Triggered about SOs

SOHank wrote:

Floralie wrote:It's mind control over person with DID to be able to control their switches. Those kind of instructions have also been shared in here, at the same time with other concerns and I see them as legitimate too. And I don't mean, that the wish to be able to bring a host back because they are needed to take care of everyday life would be anyway wrong, I mean controlling them because of someone's own interests. I think that should be forbidden issue to share here too. That is how true MC works, they can call out the parts they want to, when they want to. That is the goal of MC. That is not a goal in getting better with DID.

I’d like to expand on this comment a bit, if I may.

When I talk about assisting with a switch, it is an invitation not a “conjuring”. Kind of like calling someone on the phone and letting them choose to answer it or not. The choice CAN’T be made on my end, only on theirs. They can turn me down, and some do more than others, but most are happy to see me and get time “out”. Generally I’m doing it in their interest, though I do share some common interests as well. Some of the more dominant ones come out on their own. Others are shy or hurt or feel unworthy of attention. I ask them to come out if they are willing, and facilitate activities they like (one likes to paint so I’ll set up paints and canvas then clean the brushes afterward) similar to asking a wallflower to dance.

I agree that doing it with selfish interest is wrong. 100% I highly discourage anyone taking over anyone else’s time. We are in agreement (SF, most of the insiders, and I) that they don’t repress others internally.

The only real exception I make is for system safety. If there is strong motivation to irreversibly self harm, I’ll do whatever I can. If it gets to this, that means our ISHs are blocked and it’s bad. Next starts with just me talking to who is out or an influencer, then trying to bring an ally to front, but can escalate to taking Sunflower to the hospital if necessary.

I agree with Hank on this. I have one part who used to try to hog all the spare time with our husband. So we made a schedule so that everyone gets time. Later this one got her feelings hurt and disappeared for about a week. My husband loves each of "his girls," and missed her, so he would say things like "Where's my {name}. I miss my love." And about the third time she answered by coming to the front.

Or he can say, "Where's my Lilly? I have something for her."

The phone analogy is perfect, because that's basically what happens here as well when I say husband can trigger a switch.

K

SOHank wrote:
When I talk about assisting with a switch, it is an invitation not a “conjuring”. Kind of like calling someone on the phone and letting them choose to answer it or not. The choice CAN’T be made on my end, only on theirs. They can turn me down, and some do more than others, but most are happy to see me and get time “out”. Generally I’m doing it in their interest, though I do share some common interests as well. Some of the more dominant ones come out on their own. Others are shy or hurt or feel unworthy of attention. I ask them to come out if they are willing, and facilitate activities they like (one likes to paint so I’ll set up paints and canvas then clean the brushes afterward) similar to asking a wallflower to dance.

Why do you decide who is gonna be called out, and not your wife herself (or someone else inside their system)?

They need to learn to find safety and comfort within themselves. You can of course be help for them while they do that work, but you can not be their safety. You are an outside person, you can't be part of their inner safety or part of their co-consciousness. That is what makes them strong if more trauma happens, the fact they don't need anyone to take care of them. When they have that, they can have trusty relationships with other people, because those peoples possibly unbalanced behavior can't destroy their inner world, because outside people are not part of their insides.

DID is lacking boundaries between outside world and inner self. They need to grow independent in order to have normal, trusty adult relationships. It won't happen if you are acting like one part of their system, or manage their system for them.

You need to watch every step you take. They need to find their inner helpers and learn how to use them. You can't be their inner helper. You can only stay by their side while they do their healing work.

Every time someones inner kid goes to look for affection from outside, they put themselves in harms way. They need to find that affection inside. That is what healthy people have. That's how they can grow up and be safe all the time for the rest of their lives.

Outside people can always leave. If someone builds their system around an outside person, what will be left, when that person leaves? You have actually done something helpful to them, if you have made them independent, not dependent on you. Or any SO anywhere ever.

It's a fine line between being supportive, and getting yourself between someones own personality parts. If you ever have more control over someones system they themselves do, it's a dangerous situation to that person with DID. I don't care how comforting and safe it may feel, it's still dangerous. Even if it's been done with good will, because of ignorance.

Floralie wrote:DID is lacking boundaries between outside world and inner self.

DID isn't about lacking boundaries between the outside and inside worlds. You might have issues with that but it is not what DID is about. DID is about trauma and the boundaries we created within ourselves to separate ourselves from other parts of ourself. Dividing ourself from ourself.

Floralie wrote:Every time someones inner kid goes to look for affection from outside, they put themselves in harms way. They need to find that affection inside. That is what healthy people have. That's how they can grow up and be safe all the time for the rest of their lives.

Outside people can always leave. If someone builds their system around an outside person, what will be left, when that person leaves? You have actually done something helpful to them, if you have made them independent, not dependent on you. Or any SO anywhere ever.

