Patterns of Interaction Between Love Addicts and Love Avoidants

From the writings of Pia Melody on Love Avoidance and Love Addiction

The Cyclic Dance Between

Love Addicted and Love Avoidant Partners

Love Addicted Greatest fear is that of abandonment with an underlying fear of intimacy.	Love Avoidant Greatest fear is that of intimacy with an underlying fear of abandonment.
	1. Enters relationship out of duty, not love
1. Is responsive to the avoidant's seductiveness and enters the relationship.
	2. Enters behind wall of seduction (which actually impedes intimacy)
2. Denies partner's walls and importance of life outside the relationship.
3. Experiences an event that shatters the denial.	3. Becomes overwhelmed by the neediness of the partner and moves from the wall of seduction
4. Emotional withdrawal from fantasy Feelings: Pain anger fear rage shame panic suicide This is a psychological emergency of worthlessness	4. Escapes the relationship: In some way, creates distance from the partner Feelings: Avoided
5. Obsesses and medicates to get out of the feelings of the withdrawal from the relationship. Feelings: Self-destructive behavior	5. Creates intensity outside of primary relationship and can use addictions or thrill-seeking. Feelings: Anger and revenge
Either the fantasy is rejected and the relationship ended OR The Love Addict Resolves the conflict and the cycle is repeated. The relationship becomes a repeating of the cycle. Returns to the relationship out of FEAR of abandonment.	Either the relationship ends OR The Love Avoidant Becomes overwhelmed with GUILT for abandoning responsibilities (because self-worth is derived from rescuing and care-taking) and returns to the relationship.

From Pia Mellody's writings and lectures,

and professional training with "The Meadows" treatment facility.

And from

“Facing Love Addiction”

by Mellody, Miller and Miller

HarperOne, 1992.

Roles That Enmeshed and Abandoned Children Play within Families

From the writings of Pia Mellody on Facing Love Addiction and Love Avoidance (The dynamics of non-sexual covert/emotional incest)

Note: A child can fill both positive and negative roles.

Roles Assigned to Child With Enmeshing Abuse

"Positive Roles":

• Hero or heroine (good child)
  
• Counselor
• Surrogate partners
• Surrogate parent
• Mediator
• Mascot (comedian role)
• Daddy's Little Girl (a ROLE, not a name said in passing)
• Daddy's Little Man
• Mommy's Little Girl
• Mommy's Little Man

In Enmeshment,

In a relationship, this person will be “very good at being good.” Because he/she is so adaptable as a child, when they become an adult, they will seek intensity in order to feel alive and do it in a “positive” but COVERT manner.

They derive both shame and a false sense of empowerment from these roles which imparts a sense of value. They objectify those whom they care for by devaluing their partner while also elevating self.

“Negative Roles”

• Scapegoat (problem child)
• Rebel
  

In a relationship, this person will be “very good at being bad.” This adult will seek intensity in order to feel alive in a “negative” OVERT manner.

Roles Assigned To Child With Abandoning/Neglecting Abuse

“Negative Role”

Lost Child:

In a relationship, this person will act in a dependent, needy manner and try to create intensity inside the relationship itself as he/she perceives that it is the relationship that keeps him/her alive.

Irrelevant Child:

Deeper level of the lost child.

Xenophobia for BOTH SUBTYPES:

• Fear in general.
• Fear of strangers.
• It is a biological imperative and sometimes is necessary for survival, and we then tend to be relational with what is familiar.
• For the person who has been neglected or abandoned, he/she will try to be relational with people who create distance in relationships through the use of walls. (They will naturally be attracted, ironically, to those who are emotionally unavailable to them.)
• For the person who has been enmeshed, he/she will feel compelled to be relational with people who are needy and who believe that they are worthless.
  

From Pia Mellody's writings and lectures,

and professional training with "The Meadows" treatment facility.

And from

“Facing Love Addiction”

by Mellody, Miller and Miller

HarperOne, 1992.

Introduction to Love Addiction and Love Avoidance

-->

From Pia Mellody's writings and lectures, and my professional training with "The Meadows" treatment facility.

