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.

Explaining Triangulation (Part III of III): Relationships and Implications

Relationship Triangulation in Botkin Syndrome

The evangelists of the Stay-At-Home-Daughter (SAHD) model of family promote enmeshment with daughters, using their children to gratify adult psychological and emotional needs, and in some cases, physical and financial needs. Daughters are taught to defer to the father primarily but also to the wishes of all men, and it extends into teachings concerning relationships with brothers. All women are restricted to roles that define them as the helpers (“ezer” in Hebrew) as well as subordinate. This teaches both young women as well as young men alike that the fairer sex has one purpose only: tools to be used to meet the needs of men. It is not only just an issue of prescribed or limited roles for women, but their very essence defines them as lesser creatures: tools and objects for the purpose of service and meeting needs.

The subtle and psychological implications of this are profound. The boundaries between sexes become virtually non-existent. This is not to say that those who intend the paternalistic protection of their daughters out of love purpose these negative outcomes at all. I believe it is an oversight wherein the followers of this teaching become blinded so that they cannot anticipate these implications. As with all idolatry, the fruit and final product produced often ironically yields the very opposite of what was originally intended. 

 Consider Romans chapter 1 wherein idolatry of man (worship of the creature over the Creator) will actually produce gender ambiguity. There is quite a bit of this notable within the movement already, while preaching gender priority actually produces men with very effeminate characteristics and behaviors. The group has become so culturally irrelevant and detatched, they do not even recognize this growing evidence of the effete. Also, there appears to be a developing trend of estrangement between grown children with their patriarchal families, characterized in some patriarchal groups by rebellion, depression, self-punishment and suicide.

The book “So Much More” focuses upon the critical nature of the father and daughter relationship, teaching both spiritual and physical salvation for daughters through service to fathers. This might not be so troubling if there was an equal attention devoted to the relationships between daughters and mothers, but mothers are rarely referenced in this capacity within the subculture. Fathers have all the priority, and mothers seem to be pushed off to the side. Victoria "Vicky" Botkin, wife to Geoff Botkin, is rarely referenced, photographed or discussed in their literature. The mother and daughter relationship is rarely discussed if at all.  The priority within patriarchy falls upon sons only, and purity becomes paramount when it comes to women.

In regard to triangulation, what we see is an unhealthy relationship triangle where father and daughter are aligned, but husband and wife as well as daughter and mother are not.




Following the example presented in the writings of Dr. David Stoop, the implications for other relationships are quite notable, primarily the adult child’s relationship with a new spouse. (I can attest to this difficulty personally, as both my spouse and I had enmeshed relationships with our mothers.) Parental enmeshment destroys intimacy and relationships between husband and wife like nothing else. Within the synoptic Gospels, Jesus tells us that not only can a house divided not stand, but it is also impossible to serve two masters. If one attempts to serve two masters, Jesus said that one will love one master and hate the other. The “multi-generational faithfulness” concept as taught by the proponents of the SAHD model may work for the initial family, but it will undermine the relationship between the new husband and wife. 



The next implication of enmeshment involves what Pia Mellody identifies as an inevitable gender-related “Love Avoidant” pattern. According to her model that expands upon the triangulation model of family therapy, enmeshment (covert incest) produces a “Love Avoidance” toward all members of the sex of the parent with whom the adult child shares enmeshment. If these fathers so control and derive non-sexual need satisfaction from their daughters, the daughters will be love avoidant with other men. They will have intimacy difficulties with their husbands, compounded by the competition that is created with the father-daughter relationship that they carried with them into the marriage. In an attempt to stress appropriate gender relations as Biblical and “kingdom architecture” (as the Botkins define it), they are actually promoting a milieu that drives women away from men.



Revised 24Feb2019

Explaining Triangulation (Part II of III): The Father/Husband Patriarch as an Idol

Patriocentricity

Some religious homeschoolers follow “Biblical patriarchy.” but it is far from Biblical and does not actually reflect traditional patriarchal systems but rather a type of male hegemony. (Power must not only be established, it must be willingly yielded by subordinates without protest or constraint. It is not enough to follow and submit to the pattern in obedience to the law, but it demands a surrender if not destruction of any opposing will. “They say it cannot be taken; it must be given,” says the Merovingian character in the third film of the “Matrix” trilogy.)


