Of Cyberpaths, Pathological Narcissists, Narcissistic Rage, and Jane

Greetings all,

This was going to be a long post concerning the events that have transpired since I posted my note on Jane. Happily, events have developed that will allow me to make it somewhat shorter although still longer than I would have wished.

So, first a brief history of what has been going on (for those who are interested) since my last posting. Jane did not allow me to post my comments on her blog. She said if I had anything to say I could say it on my blog. Of course, this makes it rather difficult to have a debate on the subject, but I suspect that debate is not what she wishes. It is so very much easier to convince others of your point when no one is arguing against you, eh? No wonder she moderates her list.

At least two other people have written to me saying that she prevented them from posting as well.

It did not stop both her, and her husband, from posting some additional self-congratulatory comments on how brave Jane was for "coming out". These can be read here.

In addition, Jane wrote me a private email, filled with all sorts of interesting, if somewhat bizarre notions. It was my intent to post it here for public view, and then comment directly, but other events now makes this unnecessary. Why bother defending oneself when one's opponent has provided all the information necessary to make one's case? Besides, if I had to post her long rambling and inconsistent set of comments my response to it would have been equally as long. And two longs don't make a fight. They simply consume valuable time. Still, given all the words she has posted in the last few days it appears that she has a great deal of time (or perhaps nervous energy?) on her hands.

In short order three more entries appeared on Jane's Blog. The first was on the topic of cyberpaths. It appears that (according to Jane) Cyberpaths are Narcissists who are also Predators and who are also very Common. Girls beware, these emotion sucking vampires are out there, waiting for you.

Who knew?

Ironically, someone by the name of Smotp, left a comment after her note reminding everyone that a Cyberpath could be a dominant or a submissive. Good point Smotp. Actually, I don't think those who are dominant or submissive have a stranglehold on bizarre behaviours. At a guess, I would say that anyone who is seriously out of balance probably will find some way to deal with their problems, even if that way is maladaptive. Besides, it is so much easier to blame another for your problem, rather than accepting responsibility for yourself, yes? Blame is such an easy path compared to personal responsibility and accountability.

Her post was rapidly followed by another on the topic of Narcissistic Rage. A quick search of the authoritative DSM-IV lists no such condition. OTOH - Wikipedia does have an article on the topic. However, since Jane gives no references as to the source of all the various symptoms and behaviours associated with this condition I must assume she has some advanced degree in psychology and perhaps has not as yet published her work in any formal journal. I, otoh, lacking any such degrees, was forced to try and actually research the topic. The results of my admittedly cursory research was rather at odds with many of Jane's supposed facts, which read rather more like a laundry list of accusations she would like to level at me, covered in a duvet of seemingly authoritative statements. And fwiw, some of her paragraphs seemed to have been culled from other web pages such as

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Narcissists-Volcanic-Rage&id=1197928

http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/narcissistic-rage
- It appears that one Heinz Kohut coined the term first around 1972 in his book "The Analysis of the Self"

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/8097940

But why bother doing research when it is so much fun, and easier, to make it up as you go along?

BTW - if you are going to take the time to read this post of Jane's (it is quite long) my suggestion is that you mentally change every occurrence of the words "he" and "him" to "she" and "her". I find it reads much better, and makes a great deal more sense.

Or in the words of the bard himself: "I think the lady doth protest too much"

Jane concluded this week's missives with a curious and vague piece on the topic of "Psychos on the Internet". It appears that someone (a woman of all things) who knew Jane for less that a week got into her head to cause Jane all sorts of mental pain and anguish by revealing all sorts of personal facts from emails she has been sending around. Something about jealousy, perjury, the fabrication of false documentation, etc. Why anyone would wish to do this is never quite explained, only that this evil individual really seemed to have it in for Jane. For myself, I use Occam's Razor which tells us that given a set of possible reasons to explain a mystery, that the simplest is probably the right one. So, what do you think is simpler, that someone who has known Jane for less than a week set out on a campaign of strange vengeance or that perhaps Jane is seeking to cover what actually occurred?