INTRODUCTION

Love Addiction and Avoidance are not about love at all. It is all about trauma reactions inside a relationship. Love starts with thought which requires an awareness of self or others that allows you to hold both in warm regard. Those who are “hard to love” require “heaving lifting” for the other party because the respect and love are not reciprocated or done so evenly. Respect is a willingness to tolerate others violations, even when you really don't have to do so. All this requires self esteem.

Note that we have three basic human needs that are God given and easily compared: love, sex and food. Just as with any need, we can manage any one of these inappropriately or to extreme. In terms of extremes, we can seek out fulfillment compulsively (like an addiction) or we can avoid and deny our needs compulsively. Both of these unbalanced extremes are self-destructive.

We all face disappointment and shame which Mellody calls “experiencing our humanity.” For the Christian, this would be experiencing our sin nature and the shame and disappointment in our failure to overcome our natural desires that have not yet been transformed to be like Christ. Until our degree and process of becoming like Jesus and our level of sanctification grows, we tend to fall into the same human trappings as everyone else. We tend to confuse love with caretaking. We tend to go about this in predictable pattern.

-->

Two Patterns

Pattern 1: Love Addiction

All about making up a fantasy about another person and falling in love with the fantasy

The fantasy involves

• seeing the other person as god-like
• capable of saving the love addict from his/her fear of not being able to make it on his/her own
• and loving him/her forever.
• They are someone who will “love you into loving yourself.”
• The fantasy objectifies the partner or the counter part in the unhealthy relationship (reducing them to an object of fantasy).
• This actually means that the partner is not acceptable to the love addict, therefore the love addict objectifies them by seeing them in terms of their own fantasy and not as the partner really is.
  

Pattern 2: Love Avoidance

Compulsive relational cycle that appears to be intimate but actually avoids intimacy and vulnerability

The love avoidant

• gets a sense of value from (compulsive) caretaking
• the partner confuses this with love
• They are “allergic to vulnerability”
• Their sense of value comes from caretaking and is a means of avoiding guilt.
  

-->

Relational Connections in Childhood

Type I: Healthy Relationship

• A relationship of Functional Bonding: Caregiver takes appropriate car of the child (affirming, nurturing, and limit setting)
• Caregiver takes care of the child and uses personal boundaries which protect the child appropriately.
• The care and responsibility for the child rests completely upon the adult caregiver.
  

Type II: Caregiver Uses the Child

• A relationship of Enmeshment: Caregiver uses the child to take care of himself/herself (affirming and nurturing must be earned by the child and must provide these to the parent as well)
• Caregiver is without personal boundaries
• The care and responsibility is partly provided by the parent, but the child is also required to reciprocate for the benefit of the parent)
• Produces a Love Avoidant type adult because the child resents the usury on some level. (Demanded sacrifice as a duty or obligation will always produce some degree of resentment.)
  

Type III: Caregiver Abandons the Child

• A relationship of Neglect/Rejection (Can be a partial neglect or inconsistent abandonment and neglect, or complete abandonment)
• Caregiver is detatched and "walled-in"
• The parent provides no care and bears no responsibility for the child and has no functional relationship with the child at all.
• Produces a Love Avoidant type adult because the child is always seeking the fantasy of love and attention.
  

From Pia Mellody's writings and lectures,

and professional training with "The Meadows" treatment facility.

And from

“Facing Love Addiction”

by Mellody, Miller and Miller

HarperOne, 1992.

A Botkin Discussion

-->

I recently received a few new comments of response to my post on the film "The Return of the Daughters," and believe that it warranted highlighting as it's own thread and discussion. I appreciate how respectfully and graciously the anonymous respondent approached the topic and my perspective. I pray God's abundant blessing upon them for approaching this often emotional topic with such a degree of maturity, offering my thanks and gratitude.

.

