This week I’m inspired to write after receiving a distressing email from a friend of mine on Saturday night. This particular friend of mine is, like all of us here, someone who knows what it’s like to be conned and manipulated. Like so many of us, she struggled to make sense of what had happened — the explanations coming just as hard to herself as to her friends and family. Particularly, of course, those who had known her sociopathic husband and had also been taken in by his charming lies.
This particular lady, though, rather than hide herself away or hope things would just disappear, instead decided to write a book about her experiences. Now translated in to several languages, her story has helped and inspired people all around the world. To this day she continues to receive emails and letters thanking her for speaking out and giving others the courage to break free. To this day she also works tirelessly to help others understand the threat of the ”˜everyday’ sociopaths who live among us. And to this day she still remains baffled as to how some people continue to be so judgemental about her situation — people who, it’s quite clear, choose to pass criticism from a point of ignorance. Because for all of us here who know what it’s like, we understand the torture. We understand the diminishing self-esteem. We understand the manipulation. And we understand how difficult it is to explain to others. Whereas other people don’t — yet they seem compelled to share their hurtful words and opinions.
My friend is Mary Turner Thomson — she is a huge supporter of this site, and you’ll find her story in the blog section. Her book “The Bigamist” is a best-seller and at the end of last year it outsold every other Random House e-book in the USA. It’s a huge achievement and I believe it goes to show how relevant her story is today.
Amazon.com
So what prompted her to send me an email on Saturday night? She had been made aware of a comment that had been placed on Amazon.com regarding her story, and it had cut her to the quick. This is what it says:
“Although i found it a little repetitive and long-winded in parts, the story was still compelling and should be compulsory reading for anyone in an abusive/manipulating relationship or in the dating scene. Having said that, I’m still finding it hard to believe that this story is true! Yes, you can be blinded by love, conned etc but to have a man who works for the government and has no money for food?? Who year after year comes up with dire, life-threatening reasons for urgent large amounts of cash?? To never actually meet any of his family in 6 years?? 6 YEARS OF THIS?? I found it eye-opening and informative but at the same time I found it almost impossible to feel any kind of empathy for this daft, gullible woman. I’m sorry but anyone that stupid for that long is just asking to be taken for a ride….it’s just plain sad. And to liken it to the abuse suffered by rape and molestation victims in terms of not being ashamed to speak up…pfft…there is no choice in rape or molestation, whereas the author did have a choice and more or less allowed herself to be a victim…and that IS shameworthy.”
I know for a fact that her story is true. I also know that her ex, Will Jordan, is still at large in the USA and is still spinning the same tales and entrapping more women in similar situations — it seems that “the powers that be” have no power to stop him. I know as well that Mary has offered support, guidance and friendship to his subsequent victims, who have tracked her down as a result of reading her book. She also helped me in the early days — openly, honestly and with love, although at the time I was a stranger and she had no reason to trust me or welcome me in to her life. I am now proud to call her my friend.
So far as I’m concerned, that kind of behaviour demonstrates that Mary is far from being a person who could be described as ”˜a willing victim’. Far from it. She is feisty, sassy, accomplished, independent and (as I’m sure you can guess) one of those lovely people who just likes sharing and giving to others. Is that such a crime”¦?
Armchair experts and a baying crowd of critics can swap allegiance and have their opinions swayed by the smallest of changes. And yet these easily influenced people can sometimes hold the power between life and death. Remember the gladiators in the Roman Colosseum? The crowd’s chants could pressure the emperor’s thumbs up or down — the life of a man quite literally hanging in the balance.
Ignorance Is Bliss”¦?
Now, I’m all for people having an opinion — of course! What saddens me, though, is when a damning criticism is forthcoming from the basis of ignorance. It tells me how much further we have to go in order to educate people against the dangers of psychopaths and sociopaths among us. Yes, of course I understand that for those people who have never been entrapped, the story we have to tell can seem unbelievable. But that’s because, as we know, they’ve never been there. As I’ve said many times before, it’s because as a human race we tend to judge others by ourselves — we see things not as they are but as we are.
That’s how a charming, manipulative, ruthless sociopath can keep ”˜normal’ trusting people in their clutches. As we know from personal experience, it is not the ”˜stupid’ or ”˜gullible’ people who are targeted. Yes, OK, once it’s all out in the open we might beat ourselves up and think we must have been naive (“how could I have been so blind? How could I have been such a dunce?”) but that is a natural reaction from anyone who’s been a victim. I was told by a physiotherapist that this is the common response from people who’ve been in an accident. Guilt, shame and self-beat up — as if they could have done anything about it in the first place!
