BPDRecovery.com: Forums

I just got done reading Twilight's Child by Torey Hayden, a former special education teacher who went on to work as an educational psychologist. I have had this book for awhile but it just sold and I need to ship it so I wanted to be sure I read it before mailing it out today. It was fairly heavy reading to cover in a few hours and the timing may not have been ideal but I am glad I had time to read it today. There is a passage I wanted to share here because I find it relevant:



I keep looking at my responses to manipulative people as being a problem I need to fix and yet it looks like my response is "normal" and yet not one that will be effective in dealing with manipulative people. I recognize that I am not the "common denominator" for these people since they tend to provoke the same feelings in many others and not just myself, but I think I can finally be confident that this is not my problem to own. When the person lays blame on others for being like people from their past, it really is a manipulative attempt to get others to own the problem and deflect personal responsibility. I am finding it highly reassuring to read that Torey Hayden has had this same issue because I regard her highly and respect the work she does working with troubled youth. I had not seen "countertransference" described this way before and I found it very insightful so I wanted to share with others who may be experiencing the same thing.

Oops, the book is actually titled Twilight Children. I should have looked closer before I submitted the above post!

I should have added that the subject, Cassandra, is a nine-year-old girl initially diagnosed with PTSD but later oficially diagnosed with a dissociative disorder. There was speculation that she may have been pre-BPD but that was later ruled out (BPD is an adult diagnosis so it would not have been given to a nine-year-old anyway) when the extent of her dissociation became more apparent over the course of therapy. The trauma only lasted for a period of two years (she had been abducted by her father and then found) so she was able to complete integration of her "multiple identities" in just three years. Torey Hayden indicates that "lying, in particular, has remained a huge problem for her, and in times of stress, she is still inclined to revert to sexualized lies" so it is hard to know the truth of her original abduction trauma. She continued to tell sexual lies even at twelve years old, which resulted in her being "taken into care" after an unfortunate court case against a male teacher (her "uncle" was previously convicted of sexual crimes against her). She seems to have again made progress by the age of fourteen and was able to channel her "very active and creative mind" into success in drama.

Interesting excerpt, there.
Although a little too close for comfort this morning. I'm still coming to terms with my own past behaviors, and seeing it in B&W makes me wonder if I really have gotten into remission...

Bit it also casts some light on why various people I've encountered in my life have rubbed me wrong. I used to play into it a lot more than I do now (because I "understand"!) and I've had to learn how to back off and detach with love. My XBF was continually trying to re-create his father's relationship with his mother, and HIS relationship with his mother through me...and i always felt SO frustrated that he couldn't see ME.

Oh, too much too early.
Interesting stuff there...

I'm having some difficulty wrapping my brain around this part - the stuff about countertransference. If Cassandra is the manipulative one and her therapist expresses worry and concern about the failure to make progress, is Cassandra learning that if she keeps acting out, feeding her mental illness, she'll continue to elicit that worry and concern from others around her? I mean, I know that this happens - I've witnessed it too many times to NOT recognize it - but is Hayden saying "that's what countertransference is"?

I guess that then leads me to wonder: how does one get someone like Cassandra to break her own cycle? In borderline situations, I've found that - by and large, for the most part - expressing the concern with a clear boundary seems to help. "I'm worried about you but I won't stick around to watch this continue." Perhaps it's the BPD fear of abandonment that helps with a boundary like that -- the person modifies their behaviour because it's not that they consciously want to manipulate people but that manipulation is the way they've gotten people to stick around & show they care. By saying "I care" while walking away, the manipulator would then get a new message -- "I will always care. If you stop the destruction, I will help. If you continue, I will leave." They learn then that destruction leads to desolation instead of continued concern and attention.

I guess maybe I'm confused by the term itself - countertransference. I've understood transference to be the misplacement or re-placement of feelings onto another individual. I'm seen here as an authority figure and I'm female so I've been on the receiving end of many, many cases of transference where it's easier for folks to work out their issues with their mothers using me as a substitute. They've transfered their "mommy issues" onto me, in other words.