Copied from the comments under "Disturbing Return of the Daughters" thread:

Anonymous (18Jan08):

I'd like to know what specifically your LPC friend [Blog Host note: "Licensed Professional Counselor"] saw as "inappropriate" emotional need-meeting in this film. "Non-sexual incest" is a very shocking term to use here. I am wondering what is so threatening about a girl being useful, appreciated, loved, and protected in her own home until she gets married? I know about Gothard, too, but I don't get the sense that these folks have a "you must or else grieve God" list as he does.

Again, this film presents a perspective that has become nearly extinct in our present anti-feminine culture. I don't think the film gives any suggestion whatever of an ignorant, inept, frumpy girl knitting and waiting for her dad to pick her a husband. Let's look at this with more maturity, and balance. It should make girls and their parents think about the ridiculous way we throw ourselves, or our kids, out to college (or where ever) at 18 to find their way. Very few know what should be next, and it's a wonderful blessing that these folks have dared to say what they think might be, at the least, a sound consideration from another perspective. And yes, I daresay, you could really call it a "biblical" one.

My Responses (posted under the same thread):

.

Again, as I stated before, incest is the using of another family member in an inappropriate way to meet emotional needs. I admit that this term carries a narrow and very undesirable connotation, so I did explain my use of the term and will do so again. Based upon the body of professional literature concerned with addiction and recovery, this dynamic has been well documented. The first author that comes to mind having written extensively on this topic is Pia Melody, in both her books on Facing Codependency and on Love Addiction.

.

Based upon that model, parents who fail to establish healthy personal boundaries with children develop a pattern of enmeshment. This is well documented in other sources as well, wherein the child is sometimes pulled into the world of adults or can be simply a source of the meeting of emotional needs of the adult, the major caregiver or parent. This is especially true and an unavoidable circumstance in many families wherein one parent is debilitated due to physical illness. Under normal, healthy circumstances, the parent gives to and supports the child until adulthood, and the child does not exist for the use of the parent. In dysfunctional families (beyond the general level of the dysfunction of all human beings), the parent can draw from the child to meet all sorts of needs.

Most people associate the term "incest" with sexual abuse, but the addiction and recovery literature identifies other types of incest, off the top of my head, ranging from sexual, non-sexual gender related, emotional, physical, psychological and religious abuse and usury. Unfortunately, per the pattern and evidence gained from studying these dysfunctional families, the usury has gender implications. The child, when reaching adulthood, will have gender related patterns of behavior stemming from the gender of the parent with whom the usury occurred.

.

The gender oriented pattern seen in the patriarchy movement is very consistent with a "love avoidant" pattern. When a child becomes enmeshed with a parent, there is a specific pattern of behavior that ensues. They are often risk takers, seek helping professions, become enablers and rescuers, find value in objectifying those whom they save in order to codify their unresolved feelings regarding offense and bitterness directed toward the parent that used them inappropriately. (Again, this may fall within any spectrum of human need and does not necessarily regard sexual misconduct at all.)

.

The adult who grew up enmeshed with a parent will protect his or her ego when relating to members of the same sex of the parent with whom they were enmeshed. They objectify members of that sex as a result. Even through rescuing behaviors, the adult "proves" their potency by objectifying those whom they rescue, essentially with the message that "without my help, you are incapable of helping yourself and therefore lesser than me." There is also a tendency to create intensity outside of relationships as a distraction when the responsibilities of the role of rescuer become overwhelming, often creating conspiracy theories and apocalyptic theories as a distraction.

.

The pattern emerging from patriarchy demonstrates prior enmeshment of male leadership with a female parent resulting in the objectifying of women (treating them as objects or lesser beings on some level, such as the "indirect image of God" taught by CBMW [Blog Host note: those outside the patriarchal mindset argue that based on the full context of the teaching, this is effectively the functional position of the ideology, though not all associated with CBMW ascribe to this teaching. Most notably, these are the teachings of Bruce Ware.] and John MacArthur), further establishing these concepts through a gross misuse of the Word of God. It actually reads like the textbook example of enmeshment. The pattern is thus repeated by a seeking of enmeshment with children, and I see this pattern recurring with the next generation wherein the male leadership enmeshes with daughters through unhealthy relationships. Such is demonstrated, IMO and that of many professional counselors, in this concept of a father as keeper of his daughter's heart and daughter as the junior "helpmeet" of the father as training for marriage. It was actually amazing to see how quickly a group of experienced counsellors (mature Christians) immediately identified this pattern of enmeshment without leading on only a very brief discussion of the patriarchy movement at a conference that I recently attended.