I know how hard it is to speak out. I understand how painful the process is to step back, reassess and make sense of what happened — whilst also maintaining a level of personal dignity, and eventually finding self-esteem and confidence. I also know how much those of us who do choose to put our head above the parapet after such an experience can indeed help others to pull through. I also understand that by doing so, we are opening ourselves up for criticism and blame.
In some cases it feels a little to me like the Ducking Stool favoured in britain during the middle-ages — have you heard of this? In the days where women were hunted down for being witches, a crowd would tie the accused in a chair that they’d then hold over water — the village pond or similar. The poor creature would then be ducked under the water to find out whether or not she was indeed a witch. If she didn’t drown it was perfectly clear that she was a witch. So she’d be taken off and burned at the stake on the grounds that they had proof of her satanic powers. If on the other hand she did drown, well then she obviously wasn’t a witch so they’d made a mistake. Oops! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t eh?
I Salute You
Well, in a way, you could say the same about all of us here who are choosing to speak out — in whatever format we may choose. We’re once again holding ourselves up for public judgement — often by those armchair critics I mentioned earlier, who judge from a place of ignorance. Harsh words may sting, and pointing fingers may hurt”¦ But you know what? I reckon it’s worth it. Because for every badly informed comment or response, there are many more who I know benefit from shared experiences.
The Ducking Stool may be an ancient relic, but the ignorant and fearful critics remain. That’s ok. Because little by little we can help to educate them about these dangers — and hopefully save them from having to experience it for themselves before, like us, they can fully understand what it means to be trapped by a sociopath. It’s easy to point the finger at those who stand up and speak out — and Mary, my friend, remember just how many thousands of people you are helping, just by being who you are. There is nothing’ shameworthy’ in what you did then, nor in what you continue to do now. I for one salute you.
There has been a picture quote doing the rounds among my Facebook friends this week, and I thought it would be relevant to share it here: “Don’t change so people will like you. Be yourself and the right people will love the real you”
With love and blessings to all here at Lovefraud — I salute you too. Because without you, there would be many more people (myself included) who might never have discovered the truth. Thank you.
This whole concept is similar to agape love. I wrote in a different post that I think agape love probably works best in children. If you take a spath as an adult/ someone past the age of 18 (or probably younger) and they have been raised in an environment that wasn’t loving, nurturing, open & honest communication – I truly believe that only so much can be done. I look back now and I KNOW I perceived the man who became my husband to have been “hurt” in his childhood. I knew that. I thought if I just showed him love, lead by example of how I’d like it to be, it’ll all work out. Well, it did for awhile. He was drunk on my love for 3-5 years. It was magical. Then little by little, very insidiously the fits of anger and rage would show. In the beginning – I must admit that I found them rather scary. In the midst of fight or flight, I flew.
I got the hell away from him. The weird thing is 12 hours later it was like he had amnesia. I tried desperately to have what I considered a healthy conversation about “the behavior.” It never happened folks. I’m hear to tell you that in 22 years of marriage…. it never happened.
What would happen is that he’d clean his act up for 3 to 6 weeks or so…. so who can really complain when all you have is a little blow up every month or so. Then they start coming closer in occurance and more bold in the bullying. Then before you know it. You feel trapped and yes….. Now you’ve become a stump that got whittled away at.
No matter how stridently I tried to lay down a boundary line, I think it was too late. If I returned love for hate, he probably laughed his a$$ of thinking, let me eat some more of that foliage.
Yes, I’ve read the Giving Tree, but 20 years, you are spot on. Balance in all, boundaries, communication, honesty are all necessary to have a good life. Very easy to be the tree that gives and gives, shows beauty, get pruned to far back, grows back then gets pollarded. Look up pollard in the dictionary if you don’t know it. That one word is worth a poignant picture.
And as always, unless you’ve lived through this experience like we have, you can hardly possibly believe this kind of evil lurks around in public in broad daylight.
Dear Honest, you made some good observations there…that push/pull, love bomb/rage back and forth is why a dog will stay with an abusive master….or why we are able to get an animal or a person to stay with us even though we have occasionally abused it….back and forth. It is the TRAUMA bond because we keep hoping that if we just hang around long enough the love bomb will return.
It is why slot machines work to get people to put money in to them. The INTERMITTENT REWARD…which is what Dr. B. F. Skinner figured out about rewarding dogs. Works every time, with every species.
Yep, I forgot the term Trauma Bond.
I called him my on again/off again friend for awhile.
Then Jekyll/Hyde
I was addicted to him. I had Stockholm syndrome. I was in love with my captor. Ha ha, I laugh now, only because I am free of the oppression. Never ever again.