But when we say countertransference, I guess I'm not understanding how that relates to the "mommy issue" thing and/or how it relates to Cassandra's example.

Intuitively, I would say that if transference is the "mommy issue" thing, then countertransference would be a situation where I'd then try to act like the mother I'd hoped to have, to give the nurturing and compassion to those people that I (as a small child) would have liked to have had -- that I'm transfering back onto them after they've transfered onto me.

Again, though, I'm not seeing how that relates to the manipulation thing. I think I'm missing Hayden's point, unfortunately.

Another thought to what Denim mentioned about why people come to the helping professions.

Often, it is, in part and probably largely subconsciously, to heal their own wounds.

Thus, when counter-transference comes into play, one must evalutate how ones' own wounds (or even the wounds of a close other for which one feels special affinity) are factoring into the reaction of counter-transference.

Yeah, having a hard time getting my head around this too. If a therapist or other person responds with their own transference reaction in response to another's transference reaction towards them (this is what countertransference is IMHO) then there basically doing the same thing to one and other - off-loading their baggage about something/somebody in their past onto someone else. I'm also not sure how the manipulative bit fits in with this.

In my few years of therapy, I've only once that I can recall witnessed my T having a countertransference reaction, and I can tell you, it was nasty, not nice to be on the receiving end off. It certainly didn't make me want to be manipulative and to use it to try to create further countertransference reactions. Manipulation: I'm not seeing how provoking another into having a countertransference reaction towards me, works to my advantage.

Unless it's like the situation like Ash said:

Again, I'm not sure how manipulation comes into this. I personally have found having a caring, nurturing & compassionate therapist has helped me to grow tremendously; and I'm pretty sure that she is naturally a caring, compassionate & nurturing person and that it isn't her own "countertransference" that makes her this way. Being treated in a nice way, hasn't kept me stuck.

I guess I can look at the other way too. If a person deliberately manipulates their T and provkes them into reacting in negative ways (the same negative ways as their parents) then, I guess that this could keep a person stuck, re-playing out the same scenarios from their childhood, without resolution. I honestly can't see how illiciting a caring response from another is considered manipulative.

Had another thought on this: If a person is "acting sick" in order to continue to illicit a caring response, then I could see this as a form of manipulation, but I'm not sure how the "countertransference" bit fits in??? If the T is engaging in counter-transference (treating her client in a caring way, because of some deficit in her own childhood) to the manipulation, then isn't s/he in effect helping to keep the client sick???

I'm not sure what you're getting out of this DenimBlue. Maybe you can explain some more?

And a countertransference reaction is exactly the same thing.

Let me see if I can break this down a bit for clarity.


I think that what she is saying is that there are these negative "countertransference" feelings paired with wanting to help someone who is not getting better. It is the caring feelings that lead to most people being helped to get better and that is probably what reinforces those positive feelings of wanting to help someone. I don't think she is defining both sets of feelings as countertransference, which may be what is leading to some confusion with the interpretation of the exerpt.


Manipulative people find ways of exploiting these positive "caring" feelings by not improving and instead keep feeding off people in order to feel cared about. Instead of getting better, these people instead stay in that destructive cycle which could be related to the "victim" cycle. The manipulative person's "pay-off" is the caring feelings generated in the helper but they are very likely not aware that they are also causing these negative feelings "that makes it hard to like the individual" as well. The helper is left with these feelings of wanting to help but not liking the manipulative person or wanting to be in the situation because the helper's "pay-off" is to see the person get better and that is not happening because then the manipulative person would no longer be able to feed on the helper's positive emotions. This cycle keeps both people stuck with the manipulative person wearing down the helper until the positive feelings are sucked dry and all that remains is the negative "countertransference" feelings.