.

The dynamics of addiction and codependency hinge on fear and control, and I see these as the predominant features of motivation within the patriarchy movement. This also gives credence to the application of this model. Considering also the strong association and correspondence of the dynamics of battered women with the patterns and effects of spiritual abuse (authors Lalich, Lifton, Hassan, etc.) [Note: See the book list in the column to the right], I am even more inclined to find this as a valid theory, applicable to patriarchy.

.

I encourage you to read Pia Melody's book on Love Addiction, as the first title that comes to mind if you have further interest. It has been my experience that those outside the patriarchal movement find the dynamics of this father/daughter relationship both culturally irrelevant and disturbing as it goes far beyond the relationships that we find in Scripture. I don't doubt that those still within a patriarchal and hierarchical viewpoint find my perspective disturbing and inappropriate at the least, but with some more rounded perspective (both culturally and Biblically) with distance from the patriarchal mindset, this pattern is glaringly obvious and, well frankly, disturbing.

.

Again, I don't doubt that those under the influence of the patriarchal and hierarchical teachings find nothing wrong with this Vision Forum father/daughter relationship perspective, but therein I believe rests the root of the problem. Much of patriarchy is passed off as "Biblical" when it is actually a cultural preference that is not rooted in Scripture but rooted in pagan Hellenistic, Victorian and antebellum culture. Janet Fishburn in "Confronting the Idolatry of Family," Mark Noll in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" and Steven Keillor in "This Rebellious House" discuss this intermingling of cultural and religious concepts, including the additional addition of American Nationalism as well. Consider also the neoConfederate movement and the writings of the Confederate Presbyterians that this patriarchy movement relies upon so heavily. Patriarchy has more to do with cultural and patriotic nostalgia, or at least just as much as it has to do with Biblical Concepts.

.

If you've been sympathetic to the patriarchy movement teachings such as propagated by groups like Vision Forum and even Federal Vision, I would ask you to give my assertions fair consideration. I challenge you to read this literature that I've mentioned for yourself, and I also highly recommend the book "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Johnson and VanVonderan as well. Having been all the way through the mill of the patriarchy movement and endured my own journey through the various ideologies and teachings, giving my attention to all of the arguments, these are my earnest conclusions with full confidence towards God. I believe that the truth inherent in the writings I've cited as well as the Word and the Spirit will prove to be good seed that will take root in the hearts of all those who earnestly seek God and the truth about the patriarchy movement.

.

.

An Addendum Response:

Anonymous,

.

Upon re-reading your comment, I note that I neglected to state and validate a very important comment that you made. The film definitely contains Biblical elements and brings attention to many virtuous ideals. It is the intermingling of those ideals with what I believe is a very unhealthy construct, representing the whole package as the perfect and the only expressly Biblical interpretation of the Scripture in our current culture. So there are virtuous and delightful elements included in it, but the whole package and the ideology behind it (not readily apparent in the film) make it a dangerous mixture of both Biblical concepts and the traditions of men, all wrapped up together in a neat and sweet, very misleading package. The mixture of truth along with what I deem (based upon both experience and diligent study) to be errant doctrine of so-called "Biblical patriarchy" highly deceptive and therefore dangerous to the unsuspecting (just as it once was to me).

.

I don't really expect you to agree with my assessment and appreciate it for what it is at this point, but I do ask that you give it a fair reading. I believe that the truth of it will eventually transcend your doubts, by God's grace and guidance.I would also like to thank you for not resorting to abusive tone and demeaning language in your comments here. I appreciate your maturity and your desire to approach this topic with respect and dignity, also clearly giving me the benefit of the doubt. I pray that God will greatly honor and bless you for dealing with me and this issue with a most notably and truly Christian spirit.