From Wise Geek’s definition of hegemony:

Hegemony dates to the Greek verb hegeisthai which translates to “to lead.” Early leaders who were able to exert a great deal of control and influence over a group of people might be referred to as hegemons. A hegemon had to have a great deal of support from at least one dominating class, in order to keep the people of the state from rebelling against the leadership.

From Wikipedia on hegemony:

The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition.


Within the Stay-At-Home-Daughter model associated with Christian homeschooling, all family members revolve around and serve the needs and vision of the patriarchal husband/father. The model encourages sons to “cast visions” and have callings of their own, so long as they are approved by the patriarch. Daughters may follow pursuits that are both circumscribed by the patriarchal father but also the “sphere of the home.” In other words, women must not be permitted any activity in the public square, the sole domain of men. Marriage is deemed the only “normative” role, so any premarital pursuits must be directed only towards that which will prepare the daughter for marriage and motherhood.



















Even so, these pursuits must be approved by the father and must directly and indirectly serve and benefit the overall “family vision” as declared by the father. Home based businesses are strongly promoted, though they must be deemed appropriately feminine in nature as circumscribed by the concept of the so-called “Biblical patriarchy.” Daughters are permitted, however, to serve the visions of their brothers who are encouraged to have their own, independent pursuits that are not necessarily permanently directed at the family unit. A distorted interpretation of Numbers 30 serves as the only Scriptural basis for this belief.

This is idolatry, and it is not even an optional choice of children but is a required element of “multi-generational faithfulness.” This adds to the concept that the family patriarch serves to purify and sanctify all those women assigned to him. Add to this the teachings that all daughters are to be “helpmeets” to their fathers until they are given in marriage to the spouse of their father’s choice. The ideology teaches that girls should refrain from all emotional interest and attachments to potential mates, directing those only towards family members, until their father presents a suitable mate to them. Presumably, the daughter has the option to decline a particular spouse, but based upon a concept of bounded choice, this option is only an illusion. What viable choice does the daughter have to decline? Is she not required to submit to her patriarch’s will in all matters? She cannot flee the home because she has been taught that to do so is apostasy and will render her completely deserving of God’s wrath and Satan’s pleasure. Leaving the home deems her anathema. That is not choice but is bounded choice. The idolatry of the father and then the husband after marriage is non-optional.

Explaining Triangulation (Part I of III): Objectification

Having reviewed the basics of triangulation, I would like to explain my concerns about the Botkin model for raising families. The model views deems males more powerful and capable in respect to both essence and capability, physically and spiritually. In addition, all family members, boys until they are deemed adult men and all women and girls throughout their whole lives, must serve their male “federal head.” (Many Reformed ministers I know attest that the SAHD movement's interpretation misrepresents and grossly misinterprets "federal headship".) In addition, women and girls are required to defer to males in general as well, whether they are their brothers or even their 13 year old sons. Many believe that two factors combine to create a very dysfunctional environment for women, particularly daughters, as is promoted in the teachings of the “Visionary Daughters.” Women, particularly young women and girls are used as objects to gratify needs, particularly by fathers but also by all males in general.


Objectification of children and all females

Whether they formally profess agreement with the ontological subordination of females as the “derivative” or “indirect” image of God in comparison with males (the direct image of God) matters little. Coming right out to admit this would be interpreted as a red flag to people, so they say anything but that direct statement, using unstated assumption and intentional vagueness for the purpose of denying culpability. They use these logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to convey their message subtly and deceive their intended audience. They will not come out and directly state “Woman is made in man’s image” because those specific words would be inflammatory to most Christians, though I believe that everything else that they teach is completely consistent with this premise. It is subtle and crafty.

The consequences of this assumption objectifies women, or that which treats all females as objects to be used like a tools. It is far easier to blame a lesser creature for one’s problems, just as it is quite easy to “kick the dog” after a hard day of frustration. Original sin, seeking to be like God (not woman seeking to be like man as some teach), was followed fast with blame by Adam. In Genesis 3:11-12, when God asks Adam why he disobeyed God’s command to refrain from eating of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam explains that he did so because the woman that God gave him gave him the fruit to eat, so Adam ate. Many interpret this as a very unmanly attempt to reduce his own culpability or “pass the buck” to both God first and then to Eve. The Botkin model does not follow the “flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone” concept that Adam states himself in Genesis 2:23, but more closely approximates the Genesis 3:12 concept that woman is at fault for his own shortcomings and choices.