A large part of the trauma for most of us was in the unhealthy attachment relationships we had as children so establishing a healthy outside attachment to someone is often an important stage in healing. That relationship might be with a T or a friend or a SO but without one healing is limited. Yes it is a risk to trust someone and to try to build a relationship with them but you need to learn that attachment isn't always toxic to heal from the damage bad attachment caused. Healthy attachment is an essential part of development without ever having it our development can only be stunted.

I think being able to find affection via a good friendship or a SO is a wonderful skill that all parts of the system would benefit in having. I think it is terrific when an SO cares enough to try to help. Making a mistake is not the end of the world. And the good that can be gained can far outweigh any bad.

Everything in life carries risk. My mom fell and fractured two vertebrae just trying to get out of bed. So it is easy, especially with trauma, to look at the world like it is a terribly dangerous place. I find that I tend to be constantly on alert for danger. I wish I could let go of that. I've found all that fear and whatever illusion of safety it brings, just isn't worth it.

NyxX wrote:

Floralie wrote:Outside people can always leave. If someone builds their system around an outside person, what will be left, when that person leaves? You have actually done something helpful to them, if you have made them independent, not dependent on you. Or any SO anywhere ever.

A large part of the trauma for most of us was in the unhealthy attachment relationships we had as children so establishing a healthy outside attachment to someone is often an important stage in healing. That relationship might be with a T or a friend or a SO but without one healing is limited. Yes it is a risk to trust someone and to try to build a relationship with them but you need to learn that attachment isn't always toxic to heal from the damage bad attachment caused. Healthy attachment is an essential part of development without ever having it our development can only be stunted.

Very well-stated, NyxX. I want to point out that there is a BIG difference between being attached to someone and being dependent on them. So I agree with Floralie that it would be bad for someone to "build their system" around an outside person. But that's not what we're talking about when we talk about healthy attachment. And ideally EACH part needs to be able to develop a healthy attachment to an outside person.

It is one of the central issues I work on with my T--trusting enough to let different parts feel attached to him, as well as watching out for dependency. He is always watching that balance also. Dependency DOES interfere with healing and hold a system back. Healthy attachment promotes healing.

You are right, NyxX, the semantics in that sentence of mine were incorrect. DID is not lacking boundaries, it should be "People with DID lack boundaries .. " But semantics don't change the outcome.

Gang pretty much explained what I was thinking about. Trained T can also spot the difference between those two, but how could SOs see it? Or their partners with DID, who possibly are very willing to cross that boundary, especially needy littles. Therapy is suppose to be temporary, and clients are suppose to end it with good coping skills to be able to be in control of their lives. That's the opposite of having SO controlling your system for you.

Didn't we just see a case where someone without any inner stability tried to desperately find support for themself and their child parts from outside people, but failed. They ended up suicidal and I hope they didn't end up committing it. Their needs for attachment surely weren't met and they couldn't handle the loss. It's not anywhere near being fair, but you should have some stability even to survive from peer support.

Floralie wrote:You are right, NyxX, the semantics in that sentence of mine were incorrect. DID is not lacking boundaries, it should be "People with DID lack boundaries .. " But semantics don't change the outcome.

I'm still disagreeing I don't believe everyone with DID lack boundaries. I agree it's hard to know how to appropriately set boundaries when you didn't learn as a child but that doesn't necessarily result in a lack of them. You might have to boundaries that don't let anyone get anywhere near you or maybe a strange combination of both. But I think it's possible to have good boundaries.

And maybe an untrained person can't spot the difference very easily between healthy attachment and dependancy or very reliably, but you seem to be implying that means we can't have an SO. And I refuse to accept that my entire life has to be limited by what happened to us many many years ago. The advice we always give to everyone here is find a good T and and often where someone has a SO ask if it would be helpful for the SO to meet with the T and that is in part so those kind of issues can be addressed. Because any competent T that has any kind of understanding about DID should understand how important any attachments we have are and know we need support and guidance with them and sometimes so do the people trying to support and help us.

Floralie wrote:And for myce: if that was all there was on the message, I think it's worth to report. If there was a reason why you were talking about shutting down your computers, it can be understandable accident.

No, I was being vague earlier and there was more to it. Awhile back, a new user asked a question about their experience. It reminded me of a MC program that another user had talked about in the past. Sentinel decided to mention it and the user asked for more information. I tried to be careful how I responded because I was not sure of their intent. They just thanked me and that was it. Then it was not right away but some time later, another user sent a PM that was written in the language of dream-logic, symbol and metaphor, but clearly in response to that discussion about the program. It had the appearance of friendly advice but weird and nonsensical like a dream. It didn't bother me but they could have been trying to undermine a vulnerable person.

Nyx good point about dubious PMs.

