, the Narcissist would much more likely choose the Narcissistic player to be "friends" with, and NOT the non-Narcissistic player. Alternatively, the two Narcissists might become "Bitter Rivals", which gives them both NOTORIETY (they'll put themselves in the spotlight with their drama), which is the same thing as "fame" for a Narcissist.
Further, both Narcissists on the team might try to turn the non-Narcissist with the high level of ability and skill into a "mascot", "sidekick", or "gopher"; in other words, try to lower that player's "social status" and also status on the team. If and when that player protests against this treatment, the player will probably be either given the "rejection" treatment, or get Scapegoated.

In summation, people who have Narcissism don't make bonds with others because of shared experiences,  shared family ties, time spent together, shared childhoods, shared schools, shared interests, shared mutual friends, shared projects, or shared workplaces.
They only make "connections" with people they choose to connect with (who they happen to know from one of those places or in one of those groups) because they see some kind of benefit/gain for themselves in the connection. They try to keep CONTROL over that connection, because if it's stops BENEFITING them, they will pull the plug. Shut if off. Hit the switch. Reject the person like a dirty tissue, no matter what the person's relation to them is.

Narcissists FEIGN loyalty because it helps them gain, and makes them look good. They don't actually DO loyalty.

Common reasons for rejecting a person they've chosen to "connect with" is that they realized the person is not that popular, powerful, wealthy, or not easily manipulated.
Most Narcissists will immediately abandon ANY person who has been targeted by slander or other abuse, and even jump on a campaign to smear the person's name.   

They may make a dramatic exit and try to dump the "blame" for their leavetaking on the other person, but this is just to deflect accountability, either for something they did, or for their abrupt discarding of the person.
The last thing a Narcissist wants is to get exposed for social manipulation, because others might hear about it, and then their game will be exposed.   

Whining Children, Bitching Spouses: Language And Control

When it comes to other people's emotions, a RED FLAG of Narcissism is the WORDS used to describe those emotions. 

This language habit is also often picked up by young people who live with, or in a community with, a lot of Narcissism, and turned (unwittingly) into their regular speech pattern. Unfortunately whether the language is intentional or inadvertently picked up, the effects are still damaging.

(The difference between a person who intentionally uses negative language to dominate and demean, and a person who inadvertently picked it up is their reaction when it's pointed out; a Narcissist will defend it to kingdom-come, and try to "destroy" whoever pointed it out with belittling and insult. The non-Narcissist who uses this language pattern from having picked it up from others, like a regional speech pattern, will not, they'll just be either interested or not interested, and maybe feel some things about it.) 

They will commonly use language that others only use when they're legitimately overwhelmed, or dealing with a seriously negative situation:

The child is not "scared", the child is "whining".

The husband is not "upset", the husband is "moaning".

The girlfriend is not "angry", the girlfriend is "bitching".

The parent of a student is not "concerned", they're "helicoptering".

etc.

This is YET ANOTHER FORM of control that's related to all the others... the list is exhaustive...

They DESCRIBE another person's emotions and actions in a NEGATIVE, DEMEANING way, in order to bully and invalidate the person, or to give a negative impression about the person to the people who are listening to them.
(Of course, Narcissists and insecure people, AND "normal" young people, will often do this same thing in order to fit in with the people around them who also talk this way. Young people are going through the same maturation stage that everyone before them went through, that's why it's important for adults to "watch their language" around kids, so they don't pick up speech habits that cause negativity for themselves and their relationships.)

~
Narcissists can't stand for others, especially targets, to express or display any apparent emotion that they don't like, that doesn't make THEM feel comfortable or happy.

They also don't like it if a person is NOT displaying the emotion they want them to display
(but that's also common with BPD; fear of disapproval, hostility, or abandonment).

(NPD is about control and superiority mostly for it's own sake;
BPD is about reaction and coping, which can manifest as control.)