Under such conditions, it is quite easy to “scapegoat” all women, laying blame upon her for all the ills of mankind. Many notable Bible teachers affiliated with CBMW teach that sin actually entered mankind through woman, but as a technicality, God made Adam responsible because of either or both “federal headship” and “progeniture.” I believe that this interpretation can only be “read into” the text (eisegesis) because of the presuppositions that define all females as lesser creatures. This is also a “Fallacy of the Simple Cause” or "Single Cause" that explains relationships in oversimplified terms, explaining relationships with faulty causalities. Scapegoating is then a consequence of this oversimplification: A single cause or element is identified and vilified as the source of all undesirable circumstances or outcomes. The scapegoat distracts the audience from other possible contributing factors. These teachings are well noted in “So Much More” and “Return of the Daughters” wherein women are attributed the driving desire to usurp man’s authority (and not to be like God as the Genesis account teaches). In redefining women in this way, I believe that the enmity that God placed between the serpent and the woman has been improperly reassigned between man and woman. (Wives are redefined as a husband’s adversary and not as his helpmeet.)

Unwritten Rules Enmeshed Families

Excerpts from "Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves" by Drs. Stoop and Masteller.




From page 107:

Unwritten Rules

Children who grow up in dysfunctional families quickly learn the unwritten, unspoken rules of the household. Here are some that are especially common:

1. We don’t feel.

• We keep our emotions guarded, especially anger (though often there is one person who is allowed to express feelings openly, especially anger).

2. We are always in control.

• We don’t show weakness. We don’t ask for help, which is a sign of weakness.

3. We deny what is going on.

• We don’t believe our senses or perceptions. We lie to ourselves and others.

4. We don’t trust.

• Not ourselves, not others. No one can be relied upon, no one confided in.

5. We keep the family’s secrets.

• Even if we are told, no one would believe us – or so we think.

6. We are ashamed.

• We are to blame for everything bad that happens – and we deserve it.

Excerpt from
Dr. David Stoop & Dr. James Masteller's
"Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves:
Healing Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families"
Regal/Gospel Light, 1996 (Servant, 1991)

Roles and Rules

Excerpts from "Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves" by Drs. Stoop and Masteller.
From pages 105 - 106


A “role” is simply any fixed pattern of relating that forces us into set actions, behaviors and responses, out of “habit” rather than as a freely chosen response to changing circumstances and situations. When roles work like this, they dehumanize us. People do not relate to us as full, free human beings with individual dignity and free will, but only in terms of our role. We are treated, not as “Dave” or “Joan” but as “the Black Sheep,” “the Scapegoat,” “the Kid Brother,” and so on.

Every family system operates according to a set of rules, or what are known in the business world as “standard operating procedures.” Rules may be spoken or unspoken. Nevertheless they exist, and they affect our family’s activities and behaviors. Even without saying a word, our family lets us know what is and is not acceptable, how various circumstances are to be assessed and responded to, and how different individuals out to act and react in different situations.

From Robert Subby in “Lost in the Shuffle:

“Don’t rock the boat” is the all-encompassing rule, the master rule and gatekeeper who rides herd over all the other rules in the family. “Don’t rock the boat” becomes the rule that rules. This simple but stern injunction, “Don’t rock the boat ” locks each individual family member in a set of unhealthy rules. If left unchallenged, these rules will inevitably suppress change, hinder growth, and obstruct any hope of recovery. (pg. 46)

Excerpt from
Dr. David Stoop & Dr. James Masteller's
"Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves:
Healing Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families"
Regal/Gospel Light, 1996 (Servant, 1991)

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.

Being Who Our Parents Need Us To Be

"Beyond Survival:
The New Testament Solution
for Adult Children of Alcoholics"
by Nancy Curtis

As children, we tend to mold our personalities to adapt to our environment. If our environment is supportive, nurturing, and flexible, we are freed to express our own individuality. If our environment is rigid, demanding and conditional, however, we are forced to shape our behavior to fit the needs of others. We substitute our true self for a false self that is more acceptable to our parents, whose love and approval we need desperately. In essence, we compromise who we really are, and become what our parents need us to be.

