| <HTML> |
| <HEAD> |
| <TITLE>The (Non-Snarky) SO's Guide to Living With A Multiple</TITLE> |
| <meta name="keywords" content="multiple, personality, dissociative, identity, disorder, dissocative, mpd, did, multiple, personalities, personality, MPD, MPD/DID, alter, alters, people in my head, Milligan, Schreiber, Sybil, Wilbur, multiplicity, empowered, empowerment"> |
| <meta name="description" content="My spouse has multiple personalities. Not just another MPD/DID, dissociative disorders page. Clear up myths about dissociation, MPD/DID, and learn the facts about healthy multiplicity."> |
| </HEAD> |
| <BODY> |
| <center> <H4>The (Non-Snarky) SO's Guide to Living With A Multiple</H4> </center> |
| <body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="Blue" vlink="Red"><center> |
| <table width=600 cellspacing=5 cellpadding=0> |
| <tr> |
| <td align=left valign=top width=600> |
| Version 1.0, by Azusa, Anthea and S.W. of Amorpha<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Why does this guide exist?<BR> |
| <BR> |
| There are many guides out there for singlets with dysfunctional multiple SOs and SOs who fit the classic psychoanalytic profile of MPD. This is not a guide about "MPD" or "DID" or coping with "dissociative significant others." This is a guide for singlets with SOs who are <i>multiple:</i> many people in one body, regardless of how they may have been diagnosed. We believe that while there are certainly grounds for labeling some multiples as disordered, simply having many people in one body does not necessarily entail a disorder.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: HELP! I just found out my SO is multiple. What do I do?</b><BR> |
| A: First, relax. Calm down. The sky isn't falling; the world isn't going to end. In essence, what you have just discovered is that there is more than one individual living in the body of the person you think of as your SO. You may have been having a relationship with just one of those people and just now found out about the existence of the others, or you may have been led to believe that the presentation of several people was one person, and just now found out otherwise. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| Don't assume you have to do anything. In fact, don't assume anything. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Why is my SO multiple?</b><BR> |
| A: Why are you a singlet? Don't jump immediately to assume that your way of life, your mindset, is the standard, default, normal one for human beings. Is the 'why' important to you? If so, you may have to be prepared for disappointment. There may be no one reason why. Focus on your life with your SO <i>now,</i> not 'why they got to be this way.' Even in systems who <i>do</i> feel they were created by abuse/trauma, try to focus on them as they are now instead of what happened to them. They are not their pasts, even if they still carry baggage with them.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: I want to help my SO.</b><BR> |
| A: Listen to them. Not just one person; listen to everyone in the system who wishes to speak with you. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: But I read that all multiplicity is caused by trauma. Something horrible must have happened to my SO in the past. How can I help them with that?</b><BR> |
| A: Just because you read it don't mean it's necessarily so. It was fairly standard psychological dogma for decades that female psychology was based around penis envy. They may never have been abused at all, or, if they were, they may have been multiple before they were abused. Ask. Don't assume you know better than them.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| If your SO <i>was</i> abused, as many people (both singlet and multiple) in this society have been to some degree, the problem is the abuse, not the multiplicity. Yes, the system will probably have some issues surrounding that. No, the issues are not necessarily intrinsically connected to their being multiple. There are some good guides out there on dealing with an SO who was abused as a child; they're targeted primarily at singlets, but are equally applicable to people in a multiple system. (In fact, if possible, try to find one which is targeted at singlets. The ones tailored to multiples almost inevitably go through the whole integration spiel. The singlet ones can sometimes give more practical advice which does NOT involve ten-year dependence on therapists.)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Are they dangerous to me?</b><BR> |
| A: Any random stranger on the street could be dangerous to you. However, you're far more likely to hurt them through ignorance than they are to hurt you. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Aren't they all just parts of her?</b><BR> |
| A: No. Regardless of how or why they got to exist in the first place, they are their own people. They cannot and should not be pushed into roles as 'the scared part,' 'the angry part,' etc. Remember, this is a guide for living with <i>multiples,</i> not for people who fit the Wilburian MPD model. If you cannot accept them as individuals in their own right, without trying to write them all off as fragments of one person, you should not be pursuing a relationship with your SO. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How can I tell who the real person is?</b><BR> |