A child who is sad, anxious, angry, or scared is ANNOYING to a person with Narcissism, and that's all there is to it. The reason for the child's expression of sadness or fear or anger is IRRELEVANT, as far as the N. is concerned. All the Narcissist cares about is his or her OWN feelings of annoyance, and that their annoyance gets "REMEDIED" quickly.
If there are other people around, then add "what will they think!" or perhaps the child is "ruining the atmosphere".
The goal will not be to find out what the child is upset about, it will be to make the child STOP "pouting", "whining", or "caterwauling".

An inability to empathize, or to correctly interpret other people's emotions, also contributes greatly to the way a Narcissistic person treats others regarding emotional expression.

(The apparent paranoid reaction about WHY a person is displaying a certain emotion, and assuming that the person's emotional expression is about THEM, or is an "attack", may or may not be displayed in a person who has Narcissism; that's an additional issue that can be found with Narcissism, or with something else entirely, not excluding post-trauma. It's an important symptom, either way.)

Training Day Is Every Day With A Narcissist

Controllers/Narcissists try to TRAIN targets to become what they want them to become.

This training is based on the Narcissist's desires, compulsions, emotions, addictions, and agenda for the specific target.

For example if a Controller/Narcissist wants a target to be their "Trophy Wife" or "Trophy Husband", then anything that the target says or does that ALIGNS with that agenda might be validated or even praised, such as buying a sexy dress, or getting a specific hairstyle (that pleases the Controller).  But anything that the target says or does that DOES NOT ALIGN with that agenda will probably be INVALIDATED, ridiculed, belittled, attacked, insulted, denied, ignored, etc., like if the target wears clothes that don't fit the Narcissist's image of "Trophy wife", or if the person didn't want to dye their grey hair, or if the person refused to get rid of their old pick-up truck, etc.
 
That invalidation/validation behavior is part of this training.
When the Controller gives APPROVAL, it gives the target a feeling of relief and acceptance, like parental approval, or peer, or instructor/coach approval. When the Controller INVALIDATES them with refusing to acknowledge or respond, changing the subject, or with direct disapproval or insult, then the target feels uncomfortable, maybe embarrassed, ignored, humiliated, or chastised.

This Narcissistic training method works very well on children, and it works best on adults who have been targeted by it before, especially in their childhood.

For example, if the Narcissist is jealous or envious toward the Target's other relationships (family, friends, coworkers, etc), then whenever the Target mentions one of those other people, ESPECIALLY when telling a happy, joyful, or funny experience, the Narcissist may be purposely NON-RESPONSIVE, act as if the target didn't even speak, change the subject immediately without acknowledging what the target said; IMPLY something negative about the person being spoken about, or the experience; or actually display their jealousy/envy in behavior or speech.

*(This refers to actual jealousy and envy. It does not refer to the reaction of annoyance or anger when, for example, a "partner" keeps talking favorably about another person whom is obviously a secret crush (or more), or when a "friend" or family member keeps talking favorably about a person who has betrayed, disrespected, or abused the listener, or when a "friend" or family member is trying to make the other person feel unwanted or excluded from the rest of their life, in order to dominate them, or keeps talking about other certain people in order to make themselves appear "superior"). 


Controllers/Narcissists OF COURSE "train" children to think, feel, and BE a certain way, but they also attempt to "train" adults, especially supply targets and scapegoats.


"Training" targets about:

what's "okay" to talk about,

what's "okay" to be interested in,

how the Narcissist should be SEEN.. (their constructed image)

who to care about and who NOT to care about,

who to automatically follow, believe, obey, and seek approval from,

who not to RESPECT, believe, or listen to,

HOW TO FEEL, 

What the target is "allowed" to accomplish, attempt, or be GOOD AT, and what they're NOT "allowed" to accomplish or excel at,

what's "okay" to do for activities or recreation,

what "attractiveness" looks like,

who they are "allowed" to be attracted to,

what's "okay" to do for a job,

what "intelligence" and "morality" looks like,

WHO is "intelligent", and who's not,

what to ask questions about or NOT,

what's okay to learn about or NOT,

who to TALK TO, who NOT to talk to,

who to be "friends" with or NOT be friends with,

what to "enjoy" doing,

what's "okay" to LIKE or LOVE, and what to dislike or "hate",

of course what to believe,

what to LIVE IN DENIAL ABOUT.