I would love to find love again, with someone (in addition to myself) and now what I worry about the most is this:
Not to expect perfection
Allow a human to make mistakes, but discern REAL regret
Giving a *reasonable amount* of benefit of doubt
Who is for real? genuine?
I thought I was a good judge of character, values, morals, but turns out that NOPE, I’m not – or at least I wasn’t. I believed when I knew better. My gut said Nah, but my head and my heart wanted to prove otherwise.
How do I not get duped again? Never date? never take a chance?
I read this somewhere (maybe LF)…. if someone lies once, consider it could be a misunderstanding, if someone lies twice, consider giving them the benefit of doubt, if someone lies thrice….. guess what…. they’re a liar. Move on baby!!
Ox Drover, I found this from another post. …… It was exactly what happened to me and what I lived.
I not only tried to be “reasonable” with the psychopaths, but I also tried to placate them, to make them see, by being extra nice to them and not “bowing up and fighting back,” that I wasn’t trying to hurt them. I wanted to be “friends” and get along.
Of course, when a prey animal tries to get along with a predator animal we know what happens, don’t we? The prey animal gets the worst end of the deal. Yep, I did get the worst end of the deal trying to “make nice” with the psychopaths, but again, I didn’t learn that a psychopath is a psychopath is a psychopath is a predator! Rather than generalize this hurtful behavior to a class of people, I saw each one as an individual person with “reasons” and “excuses” and the “potential to change” and “see the light” when there was no chance that they were going to have any empathy, much less sympathy, for the pain they caused me or anyone else.
I come to LF to remind myself not to let my guard down and stay NC with him. He’s basically quit trying now, but I still feel tense at the thought of him. Yoga has helped that some.
Oxy – you’ve helped a zillion people. Bless you.
Thank you, Honest, being here at LF has helped me the most and continues to every day. No telling where I would be emotionally without LF, it was there for me when I had nothing else. I hope that I can pay it back for those that were there for me.
Stay strong, you are right, they are predators and they never change. Making nice with them is gonna get you run over! Or worse.
“…push/pull, love bomb/rage back and forth is why a dog will stay with an abusive master”.or why we are able to get an animal or a person to stay with us even though we have occasionally abused it”.back and forth…”
Let me add that in addition, sociopaths very effectively employ mirroring — they quickly read us and present themselves in such a way as we think they are a soulmate. Mirroring can be so effective that it overrides the intellect.
The first thing Mary Turner Thomson needs to tell herself is that as a published author she’s going to need a thick skin. Although hers is a very different kind of book, I hope she might find inspiration in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Foreword to the second edition (1965) of The Lord of the Rings. In part, Tolkien wrote:
So there’s lesson number one: We can’t please everybody, or expect everybody to approve of us, either as human beings or for anything we’ve done. That includes writing a book.
This lesson deserves highlighting because I can’t ignore the possibility that Mary is particularly sensitive to disapproval and strives hard to win the approval of others. That’s one trait that can leave some people more prone than others to getting stuck in a relationship with a psychopath, or with other abusive types. It’s well to realize, as Tolkien pointed out, that we can’t please everybody no matter how hard we try! Even if we change something to please one person, somebody else is bound to disapprove of the change!
There will always be critics, and many of them aren’t worth worrying about because they’re probably messed up in some way themselves. That can certainly be said of the reviewer named “Blitzen” who criticized Mary so harshly. More on that later. Meanwhile, immediately before the passage I quoted above, Tolkien had written:
Harsh criticism indeed! Yet Tolkien didn’t let it bother him, as he went on to say:
Delicious!
Apart from that, there are at least two issues concerning Mary’s book, and they do need separating. One issue is how clearly (or otherwise) Mary succeeded in explaining why she continued for so long to fall for this gigantic con.
I can’t possibly comment on that myself because I haven’t read her book. For all I know, Mary may have done the best job anyone could ever do of explaining her reasons. If that’s the case, it’s not Mary’s fault if some people out there in the world are still incapable of understanding why.
Still, it is a question worth asking. Out of 34 reviewers of the book on amazon.com, at least ten expressed some degree of incredulity about why this charade went on for so long, when it seems to them as if anyone should have started to see through this bigamist’s deceptions. That’s not to say these reviewers were pointedly rude and scathing in the way that “Blitzen” was, but it does indicate that nearly one third of readers still had difficulty understanding why all this happened, even after finishing the book.
Are there aspects that might be explained to people more cogently? I can’t tell, but three points occur to me offhand.