| A: Did you read that last answer carefully? They are all equally real. None are more valid than any other. If you mean you're looking for a core, host or original person, why assume there has to be one-- or, if there is one, that they're more integral to the life of the system than any other?<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Will my SO have to be in therapy?</b><BR> |
| A: Well, we don't know your SO, so we can't say for sure. If they're having communications or operating system issues, an open-minded therapist may be able to help them out with that. As with gay and transgender people, some multiples have problems not because of any quality intrinsic to multiplicity but because society's attitudes have led them into self-hatred and depression, and misled them into believing that they're broken and disordered. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| (still working on this one)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Will my SO have to go to the hospital?</b><BR> |
| A: Did she break her leg or get appendicitis? Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Oh, wait, are you talking about <i>mental</i> hospitals? Unless you know the hospital and staff <i>very, very well</i>, our completely biased and non-impartial opinion is NO. Keep your SO OUT of the hospital. There is absolutely no reason why somebody needs to go to a mental hospital simply for being multiple. It's like being sent to a hospital for being gay-- the real problem, in the vast majority of cases, is society's perception of a group it fears and does not understand. It is just as rooted in prejudice.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Okay, what if someone in your SO's system is really having a problem, or if the whole group is having trouble getting along, to the degree where they really might be out of control? Most modern mental hospitals rely largely on drugs, which have no effect whatsoever upon multiplicity (some drugs, like antipsychotics, can temporarily break down communications in a system so as to give the illusion of others having disappeared, but in the long run, they're still there-- just silenced and repressed). They are often staffed by arrogant, condescending doctors and nurses who approach talking therapy, if they do it to any serious degree, with the conviction that they know more about the patient's mind than the patient him/herself does, and that the patient cannot possibly be trusted to know what's good for them. Plus, you're likely to find either one of two attitudes towards multiples: first, the idea that multiplicity doesn't exist and the patient is making it up for attention, or the 'dissociative disorder unit' take, wherein multiples are viewed as out of control, potentially dangerous to themselves and others. We've heard a lot of horror stories about hospitalizations from multiples, but no good ones. In addition, the cost of hospitalization, even with insurance, is astronomical these days; many hospitals are badly-run and understaffed. In essence, you're probably being asked to pay for your SO to be neglected, abused, and/or drugged into submission. No matter how badly your SO's system is running, in the vast majority of cases, you are best off trying to solve the problem without hospitalization.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| But wait! There's a catch here, and it's called "involuntary commitment laws." They vary from state to state, but if you live in the United States, you may be subject to involuntary commitment to a mental hospital if someone else judges you to be potentially dangerous to yourself or others. Simply <i>being</i> multiple, in some places, is enough to get someone judged as such, and a candidate for involuntary commitment. It can also get people fired from their jobs and result in their children being taken away from them. In Wisconsin, a court decision has made it illegal for multiples to have sexual relationships. (You think we're joking? <a href="http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/sarahcom.html">Read it</a>.) In legal terms, a multiple personality defense is an insanity defense. The American legal system equates multiplicity with being too insane to exercise normal moral reasoning abilities. If you live in the US, you can find the involuntary commitment laws for your state <a href="http://www.psychlaws.org/legalResources/statechart.htm">here.</a><BR> |
| <BR> |
| In a nutshell, this means that if you live in the United States, no matter how well your SO's system is functioning, there's a chance they can be hospitalized forcibly, against their will. That's a lot scarier and more real than the possibility of evil serial killer alters skulking about in the back of your SO's headspace. Healthy, functional multiples are waging a battle to be allowed to exist simply as they are, without psychiatric persection, and this is one of the main fronts. <a href="http://www.tanuki.cx/pavilion">Get informed and get involved.</a> Write to therapists, the APA, and your state government. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| (still working on this one)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How should I treat the others?</b><BR> |