Invalidation Is About Domination

Invalidation is a domination and bully tool.
Their desire to make a target into a "lower status" person is so great that a Narcissist will literally invalidate ANYTHING about the target, including things that have nothing to do with "status" in the real world. When they act like a target is "making up stories" when they mention that their first cousin is Will Smith, that's almost understandable (almost); most people would be a little skeptical about such a claim (although non-narcissists would not accuse the person of lying, they'd at least suspend belief at first).

However a Narcissist will invalidate ANYTHING that a target says, and talks about. ANYTHING. And sometimes it's to the point of ridiculousness.
So if a target says they went for a walk and saw a deer, the Narcissist might respond as if they believe them, but also might act like they're "just saying that to get attention".
(Yes, that's right, claims to have seen a deer on a walk just sounds CRAZY! and since it's so OUTLANDISH, it would of course ONLY BE SAID if the person was "TRYING TO GET ATTENTION"... you watch, soon the Local News Channel will pull up out front and want to interview the person about their first-hand-account of witnessing a deer on a walk...)

Invalidating anything and everything about a target can become a habitual reaction to the target's every move and word, and it serves to constantly give the impression to EVERYONE, including the target, that the target is completely self-centered, attention-seeking, grandiose, a liar, a story-teller, a and even delusional.

Since of course the target is going to defend themselves when they get made out to be a "liar" or "attention seeking" (if they're at all healthy~), the Narcissist will use THIS TOO as ammunition against the target, claiming that they're "argumentative", "hostile", again "delusional", "always have to be RIGHT", and even "abusive". 

Unfortunately, VERY FEW people witnessing this have enough self-awareness to see this behavior for what it is, even when it's going on all the time. Also, since many people are closet bullies themselves, they go along with it and don't want to expose the game, since they're playing it too.

There are a LOT of game-players in the human species who live through their envy, insecurity, and desire for superiority and special privilege, who will go along with targeting another human being. Especially if they have jealousy toward the target, or if the target has or does something they envy. 

A Narcissist will invalidate anything AT ALL about a target person, even if there is blatant, obvious evidence that something is true. A person could be in a hospital bed, in traction, with their mouth covered in a plaster cast, and the Narcissist would imply that the person is "making a big deal out of it" or "trying to get attention".
It's NOT ABOUT "reality", it's about their desire to make the target themselves "invalid", and therefore a very "low status" person, an "unliked" or "unwanted" person, or a "non-person", someone who isn't a valid member of the group, the family, the community, or even the partnership.

Invalidation behavior is also a part of "Gaslighting".

Some Common Narcissist Traits

All "Narcissists" have some things in common, regardless of their underlying issues:

A compulsion to dominate and control anyone who happens to be in their world,

the belief that their opinions and perception are almost always, or are 100% factual and correct,

a feeling of satisfaction when they can find a "flaw" in another person, or another person's work.

frequently attempting to find "flaws" where none exist.

an ever-present running current of envy, jealousy, and disdain.

an inability to differentiate their personal feelings from the real world around them,

compulsion to judge others very negatively or very positively,

acceptance of stereotypes about other people

denial of any of their own mistakes, flaws, lack of ability or knowledge, and especially of their poor treatment of others.

annoyance toward others for hundred of reasons, but mostly for having any needs, expressing any emotion, appearing confident, expecting to be treated with actual respect, disagreeing even politely, not completely complying with the Narcissist's expectations, being different than the Narcissist had assumed, being right, being good at something, needing any assistance, being happy about something, caring about someone else, talking about anything that the Narcissist is not somehow included in.

