Wrong Answer

Abusers tend to telegraph their punches, and quite often they will tell us exactly what they are, very soon after we meet them.

This isn't a tactical slip. It's a test, and it's also a setup. We're being tested to see if we know enough about abuse and abusers to recognize the signs.

If we do, we'll take steps to avoid further interaction, and the abuser hasn't lost anything; in fact they've gained, since the space and time we occupied is now freed up for a more promising target.

If we don't, then our response will reveal that. And by the abuser's predatory 'code of ethics', we've just made ourselves legitimate prey. He or she warned us, right? And we didn't take the warning. So it doesn't matter what they do to us from here forward: in their minds, we have just volunteered for it.

That is how they think.

In a few recent posts, I've discussed one variation on this theme, which is how abusers approach recovery groups and online discussion groups to screen them for targets [and as possible places of residence]. This is usually done by 'presenting' in a seemingly harried, frantic emotional state, apparently desperate for reassurance because they've just discovered Condition X [narcissism, sociopathy, borderline PD] and they're terrified that they have it... The appeal to pity [a classic Karpman Victim stance] calls to the Karpman Rescuer in most people [myself included, which is why I understand it]. It will, without fail, lure out the non-recovering or not-yet-recovering enablers in any group, PDQ. And the abuser then knows exactly where his or her next meals will be coming from.

A different approach is taken when screening individuals. This is when it's important to be mindful of 'red flags', or, to borrow a term from Gavin de Becker, 'Pre-Incident Indicators'. Because they will be there; it's part of the test, part of the game that abusers play. And it's actually fairly easy to recognize them; the greatest obstacle is, as with the Karpman Rescue Invitation above, learning to override our programmed enabling responses.

Sean, 16, is talking to Sally, 15, at the school bus stop; she has her clarinet case with her. When he asks what it is, she tells him; when he asks if she's taking lessons she says she's trying out for the marching band. He responds that the marching band is stupid and full of losers, and she ought to be trying out for the orchestra and playing for the musicals.

Wrong answer.

Very wrong answer.

Even if the marching band IS full of losers, it's still the wrong answer.

Even if Sally's talents are much more suited to Benny Goodman than John Philip Sousa, it's STILL the wrong answer.

The right answer is something along the lines of: that's interesting, I was thinking you'd try out for orchestra, we're doing Guys and Dolls this year. How come marching band?

Or suitably sixteen-year-old words to that effect. Followed by respectful listening to Sally's response.

This conversation, in various forms, could be taking place between two people of any gender, at any age, in any relationship.

Sean, 46, is talking to Sally, 38, about the high speed printer; Serge, 27, is talking to Sully, 34, about the Fermilab cyclotron; Suzette, 59, is talking to Harry, 33, about the price of eggs.

The minute one of them puts down the other, or puts down anything the other has expressed an interest in, or a need for, or any form of curiosity about...

Wrong answer.

The minute one of them ceases to listen to the other, and starts talking over him or her...

Wrong answer.

The ultimate red flag, the first and foremost Pre-Incident Indicator, is the disrespect that is inherent in that behavior.

Abusers are very quick to reveal their disrespect. We make allowances for it, make excuses for it, rationalize it, 'forgive' it, decide to 'be bigger than' it, decide it's 'not worth worrying about', at our peril.

I'm not saying, here, that we need to make a Federal Case out of the co-worker who never lets us finish a sentence, or that Sally should have offered Sean an opportunity to become intimately physically acquainted with her clarinet [i.e., a ' clarinoscopy ' ] in response to his snide put-down of her interests.

I am saying, though, that we need to notice these things. When they happen. And we need to be sure that our response to them is one that the would-be abuser can't easily construe as an invitation to continue the abuse.

The next time that co-worker starts talking over us, we can stop, extend a hand palm out [in the universal Traffic Stop signal], give them a level stare, and say, "Let me finish speaking, please." And when Sally's interest in marching band is met with snide putdowns from Sean, she can say, "Well, I don't think they're losers. Fortunately it's me trying out, not you," or suitable 15-year-old words to that effect. Or, we can take steps in future to reduce or minimize our exposure to the rude co-workers, and Sally can keep any further discussions with Sean minimal and superficial.

Of course, abusers don't stop abusing merely because we ask them to. Refusing to accept abuse may - initially - result in more overtly abusive behavior being directed at us [a Change-Back reaction, basically an attempt to bully us back into accepting abuse.] But that response simply proves that what we saw was real, that this person is abusive, just as we had surmised; and if we're in the earliest stages of an acquaintanceship, this behavior isn't likely to persist.

Other targets are likely to prove more enticing; we're likely to be obnoxious and frustrating and difficult to fool or cajole. Unwilling to cooperate.

We've proved it. We've given the Wrong Answer.