| A: How would you treat a close friend or family member whom your SO introduced you to? They are people. Treat them as people. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: What should I call them?</b><BR> |
| A: Their names. Oh, wait, do you mean what you should refer to them as, as general entities? Unless they ask otherwise, just call them people. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: What kinds of others can I expect to meet?</b><BR> |
| A: What kinds of people can you expect to find, walking along the street? Men, women, young people, old people, straight people, gay people, people of every religion and ethnicity. Laundry lists of 'types of alters' are as passe as Oedipal complexes and penis envy. Functional systems who fit them are the exceptions, not the rules.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <i>Do not</i> attempt to pigeonhole people you meet into 'roles' based on their initial behavior towards you. Some people in some systems may specialize, but it rarely means they're restricted to one behavior and one only. If someone happens to like sex or flirting, this does not make them the 'sex alter.' Plenty of singlets like sex, and that doesn't define their personality (at least, it SHOULDN'T). If someone is a bit defensive or quick on the draw, this does not make them the 'angry protector alter.' Plenty of singlets do that too. If a young person is initially fearful of you, this does not make them the 'scared child alter.' These people are all likely to be just as varied and well-rounded as you in their interests and behaviors. It's not uncommon for systems to have certain people tend to handle specific things most often, but when you think about it, doesn't it make sense? If you were the boss of a company, you wouldn't delegate someone who specialized in marketing to handle computer programming. The job of a worker does not define who they are; it just means they're good at certain things and not others. It's no different for people in a system.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Pigeonholing is insulting and goes a long way towards putting people off. Think of one thing you like or are good at-- how would you feel if the world treated you as if you were incapable of anything but that one thing? The people in your SO's system likely feel no different.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: My SO was just diagnosed. What should I do?</b><BR> |
| A: Hoo boy. First of all, get a copy of the DSM-IV standards for Dissociative Identity Disorder and read that puppy CAREFULLY. Does your SO's system have a communal memory? If so, it's time to give your SO's therapist an Education. Your SO were misdiagnosed. They're multiple, but they don't have DID. They don't fit the diagnostic criteria. Why should they be burdened with that label simply because they have more than one person in their body, because of psychiatry and society's prejudices that more than one = disorder? <BR> |
| <BR> |
| Beyond that, labels are for jars, not for people. If your SO really does fit the diagnostic criteria and is getting help specifically for operating system issues, it doesn't change anything between you. We dislike the label DID and hate even more the reason for its change from MPD (to wit, "The change also recognizes that the disorder represents a failure to form one core personality rather than a tendency to create many personalities"), but it may be a necessary evil for temporary insurance purposes. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't fight against it, write to the APA, or get involved in campaigns to promote awareness of healthy plurality as a viable way of living. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| If your SO is freaking out over their diagnosis, let them know, loudly and often, that being multiple doesn't mean they can't be functional or stable. Show them the Layman's Guide, Astraea's Web, Pavilion, and other online resources for healthy multiples; encourage them to get in touch with multiples who are living healthily and functionally as many.<BR><BR> |
| (still working on this) |
| <BR><BR> |
| <b>Q: My SO has decided to go into therapy. What should I do?</b><BR> |
| A: Be careful. This is going to sound rude and intrusive, but it's in your best interest to make sure the therapist is not trying to pull bullshit on your SO's system, as many will. Get involved with the therapy. Insist on talking to the therapist and getting an idea of their attitudes on multiplicity. Do they believe it exists at all? Do they think a system can live functionally without having to integrate? Do they think your SO has repressed memories which MUST be recovered before they can get well? Can they accept the idea of treating an entire multiple system without focusing on the multiplicity as the problem? Do they think multiples are more difficult to treat for common problems like depression and anxiety than singlets? How long do they estimate the therapy will take?<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Ask your SO what they want out of the therapy. If what they want and the therapist's attitudes are at odds-- for example, if they go to therapy for depression and the therapist insists they must integrate-- your SO will not get anything out of the therapy; in fact, they'll be more harmed than helped. Don't give up on therapy if your SO wants it, but look around for different, more open-minded therapists. Your SO has rights and options as a patient. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| Red flags to watch out for:<BR> |