projecting their own motives, feelings, and behaviors onto other people. (the reason they want to get promoted is so they can be "special" and boss others around, so they assume that's why everyone else wants to get promoted).

a strong desire to be the star of any story or show, whether they're the hero, the villain, or the innocent victim; most prefer the hero or victim role, but many will take the villain role, especially because they think it scares people.

exaggerated assumptions about other people (many Narcissists will for example see one person as being VERY STRONG, and another person as being VERY WEAK).

an image of themselves as a certain Character, someone they knew in real life, or someone from stories or movies.

projecting "Characters" onto other people, either from their personal past, or from stories or movies; they'll match specific things about a person to a character, and then assume that's how the person really is, and treat them accordingly. (If you remind them of Chuck Norris, and they think he's cool, they'll think you're just like him and therefore you're cool too. If you remind them of a little girl from their neighborhood because of your blond hair, they'll treat you as if you are the SAME as the girl. Etc.)

an inability to see other people as multi-faceted,

projecting "preset" assumptions onto other people based almost solely on their physical traits; if you're a pretty female, you must be whatever their presets are: so, perhaps stuck-up, or perhaps promiscuous, or stupid; if you're a physically strong female, you must be homosexual, or crazy, or trying to dominate men; if you're African-descent, you must be whatever their presets are about black people; if you're Caucasian, you must be whatever their presets are about white people, etc.

a lack of flexibility in thinking, feeling, and action,

serious ego-identity issues,

the need to be seen and noticed in order to feel real,

belief that they're entitled to better treatment from others than they give,

huge difficulty in sharing resources with anyone, including their own children- small or adult.
When they do share resources it's usually in order to gain something for themselves, such as recognition and credit, so they're more likely to donate resources to "important" people and institutions where they'll be SEEN and recorded.

a need for hierarchy, and a belief that social hierarchy is real,

an apparent complete blindness to their own behaviors (a narcissist will chastise and attack another person for doing the exact thing that they're doing).

a compulsion to feel above others in order to feel worthy,

lack of ability to actually connect with others,

addiction to some kind of "supply", whatever it may be, and denial of having that addiction,
using anyone in order to get their supply,

an apparent inability to empathize, or empathize accurately (some can do it to a degree, but are very limited, for instance they may only recognize a couple of emotions, or only emotions in people who are similar to themselves, or people they "like" at the moment.)

the desire to be seen as one of some kind of elite crowd, which could mean anything: one of the "important" people, "one of the guys", an "eccentric", a "great person", a member of a certain club or organization; one of the "cool" people, one of the "good" people, one of the "intelligent" people, etc.

lack of care about any damage or suffering they inflict on others;

a feeling of self-righteousness;

reaction of rage (either smoldering or explosive) when someone does not allow them to dominate them or control them; when someone else has equal or greater skill, talent, looks, power, etc.: when someone else is getting more attention than they are for any reason; when they get caught doing something wrong; when their hidden agenda gets exposed; when someone sees through their false image; when someone does not treat them as an elite; when someone does not recognize their "superiority"; when someone stands up to them, or for someone else.

desire and compulsion to retaliate for real OR misconstrued, OR delusion-based "wrongdoings" of others

Respect (Lack Thereof: Narcissism)

Respect.
~
Narcissists do not respect other people's:

point of view
experience
values
autonomy
space
choices
opinion
ability
knowledge
skill
potential
capability
body
positional authority
age
possessions
personhood
freedom

Especially if the person has been targeted; then a Narcissist will actively disrespect them.

Narcissists appear to respect certain people, but it's not actual "respect", it's either adulation because they view the person as being above others, or it's acting in order to receive positive attention, supply, or to build up their image.

Turning Molehills Into Mountains; Narcissistic Criticism, Judgment, and Projection

Turning normal and even healthy human activities, behaviors, and attributes into "character flaws" about another person, or crimes, betrayals, or abuses, is a very common Narcissism trait/behavior. Further, they'll usually try to convince others that their "assessment" is true.