My wife is involved with who is called on. Many would like more time out, but are intimidated by the biological outside kids and other things IRL. Most of what I do is provide supplies, space, and intercepting young bio kids who come crying to "mommy". I would like to give them all more time, but usually we are more so making sure no one's "jar is empty". SF will talk with me about someone needing time out or I will let SF know I have some time available and she will "take requests" and we see who's request works in the time available within life constraints (job, kids, volunteering, etc.). Extra emphasis if someone's turn is overdue or recently had a tough session with the T.

The biggest thing I think an outsider help with is to provide perspective and options. The rules are different in and out. One in SF's system is upset that she can not levitate like she does inside, but vows to keep looking into it. If all connections are inside, they are made by inside rules (IE levitation works), whatever they may be. These can be quite different from the outside world. They all made sense in the time of trauma, but not all of them still make sense as an adult. Seeing me talk with our kids, my parents and siblings, co workers, people at school, etc. as well as them talking to the T, other friends SF trusts, and myself helps them see and emulate different methods of communication, negotiation, and working together. Skills, that at least in SF largely atrophied or did not fully develop.

As for options, many didn't know what they liked, so I offered age appropriate options and let them learn what they liked and didn't like. Lou loves to color, Sally loves to paint, CL likes to draw. They also have things that are theirs outside (paints, colors, puzzles, books, clothes, etc.), and get to pick out treats that they like at the store.

I agree that the line between attachment and dependency could be hard to draw. I think this is true in any relationship, but more so with DID. Both of us are very devoted, but it is possible I could be hit by a bus and be gone. That would be a very sad thing for SF. It would be sad for a singleton though to. Just a bit more complicated with DID.

I don't think I can agree with you on healthy people finding affection inside. I think it is important to be comfortable and confident in who you are as a person. However, humans are tribal and seek connections with other humans. Yes there is risk and I understand being extra cautious with DID, but there are many positives that come trusting, healthy attachment, relationships (romantic and platonic) that most always outweigh the negatives.

I did a lot of the discovery work with SF's system in identifying alters, their roles, concerns, desires, and preferences. I will say that processing and dealing with the trauma is handled exclusively with the T. I am there for support after the sessions, have occasionally been requested in session, and I am one of the primary supports as her husband, but not the only one. Her ISH and several other insiders support each other and she also has supportive friends.

I am not a professional T and all my experience is from my wife and what I have read. I will say that SF's T ran out of superlatives about how much progress SF was making. She is a professional with recent DID specific training. I've asked her multiple times if I was being to involved or doing anything I shouldn't and she told me to keep doing what I'm doing. That's our experience, of course, YMMV.

As for the PM's and weird language in it... ??? No clue. It reminded me about how spam email was a few years ago where it almost made sense. I figured they were trying to figure out spam filters. I've seen similar postings on a wide variety of forums (not just mental health). I assumed it was some sort of working the search algorithms. But that is only my speculation.

BTW, this is a very thought provoking discussion. Thank you for bringing it up.

Floralie : I think the bigger issue here is that it looks like you're trying to find general rules for DID, but each system is different and works like no other.
There's things in common, but it will not be the same for all the system. At the end, there's only two things we all have in common : we're multiple and we survived abuses.

Like singelton people aren't all "leaving people". Each of them is different and some of them are safe, stable and healthy. And able to set healthy boundaries.

In our system, we don't lack boundaries at all. That's mainly why we don't have any close friend anymore, we tend to attract unhealthy people who need to depend on someone and somehow choose us because we look strong from the outside, then those people will be pushed back because they will eventually cross our boundaries and won't stop crossing them.

And let me tell you about searching for affection inside : it's a very lonely way to live.
We never felt safe calling for affection, we never felt safe calling for reassurance, we never felt safe calling for help. Our system is built in order to be able to provide all of those to itself.
So yeah, we don't depend on anyone except ouselves. But searching for everything we need inside means it's hard to connect to outside people. It means we feel alone in the outside.
We would love to be able to be close to someone who feel comfortable enough with us to ask if they can see a particular alter.

Our ex did that few times with Daem. She wanted to know him more as he's the other main of the system but he was too affraid of scarying her, plus didn't wanted to "steal" the time I had with her, so he needed to be invited to be comfortable with the idea of being out. It was weird, but we really enjoyed it. And our kids were happy to have someone they saw as safe outside. It was a new feeling we all enjoyed. She tried once or twice to cross our boundaries, but it was because her previous relationships never set proper boundaries and she needed to know where the limits were. After that, she never tried again.
When our relationship ended, we were sad, but as it was an healthy attachment (at least for us), everything was as fine as possible considering the circumstances. And we don't regret anything.

So yeah, there's systems who tend to do unhealthy attachment and see the outside as THE answer to their issues. But there's also systems (like us) who are affraid of any kind of attachment and see the inside as THE answer.
To my opinion, none of those are healthy or true. To me, healing is about being able to find the right balance between the inside and the outside.