| -Insistience on integration.<BR> |
| -Assertions that your SO's therapy can take up to a decade.<BR> |
| -Assertions that therapy for multiples is 'invariably painful.'<BR> |
| -Insistience that recovery of abuse memories (whether or not your SO has them) is necessary.<BR> |
| -Insistience that the multiplicity is the problem, and that if they went to therapy for something else, it's merely a symptom.<BR> |
| -Expressing extreme concern over the well-being of your SO simply because they happen to be multiple, no matter how functional they are to all ends and appearances.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Remember, there's a bottom line here that many therapists aren't willing to admit to, and the name of that bottom line is MONEY. Multiples are a huge cash cow for therapists if they're doing the 3-times-a-week for 8-10 years therapy that is still considered standard practice in many places. The longer your SO can be kept helpless, dependent, and in therapy, convinced they don't have the skills or haven't healed enough to strike out again on their own, the more they can keep lining the pockets of therapists and clinics. "You have to get worse before you can get better" is a nice catchphrase and a nice excuse for doctors to keep the $$$ coming in while putting a group of human beings through living hell. Some people really do get worse before they get better when dealing with abuse issues, and some people really do go through crises if memories of abuse resurface, but it should not go on for years on end. It should not leave them penniless, jobless, confined in the house and unable to do anything for themselves. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| If therapy causes your SO to regress to that helpless a level, they're being hurt, not healed. You and your SO are being bilked for money, to say nothing of what damage is being done to the system in the process. Find a therapist who's open-minded and willing to think outside the box when it comes to multiples, and get your SO out of there. They will not explode, self-destruct, or go so insane they're beyond helping. These are threats used to keep them confined in a destructive therapeutic paradigm which is prejudicial and outdated. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| (still working on this one)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: Help! Where did my SO go?</b><BR> |
| A: First, before you start worrying about this: Were you actually seeing only one person in the system before, with the others laying low while you were around, or were you seeing the presentation of several people posing as one? Ask them. If your SO was keeping the others under wraps before coming out to you, realize it's probably a huge relief for the one you were involved with to step back and have some rest, and for the others to finally get some time to themselves. It may not be what you bargained on, but it's a lot easier on them. If you insist on seeing one person and one person only at the expense of others getting their front time, your relationship won't go over well. Others in the system may take it as an indication that you believe the one you're seeing is the only 'real' one, or be offended that you are essentially asking them to change their whole way of life so you can date one person. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| If you found out your presumable SO was several people pretending to be one, that's a rough situation. It can be easy to fall into denial here, especially if their act was convincing, to think that it's a case of one person just convinced they're many. It's very hard to accept that the presentation you were given was essentially a lie, in a deeper sense than one person simply not telling you there were others-- it means the person you had come to believe in doesn't really even exist. It's hard to handle. It may make you want to turn away from them entirely, because the feeling of betrayal can go pretty deep.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| The best advice we can give is trying to see it from their standpoint. Try to focus on how stressful it must have been for them to pose as the same person all the time, to repress their own traits and interests, to put on an act, and how much of a relief it would be to be recognized as individuals-- and how scary and stressful it was for them to come out to you. Coming out as multiple is always difficult, not because multiplicity itself is intrinsically scary but because the potential for rejection by others is scary, and if it's to someone who you love, even more so than normal. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: I don't get along with some of the people in my SO's system. What do I do?</b><BR> |