One is that this deception was permitted to continue in part because Mary was clearly “in denial” (as the stock phrase goes) of what was really going on. That was obvious from the phrase one reviewer quoted: that “you believe the lie because the alternative is too awful.” Well, that is an explanation! However, I wonder if it’s an explanation that needs expanding on for the benefit of those who have never been in such a situation—or alternatively are more “hardheaded thinkers” less apt to let their feelings tempt them into ignoring reality.
That leads me to the second and larger point: that the reason why many reviewers “don’t understand” is not just because they’ve never been in such a situation themselves, but simply because they’re different from Mary and others who have. They “think differently,” “feel differently,” have different personal histories, different values, different personality traits and so on. I’d wager that a good many reviewers who “just can’t understand” how anyone could fall for such a con would not in fact fall for it themselves, or anyway not as badly. Some might in spite of themselves, but many would not.
That involves a whole discussion of what factors leave some people especially prone to being targeted by a psychopath (or any other kind of abuser), while others are not. It’s far too big a topic to discuss in this post, but it may be one that needs addressing when trying to explain matters to people who have trouble understanding because they themselves are not so “victim prone.”
The third point is a minor one, and specific to Mary’s book. This is about how the conman succeeded in making himself appear so credible. One of the reviewers who did make intelligent comments was Dr. R. W. (“Bob”) Leslie of Glasgow. Remarking on this bigamist’s “elaborate attention to detail” in making his story look convincing, Dr. Leslie mentioned how “others were enrolled to support the story.” However, he added: “What I, and, I’m sure, other readers, would like to know is: who constituted his back-up team?… someone must have been helping him set up his intricate deceptions. And to what extent were his family involved?” This sounds like an intriguing and unexplored aspect of the tale. Did this bigamist have accomplices? If so, who were they, what did they do, and what motive did they have for helping him in his deception? This could be one more point. however small, that might help to better understand the depth of the deception.
The other issue regarding Mary’s book is about the value judgments, negative ones especially, that some reviewers passed on her. Those value judgments are a separate issue from whether or not people understood why she acted as she did. Some readers had trouble understanding, but didn’t seek to criticize her on those grounds. Conversely, other readers might understand, more or less, but ridiculed or her actions anyway.
Just the same, when people don’t understand why someone did what they did, they’re more likely to criticize or condemn it. A negative value judgment is an essential element in what’s called “blaming the victim,” because “blame” implies a negative judgment. And there’s no doubt the reviewer Blitzen, unlike most others, was outstandingly guilty of that.
But when anybody says anything nasty, we’ve always got to “consider the source”! What kind of person is this reader named “blitzen prancer” who made these rude remarks?
I suspect this writer could be male, though I haven’t found any proof of that. Anyway it’s convenient to refer to Blitzen as “he.”
He’s also quite young, probably not much past his 20s, if that.
From his use of the word “daft,” I’d say he’s unlikely to be American, and more likely to be British, or possibly Australasian. (Sure enough, it turned out later that he’s an Aussie.)
But whether he’s a thirtyish male from Australia or a great-grandmother from Zanzibar makes little difference compared with what kind of personality he has. Judging by what he’s written, I feel safe in saying one thing at least. This guy (if it is a “guy”) is a sourpuss. He doesn’t much like anyone or anything!
Out of seven books he’s chosen to post reviews on, five of them he gave only one star and two star ratings. His comments: “Disappointed.” “Waste of space.” “Hmmm…” “Revolutionary bore.” And “Should have trusted my first instinct” (that the book in question would continue just as badly as it began).
The one book he describes as “one of [his] fave novels” only rated four stars rather than five, and the comment “Interesting.” This guy is nothing if not lukewarm in his admiration for the work. I’m tempted to think that, like Ernst Stavro Blofeld, his highest expression of praise is the word “Satisfactory.”
So in Blitzen’s eyes, Mary Turner Thomson’s The Bigamist was actually rated quite highly compared with the others. At least he gave the book three stars, said it was “Worth a read” and called it “compelling,” “eye-opening” and “informative.” He ranked it in second place out of the seven, just below “one of his fave novels,” a well-known classic. Mary has a right to feel proud of that much at least.
With book after book, Blitzen complains of being “bored.” “Boring,” “tedious,” “drawn out,” “longwinded,” “repetitive,” “I was apathetic”: this is the theme that constantly recurs in his reviews. He is also a misanthropist. He doesn’t seem to like the world very much, or the people in it. He remarks on one book’s “real and honest portrayals”—of the “flawed nature of human beings.” Another book’s “commentary on society” is to him “horrifyingly” realistic, suggesting Blitzen has a negative view of both humans and “society.”