(p. 53)

Multi Generational Faithfulness: The Ultimate Tragedy

“Love is a Choice: The Definitive Book on Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships” by Hemfelt, Minirth and Meier.

In the very first chapter of the book “Love is a Choice,” the authors offer the story, what they would call a case history. They describe a couple with marital difficulties and a little about each of their grown children, using an example that allows us to see a more obvious example of how interconnected a family is, in both function and dysfunction. These books are filled with such little vignettes of people, examples of real life situations and how real people struggled with them.

The authors go on to describe how professionals came to understand this field of study – addictions, obsessive-compulsive disorders, workaholism, etc. – as a WHOLE FAMILY problem. He explains the history of the Christians who came up with the “Twelve Step” program for alcoholics, but how they soon noted that addictions were not just an issue of the person using some substance, as destructive and involved as that is. The problem is also one of the family, family roles and family behaviors, and addictions are just a symptom of a greater cause.

The alcoholic (or any who use a substance or a behavior as a means of coping or as a way of escape) becomes dependent upon either the behavior or the substance, whatever that may be. Because families all work together to help one another and provide balance (keeping all those relationship triangles in some kind of balance), each member of the family develops a role within the family. The addiction itself becomes problematic but is not the primary problem but merely a symptom. The real disease is whatever the addicted person tries to overcome or compensate for through the addiction.


From page 7:

The Ultimate Tragedy

Another tragedy with which we will deal in later chapters is a problem of multigenerational nature. The serious dysfunction in a founding family will be absorbed by the children’s families and then their children’s families, a ripple of misery extending farther and farther down through the years. The dependency or dysfunction may change: an alcoholic father may sire, for instance, a worka holic son who sires a compulsive daughter who spends her way to bankruptcy. But it’s there. It’s almost always there, wreaking it’s damage.

Excerpts from
Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth and Paul Meier’s
“Love is a Choice:
The Definitive Book on Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships”
Thomas Nelson, 1989

Defining "Balance" and "Healthy" in Terms of Relationships

In general, a balanced and healthy relationship between two parties defines that which respects the abilities, limitations and needs of each party. Another very simple way of describing these relationships through an application of the “golden rule”: each party considers the needs, wants and feelings of the other party so that they act as much in the best interest of the other party as they do their own. Healthy and balanced relationships are not NOT “zero-sum” situations where if one party benefits, the other party suffers some type of loss.

There are always times when one person will sacrifice on behalf of the needs, wants or feelings of the other party, deferring their own out of love and respect of the other, but this is episodic and it is reciprocal. Such a way of relating to the other party strengthens and builds trust and therefore the relationship, because needs, wants and feelings of each party are held in both mutual love and honor.

In order to achieve this, both parties realize and accept the limitations and abilities of one another, refraining from unrealistic demands or expectations. As an example, if one party were very short in stature and the other was tall, the taller person would not expect, ask or demand that the shorter person be capable of reaching on to a high shelf to hand something to him (assuming there is no step-ladder or other device to aid the short person, of course). Likewise, provided that the short person realizes that the ceilings in a basement do not allow for the tall person to stand fully upright without leaning over, they are unlikely to expect, ask or demand that the tall person perform many activities in that basement. 

 Not only are they not capable of normal function in that environment (standing upright – something all human beings should be afforded), doing so causes them physical pain and harm that is very difficult to avoid. The short person then assumes responsibilities for the “basement duties” whenever possible out of respect of the needs, wants and feelings of the taller one. As a general rule, the tall person reciprocates, sharing in the responsibilities of the needs, wants and feelings of the short person by assuming the duties that come easier to a taller person (reaching for items on shelves).