| A: Do not assume that they are intrinsically more irrational than any single person and can't be talked to or dealt with. What would you do if you had a problem with a co-worker or family member?<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How do I know who I'm talking to?</b><BR> |
| A: Don't be embarassed if you can't figure it out. The vast majority of multiples do not go through the kind of theatrics you see on Jerry Springer or Montel Williams when they switch. If in doubt, ask. Showing your SO that you are interested in knowing who you are talking to at any given time is a way to demonstrate that you respect them as seperate individuals, that you want to learn about them as people. It's affirming, not insulting. (Just for reference, though, it's best to ask it when someone starts talking, not in the middle of a conversation.)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How can I tell when they switch?</b><BR> |
| A: You can't always. They may also be co-present (several people being up front or listening in at any given time).<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: What about sex?</b><BR> |
| A: What about it?<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Multiplicity is not a sex game. It is not an excuse for people to fulfil all their secret kinky fantasies by finding the 'nymphomaniac alter' and getting him/her to cooperate with them. Yes, in some systems you may find some people who particularly enjoy sex (as mentioned above, there are plenty of singlets like this too). If you start calling them out just so you can have sex with them, if you use them for that only, don't think they won't catch on to your game and the fact that they're being exploited. If you get hot at the idea of having a relationship with a multiple because you think it means you can fulfil all your fantasies of having sex with innocent virgins, sluts, kinky dominatrixes, submissives, kids, animals, or whatever, all in one, you are a worthless excuse for a human being. Go find some porn to jack off to or something instead. Multiples don't exist solely for you to play juvenile sex games with them. You can't bank on having sex with one person in the system and others not remembering. And if you have sex with a child in an adult body, you're still having sex with a child, with all that entails. Shame on you. Your SO deserves better.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| Okay, now that that's over with: so you're wondering what exactly you -do- when you're starting a sexual relationship with a multiple system? Well, it depends on the system. You may be having a monogamous sexual relationship with only one of the people. You may also be having a polyamorous relationship with several of them. You and your SO should both be clear on your values concerning monogamy vs. polyamoury when you start out. Will the entire system want an exclusive relationship only with you? Will some of them want to have individual relationships with other people, and can you handle that? Yes, this can get thorny. It's one of the most difficult issues that can come up in multiple/singlet relationships. But at least you can't say you weren't warned. ;) <BR> |
| <BR> |
| (still working on this one)<BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How do I handle kids?</b><BR> |
| A: Kids in adult-body multiple systems can be different than outside kids-- we'll admit that. Some of them are pretty much just the same, but others may be precocious in ways you don't expect, or handle things like work and driving that you wouldn't expect outside kids to take on. The one advice we can give you which pretty much seems to apply across the board is: don't be condescending, and don't underestimate them. (Heck, we can't think of any outside kids who enjoy being treated that way either.) Just about every child, inside or out, hates being treated as stupid and unobservant by adults. It always comes back to this: if in doubt, ask. The kids may be up front only rarely, or they may be around often. <BR> |
| <BR> |
| <b>Q: How do we deal with people who don't believe multiplicity exists?</b><BR> |
| A: Well, you have two options. You can either a) ignore them or b) try to find out what their specific misconceptions about it are so you can find out if they're a candidate for An Education. (You can use some of Azu's Snappy Questions To Stupid Statements here, i.e. "I don't believe in MPD/DID." "I'm not sure if I do either. Do you believe in multiplicity?") Most people who are not multiple themselves have been deluged in media misportrayals and popular ideas. Our suggestion is to at least let 'em know that one can be multiple without having MPD/DID, that multiples can be as stable and functional as any singlet. There are some folks out there who are simply bound and determined to maintain an ignorant worldview, but some are simply misinformed. Be polite. Hand out a brochure or two, if you feel like it. But above all, know when to quit, if the person in question really doesn't want to open their mind.<BR> |
| <BR> |
| (still working on this one)<BR> |
|
|
| <BR> |
| </td> </tr> </table></center> |
| </BODY> |
| </HTML> |
| |