I could be reading too much into those remarks alone, when humans are “flawed” to some extent—some of them badly—and “societies” of course are inevitably “flawed” in one way or another. (What kind of fantasist could possiby expect the jumble of human beings we call a “society” to be perfect?) But it goes beyond that, when time after time Blitzen complains that he “does not like” or “could not identify with” the characters in a book. This is even true of that “fave novel” of his. He has learned to enjoy the book although he “despised every character” in it!—which may be why he downrated it to only four stars. The novel in question? Wuthering Heights.
Can that truly be because every single character in Emily Brontë’s novel is so utterly despicable? Or does beastliness, like beauty, lie in the eye of the beholder? There may be a clue in Blitzen’s review of another classic novel, Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Amazingly, this famous horror novel, so highly rated by other readers, only earned one star from Blitzen, who confessed himself “disappointed.” He explained that the novel was “tedious” and “there was no time that i felt any emotion, be it fear, horror, tenderness or any other.”
Oh, really? I have to wonder how much of this deficit lies, not with the books in question, but with Blitzen himself. Of course it would be unreasonable to presume to “diagnose” anyone on the basis of a few brief book reviews. Just the same: a tendency toward intolerable boredom, an attitude toward the world that could hardly be called genial, a dislike of many people due to an inability to “identify with” or “feel empathy for” them—all of this rooted in an apparent difficulty in feeling emotionally aroused by anything, even a horror novel. Now where have I heard of symptoms like those before?
Read Blitzen’s other reviews here
Red,
that was an outstanding analysis of the review and the reviewer! amazing! thank you. You pretty much assured me that this person who is always bored and hates humanity, is probably somewhere on the spath continuum.
love your post and analysis, Redwald. Not the evidence for a professional diagnosis, but enough red flag comments to make you not be bothered about him.
Redwald,
Great review of the reviewer! LOL You never fail to surprise me with your analysis of things! Great article and great way of looking at things! LOL
The points about the book adequately explaining the “why I stayed” point are valid I think, though I too have never read the book, need to put it on my list of books to read. I think too, you need to look at WHAT KIND OF PERSON READS THAT KIND OF BOOK. What kind of person would read Donna’s book?
Now, I realize that not every person who reads a “true crime” book is either a criminal or a victim of crime, but I think that most people who read “self help” books are INTERESTED IN THAT SUBJECT, and ditto for reading a autobiography-type book must have some INTEREST in the subject. WHY otherwise read such a book? We read books to try to understand something about the subject we are reading about. Why are we interested in THAT subject unless we have been exposed to something about it?
I have wide range of interests in reading, and read everything from Ann Rule, to research on psychology, and even J. Reid Maloy (who I think is one of the WORST writers as far as his “word salad” sentences, that I think mark him as a narcissistic author who writes to sound imposing rather than one who writes for clarity)…but that’s just my opinion. Because of my interests in various subjects I read about THEM…I have read many books about prisoners of war and political prisoners, hard survival stories, and 19th century sailors, and their ordeals, because it interests me to know how people respond under extreme stress and duress.
Now I have 15 feet of book shelf space taken up by books only on psychopathy, another six feet of books about felons and rehabilitation (or not) and more space on self understanding and setting boundaries as well as shelf after shelf of spiritually oriented reading. Then there are others on abuse victims from Mary Jo B., to Donna’s book and many others.
What kind of man (?) is Blitzen that he would even read Mary’s book? What made him interested in (or not) her tale of woe and abuse?
Also, Your point, Red, about how some people would NOT be taken in by the victimhood that we were….they had different boundaries. Plus, some of us that were taken in by scam artist B would not be taken in by scam artist A because we would not fall for Scam A as it did not appeal to us. For example I would NEVER have allowed a man to hit me and then stay in my life…..well, not a spouse or BF, but I FELL FOR MY SON DOING IT and gave him another chance, and so on.
I wouldn’t have fallen for the get rich schemes raising worms or ostriches or emus, I could see right through those, no problem, but obviously not everyone could see through them. I was safe from THOSE scams…but not safe from a man (the P BF) who was going to wipe out my grief from my widowhood and make me happy the rest of my life and be there for me.
So I have difficulty understanding how the worm growers or the emu growers could be so stooooopid and put sooooo much money into it….but I KNOW in my heart they were/are just as delusional as I was and stayed in denial as long as they could.
It does hurt to admit the truth that you’ve been scammed, but getting out of denial is the only way out of the scam. Mary did it and I’m proud of her and for her…..Blitzen can go back to OZ and shut his negative yap!