Unique Consideration of the Parent-Child Relationship

Parenting adds additional considerations because of the inequitable abilities of children to meet their own needs as well as the duties of parenting to teach children nearly everything. In addition to providing for the obvious learning and care needs that a child cannot possibly provide for themselves, the parent bears the burden of teaching that child boundaries: where the child's own needs, wants and feelings begin and where they end in relationship to others. This is subtle but vitally important – an aspect of parenting that can be easily forgotten as the child grows older, taking more adult appearing behaviors and performance. (I often find this to be true when observing children who are far beyond the mean for their age group in terms of physical growth. My young cousin looked as if she was four years old when she was only three, and I often found myself “forgetting” that her abilities were still that of a three year old's.)

Because of these factors, all responsibility for the child falls to the parent. The relationship demands this because the child is helpless at birth and requires the parent's sacrificial provision for their needs. An infant provides the most obvious example of this, and the responsibilities are clear: the child depends completely on that parent. But as the child grows older and takes on more adult-like behaviors, the adult must never look to the child to meet their own adult needs within the parent-child relationship. 

 Such a task is complex, because there is so much satisfaction and pleasure that parent's derive from their children. So there is an ever-changing demand placed upon the parent to wisely note that, though the child has developed certain abilities (listening, sharing work, encouragement, emotional support, etc.), the parent must always act in the best interest of the child within the parent-child relationship. Until the child grows into adulthood, the parent bears the heavier burden and must act in the child's best interest above their own. (This is completely apart from the idea that a parent cannot place demands upon children and does not presume that things like household chores or contributing to considerations of the family are improper expectations. This in no way should or does imply “child rights” or other such activism.)

Drawing a Relationship Triangle

Information based upon Dr. David Stoop's description of charting family dynamics.

Excerpts from "Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves" by Drs. Stoop and Masteller.

[Note: Dr. Stoop uses a wavy line in his book, but I use dashed lines.]

Drawing a Triangle Diagram of Relationships

A balanced relationship between three people is represented by a triangle diagram. Each point on the triangle represents a person in the relationship, each point connected to the other by STRAIGHT lines. Each point and line is equally supportive and solidly connected to the other point (person) through healthy communication and appropriate intimacy for that relationship.

Unhealthy, Unbalanced Relationships

Within an unhealthy set of relationships, a RED, DASHED line between two points represents an unhealthy, unstable or inappropriate relationship between those two people within the group. This opens up three possible types of systems.

The first would depict a system where each individual in the system has a distorted/unhealthy relationship with every other person in the system. This is represented by a triangle with each three points (individuals) connected by RED, DASHED lines (unbalanced, unhealthy relationships).

Within the second dysfunctional system, two individuals have a healthy, stable and balanced relationship with one another, so one boundary of the triangle is represented by a STRAIGHT line between those two points. However, each of those two people (or points in the triangle) each have a troubled relationship with the third party in the system. So the two solidly connected people each have a RED, DASHED line connecting them to the third person in the triangle. The third person has no stable and healthy connections with anyone. That person is the “trouble maker” or the “odd man (or woman) out.”

This system is a bit more stable than the first example where all the relationships are rocky, as that one stable relationship between the two points (connected by a STRAIGHT line) acts like a base for the triangle. They are balanced and help to maintain more balance within the system as they can share and distribute the difficulties of the third party. They can work together, strengthening one another to ground the system. Stoop says that though it doesn't represent an ideal situation, it is capable of lasting much longer than the first system (with RED, DASHED lines between all parties). He goes on to say that the two people “aligned” against the third often “draw much strength from their mutual distaste for the third person” (pg. 138).

The third example of an unbalanced relationship is a bit more complicated, wherein one party has a strong and healthy relationship with the two other parties, so we see one point with two STRAIGHT lines connecting them to both of the other people in the system of three. This might seem like it is actually more balanced, because there is more healthy communication and better relationships overall. However, the one stable and more healthy person becomes a fulcrum that supports and balances the unhealthy relationship between the other parties (connected by a RED, DASHED line) who don't communicate well. The one with the two healthy relationships bears the brunt of the pressure, as this more stable person will be relied upon to support the system. They are the obligatory peace maker and the one who sacrifices most to support the others.

Before we venture any further into the discussion of Botkin Syndrome and what these dysfunctional relationships might look like, we should learn just a little more about how family relationships effect one another. In the next few posts, we will examine what Dr. Stoop has to share about what tends to happen in families and different ways families pull themselves into a functional balance, whether healthy or unhealthy. Another little taste from his book looks at relationships from the Old Testament patriarchs as an example of how families tend to develop and relate follows in future posts. He also gives pointers on how to diagram the relationships within your own family and significant relationships.