A Narcissist will turn your enjoyment of coffee from a certain company into you being a "sheep" that follows the crowd, or being "one of those arrogant people".

They'll turn your current hairstyle into an indicator of your entire character and life.

They will turn anything they see you excel at into your being a "show off", being "haughty", or "thinking your All That".

They will turn the way you look physically - the way you were born - into an indication of your entire character and agenda.

Your expression using art, music, dance, or writing will be turned into something negative about you.

Your working on the computer can't be "real work", it HAS to be because you're PRETENDING to do something important in order to GET OUT OF doing "real work".


It's important to note that Narcissists will PROJECT these judgments onto others, but NOT THEMSELVES, or other favored individuals, about the same behavior.

They will use these things to try to shame or guilt the person themselves, OR they will use these things to slander the person to others, or both.


A Narcissist will turn your occasional beer, wine, or cocktail into "alcoholism", while dismissing their habit of 3 beers per night and several on the weekend.

They will turn your past relationships into "evidence" that you are (insert negative judgment here): frigid? cold? whore? loose? unstable? prudish? ...But whatever their past is, it doesn't mean anything negative about them at all.

They'll turn your occasional recreational trips to the casino into a "gambling addiction", while conveniently not mentioning their many weekly lottery tickets, scratch tickets, or football pools.

They'll turn your occasional late-paid bill into a "character flaw" and "bad money habits", but apparently forget all about their credit consolidation, foreclosure, or bankruptcy.

They'll turn your friendships, acquaintances, and family relationships into something negative, something illicit, something with a HIDDEN AGENDA. .... But of course all of their relationships and acquaintances are pure as the driven snow.


Narcissists PROJECT their own motives onto others.
If THEY make "friends" with people because they find them sexually attractive, then that's what they think YOU do.
If THEY only go on the computer to play games and socialize, then that's what they think YOU do.

Narcissists also cast judgment in order to make a targeted person seem BAD or SMALL or UNTRUSTWORTHY, and they are MOST LIKELY to target those they envy, and/or those they have betrayed or hurt.

They also do it in order to DEFLECT JUDGMENT OFF OF THEMSELVES.
When they're pointing at someone else, people tend to look where they're pointing instead of AT THEM.


It's also important to note that Narcissists tend to TRY to gather "dirt" on targeted people, and if they can't find any, they'll just make it up, or TWIST and magnify what they do find.

Incredibly, very few people even seem to take notice that the Narcissist is making judgments about others based on PERSONAL things that are mostly NONE of their business, and RARELY warrant "judgment".

They are the masters of criticism, condemnation and shame, because they make it sound like they're "concerned", or "aggravated", or "helping".
They are the masters of gossip, because they make it sound like they're not gossiping, they're "just talking" or "venting" or "sharing information", but the truth is they're trying to persuade others to go along with their negative judgments about another person.



Narcissists will do this to ANYONE in their lives, including their own children, their "best friend", their spouse, other family members, coworkers, customers, PATIENTS, clients, competitors, and of course political candidates and celebrities.
Literally anyone. It's a tool in their toolbox; they'll use it.

Humility

Humility requires letting go of the desire for supremacy over other human beings, and the feeling of entitlement to be an authority and have control over other human beings.

Humility requires recognizing that one does not necessarily have a firmer, more accurate intellectual grasp on concepts, knowledge, theory, or planning than other people.

Humility requires letting go of comparing one's self to others, and looking for excuses to find them inferior.

Humility requires healthy boundaries, and has nothing to do with groveling or self-deprecation.

Humility allows one to learn much more than one can when they are trapped in entitlement or arrogance. 

BLAME and DOMINATION

Blaming... everything that happens has to be someone's fault, or something someone did wrong - either "on purpose", or because the blamed person is "incompetent or stupid".

"Blaming" is a form of domination and control, and also a way to deflect accountability.