Hmmm... I hope no one ever targets me for a campaign of slander, libel, lies and deceit. OTOH... maybe someone has?

Frankly, I don't think I could have made my case any better than Jane has in her notes. Why anyone would devote this much time, effort, and words to something that she supposedly had put behind her is a true paradox. Or, in the words of my wife, after having read these recent posts: "she is one weird girl".

I'm going to go out here on the limb of an assumption and take a wild guess that all of her recent posting have been aimed at me. A series of attempts to denigrate my character by layering all sorts of nefarious disorders as a foundation to my seemingly calm and balanced exterior. A complex ranting of innuendos and ulterior motivations which seek to explain how I am the root cause for so many of her current problems, plus painting me as a rather insecure, angry, unbalanced and perhaps even dangerous... Pathological Narcissist.

Not bad for a fellow who, back in her April post, was nothing more than a silly little man with an inflated ego, and some petty anger. In less than 30 days I have been elevated to a serious heavyweight in the world of personality disorders. Stay tuned, who knows what I will achieve by next month!

In the meantime, I really don't have much more to say on the topic except the following conclusions:

- I was the one who introduced Jane to both John Ralston Saul, and the writings of John Norman (i.e. Gor).

- I have had over 1000 email exchanges with Jane since our beginning. If I am such a bad fellow why did she keep writing me?

- I don't know who Phil is (a common poster on Jane's blog who is often quoted) but, like Jane, he has some rather curious ideas and concepts when it comes to D/s. I would be interested to meet him in debate one day.

- While it is certainly someone's right to choose who they will, or will not, allow to post comments on their blog, it is wrong to open a contentious topic and then selectively choose only those who support your position. This is self-serving.

- If you are going to create a tale, at least get your facts to add up to a cohesive picture. According to Jane's own blog entries she described her time with me as follows:

06SEP: "I want to say here that he isn’t a monster, and I am no victim. It just was a situation that went wanting at a particular time, and I didn’t have the ability then to sumup and end it gracefully."
- NB: A reference to her mentoring time with me.

29 JAN: "I won’t go into details here, but I just went through a marvelous experience of rope work, shibari."
- The day of her return from Montreal.

30JAN: "Oh course this egotistical, narcissistic binder wants to take all the credit for this questionable binding, but it’s again…a very many layered issue. He is NOT this all powerful Dominant. He is just a man who has many, many issues of self worth. However, something there did happen. It was many layered."
- Tell me, is it just me, or do you detect a subtle fluctuation in mood here?

02FEB: "I hold in my heart the results. Regardless all the other things swirling around this experience, the questions, the naysayers, the doubters and those that are queered by the totality of it…. I have gratitude for it happening at all."
- This comment about her binding experience with me.


So, according to her, I started out as a "not monster" and have ended up as a Pathological Narcissist, prone to vague Narcissistic Rages, which I implement as a Predatory Cyberpath, because of my need to hide all of my self-esteem and self-worth issues. And somehow I managed to do all of this in about 6 months. Strangely, I can't seem to find my name mentioned too often on her blog though supposedly many people knew of our relationship (according to her own words again).

- If one wishes to divorce oneself from a situation, then do so. If one wishes to confront a situation then do so. Either option is valid imo as a path to healing. What makes no sense to me is to harp, dwell, gossip, complain, agonize, and prod at the thing so that it continues to bleed. But most importantly, if you are going to accuse someone of something do it to their face, not behind their back. Gossip is evil.

- If you think someone is evil, then don't ask to visit with them! I mean... really. How does one reconcile words and actions if they are not consistent?

Sadly, I must conclude that my time with Jane has not been a good investment of my efforts.

I wish Phil, and the others, good luck with her. Hopefully their investments will pay better dividends than mine.

Once again, I encourage any questions or comments anyone might have. Hopefully, no more postings on this topic will be required.

Finally, I would like to thank those who have offered their words of support both via private emails, by their comments, and by the efforts they have made to help out. They were much appreciated.

Be seeing you,