Excerpt from
Dr. David Stoop & Dr. James Masteller's
"Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves:
Healing Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families"
Regal/Gospel Light, 1996 (Servant, 1991)

Exploring Enmeshment and Family Issues with Dr. David Stoop

Photo of David & Jan Stoop 

Excerpts from "Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves" by Drs. Stoop and Masteller.

-->

From the book Introduction by Dr. Paul Meier:

More and more the family is being seen as it really is – the primary influence in our lives that no only builds us and shapes us, but also sets in motion the disorders that limit and frustrate us as adults. The child who was physically or emotionally abused, for example, usually becomes an adult who will also tend to abuse his or her own children, or else will marry someone who does. All too many of us find ourselves behaving like our parents I ways that we vowed we would never repeat, even though we don't have to follow that pattern.

I remember the pain of a young man whose wife had left him for another man. As he talked to me about it, he mentioned in passing that she was at the same age as her mother was when her mother left her father for another man. I asked him about what he had just said. He didn't answer. He just sat there shaking his head, tears filling his eyes. Finally he said, “I can't understand it. She talked often of the pain her mother had caused by leaving. She was still angry at her mother for it. Now she's gone and done the same thing? Why?”

There is no simple answer to the pain of these patterns. Usually, these problems serve a function within the extended family that is beyond our awareness. That is why we get stuck in behaving in ways we swore we never would...

As a physician and psychiatrist, I can attestt to the vast medical and physiological consequences that take place when we don't get our home in order. Dr. C. Everett Koop, our former U.S. Surgeon General, has told me personally that about 80 percent of all the medical illness seen in a doctor's office are either caused by emotional stress, or will be significantly worsened by stressors.

On going, unresolved family issues, along with other stressors cause ACTFRF (adrenocorticotrophic hormone releasing factor) to be released from the hypothalamus, causing ACTH to be released from the pituitary gland. This causes stress hormones to flow out of the adrenal glands, causing decreased lymphocytes (white blood cells), decreased antibodies, and increased vulnerability to all kinds of infectious diseases, including viral-induced cancers.

The physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of a human being are all intricately intertwined. Repressed injuries that we experienced in our families can cause migraine headaches, ulcers, colitis, muscle aches, and other disorders. But we often forget that they can also be the indirect cause of bronchitis, pneumonia, strokes, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, and death. Taking the effort to analyze and understand the dynamics of our families of origin will help us to take control of our lives, and to move in new and healthier directions. Unless forgiveness is a part of the equation, our analysis and understanding will leave us still caught in the family dysfunction.

I have known Dr. Stoop for many years, both as a colleague and as a personal friend. There is no one I trust more to guide me personally into an understanding of my family and its issues. His gifted abilities and experiences, as well as his extensive psychological and theological training, have all contributed to this important book. All too often the process of forgiveness is either left out or distorted. I'm thrilled that Dr. Stoop and Dr. Masteller have restored it to its central role in the process of our healing.

Paul D. Meier, M.D.

Excerpt from
Dr. David Stoop & Dr. James Masteller's
"Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves:
Healing Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families"
Regal/Gospel Light, 1996 (Servant, 1991)

-->

When Children are Made Responsible for Parents

-->

From “Silently Seduced” by Kenneth Adams. Exploring the dynamics of covert (emotional or non-sexual but gender-related) incest.

From pages 13 -14:

The covertly incestuous relationship system continues to affect one's choice of partners, decisions about separation and divorce, sexuality and all attempted at emotional fulfillment until the truth is faceted and resolved. This is not about blaming or accusing parents. It is about assigning responsibility where it belongs: the parents' relationship with the child. Children do not choose this relationship; it is created for them. Even as adults we do not gain freedom of choice until we see the past clearly and experience our feelings about it. Relationships continue to be dictated by the sense of entrapment, experienced as a surrogate partner to one's parent. Assigning responsibility where it rightfully belongs is the first crucial step in gaining access to one's true feelings, needs and wants.