Most people who habitually blame also target specific people to dump blame on. This has a double-agenda: to get out of admitting to their own mistake, AND to create or reinforce negative judgment and negative image onto a certain person.

~When they can't find their keys, it must be because SUSAN took them. (Even if Susan has never taken anything that belonged to anyone else in her life.)
~If there's no milk, it must be because JOHN drank it all and didn't replace it instantaneously.

John is pretty much always to blame... he's the scapegoat; everyone in the group blames John when anything is amiss, no matter how trivial; or even when NOTHING is amiss.

John left the shovel out the other day, he forgot to put it away when he was finished, so that just proves that John is a lazy, untrustworthy, air-headed loser... Funny though that when anyone else forgets to put the shovel away, it's no big deal... and it's because they were so tired from working... or because they were distracted by something important... or because ... because... but not so for John, there's no "reason" that's valid for him. Something as trivial as leaving the shovel out indicates his ENTIRE CHARACTER as "BAD".
(And then someone in the group will say "But it's not just that.. John is always doing stuff like that.." And apparently, "stuff like that" indicates bad character. Forgetting to put the shovel away, finishing the milk without running immediately out to replace it, such gigantic, terrible things OBVIOUSLY indicate that John is a terrible person... regardless of anything else about him, including his volunteer work at the animal shelter, his job as a caregiver, his helpfulness with the children in the family...etc.

And projecting this kind of damaging JUDGMENT onto him apparently is perfectly innocent...?!?
In traffic, people who blame seem oblivious to their own driving mistakes and habits. They'll blame everyone else on the road for any kind of "problems" that they have, but completely dismiss anything that they're doing wrong.
If someone in front of them is doing the speed limit, and they want to go faster, they'll BLAME the person in front of them for "slowing them down", and may do things like ride the person's bumper (two forms of domination: blame, and bullying.) It doesn't occur to them apparently that there is a reason for the speed limit, for example a residential road, or curves, or a high accident rate, etc. They also seem to believe that because THEY want to break the speed limit, that everyone else should CATER to them, so that driver in front of them is doing something "wrong" by doing the speed limit.

Blamers tend to BREAK RULES in order to feel powerful and "outside the law" or the rules, but they will ENFORCE those laws and rules on OTHER PEOPLE.
So if the person in front of them was breaking the speed limit, they would probably notice, and call them "reckless". THEY'RE not "reckless" when THEY speed, OR when they ride a person's bumper, but OTHER people are when THEY speed.

They're not consistent or objective; they are ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE. They "change the rules" according to what their current agenda is, and according to WHO is involved.

Blamers will place blame for anything and everything, in ANY situation.
They will place JUDGMENT on others for anything and everything.
They continuously scan for excuses to place both judgment and blame on others (especially when they've chosen a person or group to target).
Blamers tend to group people together in order to place blame and judgment on the whole group (poor people, rich people, women, men, blonde haired people, black people, Asians, white people, attractive people, "successful" people, homeless people, all Christians, all Muslims, all Jews, all non-main-religion people, all members of a political party, all doctors, all gov. employees, all teachers, all parents, all teenagers, all elderly people, all French people, all rock musicians, etc. etc.)
From personal interactions, to their business interactions, to community issues, to their place of business, to the medical community, to the government, everything is always SOMEONE'S "FAULT".  And on top of that, that "someone" is NEVER THEMSELVES.

Nothing outside themselves is ever something that just happened, an innocent mistake or overlook, a well-intentioned wrong decision.

They will DEFLECT BLAME about anything and everything, when they actually are "to blame".

Control, avoidance of accountability, and domination.

Strangely, a lot of blamers end up in positions of control and power, both in personal/social groups, and in business.
Most people seem unaware of what the person is really doing, and often respond as if the person is more responsible and knowledgeable than others, but likely the real reason for their response is just fear of being targeted for blame, and also wanting to be on the side of the bully so they can participate in dominating someone else (scapegoating).