-->

I think it's important to understand that parents recreate their own family systems. Most parents are not malicious and are not aware of the effect they have on their children because a part of their own childhood is buried within. Sadly, if one's own childhood is not seen for what it really was, the pain of these incestuous relationships gets passed on from one generation to the next. If parents never recover their own lost childhoods, their grief deepens. They continue to expect their children to be there for them in ways they hoped their parents would have been. When this expectation goes unmet, parents see their children as ungrateful, unloving and ungiving. The result is heightened struggles between adult children and aging parents. Willpower or the right set of moral standards aren't enough to produce lasting, healthy changes. Only by facing one's past can one take responsibility for oneself and reclaim the vitality surrendered by being a parent's surrogate partner.

-->

From page 19 – 20:

Many men and women have grown up in families where there is no alcoholic or chemically dependent parent, yet the struggles for love and intimacy are similar. In fact, many of these families appear well put together, almost the ideal or perfect family on the outside. This makes it much more difficult to confront the past in the effort to find the roots of one's current struggles to grow and become healthy. These dysfunctional families have been described as co-dependent.

In “Co-Dependency And Family Rules: A Paradoxical Dependency,” Robert Subby and John Friel offer this definition:

Co-dependency is a dysfunctional pattern of living and problem-solving which is kept in place by a set of the rules within the family system. These rules make healthy growth and change very difficult.

These rules are described by Subby and Friel as follows:

1. It's not okay to talk about problems.
2. Feelings should not be expressed openly.
3. Communications is best if indirect, with one person acting as messenger between the other two (triangulation).
4. Be strong, good, right, perfect. Make us proud. (Unrealistic expectations.)
5. Don't be “selfish.”
6. Do as I say, not as I do.
7. It is not good to play or be playful.
8. Don't rock the boat.

Excerpts from

Kenneth Adams

"Silently Seduced:

When Parents Make Their Children Partners

~Understanding Covert Incest"

Health Communications, 1991

The "Sweet Side" of Enmeshment (Success at a Price)

-->

-->
--> -->

From “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love with Jo Robinson.

From pages 28 – 30:

When I work with adults who were enmeshed with their parents, I am continually reminded of the “sweet side” of the syndrome. By and large, the people I've counseled were attractive and successful in some aspect of their lives. A significant number have had an unusual amount of talent and charisma and have made outstanding achievements in life. For example, I've worked with highly paid executives, nationally recognized artists, successful entrepreneurs – even a Pulitzer Prize nominee. 

In a few instances, these achievements seemed to be the result of in born trials such as physical beauty or unusual intelligence. But for the majority of my clients, their accomplishments appeared to be the direct result of enmeshment. Some had a “Stage Mom or Dad” who pushed them into stardom: their parents badgered or seduced them into abandoning their own goals and adopting the higher standards of an adult. Others succeeded for a less obvious reason: being linked with a parent resulted in a heady sense of entitlement. After all, they had won out in the only competition in life that really mattered: the competition for a parent's love and attention. As a result, they felt destined for success. The seized opportunities others passed by and attracted people to them with their winning ways.

-->

But what was so confusing to my clients was that these positive qualities were always offset by negative ones. Strangely, they felt both privileged and victimized, both talented and worthless, both blessed and cursed. For every positive trait, they expressed it's polar opposite...

Why this contradictory mix of emotions? Typically, there are several factors involved. Part of my clients' confusion could be traced to the fact that many of their fundamental needs had been ignored. Their parents' need for intimacy and companionship had taken precedence over their need for nurturing and independence. Paradoxically, their parents' excessive interest in them had created lifelong feelings of deprivation: “No one is taking care of me!”

Another factor was that while my clients may have been delighted in all the parental attention, on a deeper level they felt exposed and confined. They didn't feel free to be who they were or to develop at their own pace. They felt manipulated and controlled.

Finally, many clients discovered that for every privilege bestowed by a parent, there had been a jealous reaction from someone else. The thrill of being “mama's little man” or “daddy's girl” was eroded by the jealousy of a left-out sibling. The status that came from being a parent's surrogate spouse was offset by the resentment of the displaced husband or wife. The alliance with a parent had thrown the whole family out of balance, and the Chosen Child was often the target of the resulting anger.

Excerpt from
Dr. Patricia Love's The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rule's Your Life Bantam Books, 1990