By understanding this cycle, the helper can set boundaries in order to keep the manipulative person from perpetuating the destructive cycle. In the situation with Cassandra, Tory Hayden had to set clear boundaries and not allow Cassandra to use their therapy time to do whatever she wanted to do. She had to refuse to meet with her when her behavior was unacceptable so that in order for Cassandra to get her "pay-off" of positive caring feelings, she had to also work towards getting better so that eventually Torey Hayden could get her own "pay-off" in knowing that her efforts were benefiting her client. Many of the lies Cassandra told were attempts to elicit caring feelings in others and yet this behavior had to be punished because it was not only inappropriate, it was also destructive.

I think that countertransference goes beyond making a connection with someone in the past and relating the emotional responses from the past relationship to the present relationship. What Torey Hayden is saying is that the negative emotions are justified and that is natural to feel at fault when there is a lack of progress. With healthy relationships, there is not this sense of hopelessness and helplessness that is a product of unhealthy relationships because the positive caring feelings are what prompts improvements in the person being helped. It is only with manipulative people that the cycle becomes destructive because it keeps the manipulative person stuck for fear that improvement will result in a loss of caring from the helper.


This is what Torey did with Cassandra that was eventually helpful. Torey basically told Cassandra that what she had been doing (letting Cassandra do whatever she wanted) was not effective and that she could only help Cassandra if she would let her. Cassandra had to let go of her manipulative, controlling, behaviors in order to be helped and that is when there was a break through in the therapy.

This is what I continue to do and I can't find any related "wound" that would explain my negative feelings about certain people. I keep wondering what is wrong with me for having these feelings of frustration, which then lead to intolerance. The intolerance leads me into avoidance because the negative feelings overwhelm my positive caring feelings. Rather than wondering what is wrong with me for having these negative feelings, I have found it more logical to recognize that my feelings are "normal" and it is helpful to be aware of the cycle Torey Hayden mentioned so I can more effectively set boundaries that will protect me from the negative effects of manipulative people.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I need some clarification. No judgements here, just my understanding of things. Let me try to sort this out....

I have taught that in any power differential situation, tranference and countertransference can be natural, unconscious phenonena that simply occur. I recognize that some people intentionally or subconsiously cause this to happen. Transference would be where the person of lessor power in the relationship (the client) personalizes the relationship and countertransference is when the person of higher power (the therapist) stretches these same boundries. Isn't it is up to the person of higher power to maintain the therapudic relationship, i.e. set the boundries that maintain no personalization? I realize this is hard to do when the therapist cares what happens to the client or the client has had emotional issues in the past. However, ideally, if the practioner is caring so much that even after the client has left, or they ar thinking excessively about the client or dreading an upcoming appointment-- doesn't this mean that the therapudic relationship is unbalanced or that countertransference is occuring? If the practictioner recognizes either transference or countertransference, it is not up to that person to maintain the dynamic by either rectifying the transference (working with the clients issues) or in the case of countertransference maybe referring the client to another practitioner if they can't depersonalize? Can't it be a signal to reasses motivations and seek supervision if a person is experiencing countertransference? Maintaining a safe, healthy environment where the client's well-being, safety and comfort are the ideals of the therapudic relationship, IMO. Isn't this the responsibility of the practitioner to maintain (due to the balance of power)? If this therapudic relationship is not being met for Any reason, isn't it also the responsibilty of the practioner to correct this? Also, can't countertransference work both negatively or positively? I guess what I am saying I have always been taught that getting 'too close' was a bad thing, even if you have good intentions. What are your thoughts? Am I way off base here?

Last thought, is this not why people who suffer with BPD have such a hard time finding a therapist?

Great thread!!!

Okay, I was writing my above post when you posted, Denim. I think I understand better now. I should have read your post before I posted. Sorry!

Amanda ~ I am not understanding your comment, perhaps because our understanding of countertransference is not the same. I don't see countertransference as having to do with relating to someone as if that person were like someone from their past. The quote you responded to came from this paragraph:


I will further explain what I meant with the words of mine you quoted. What I was referring to was a sort of "everybody hates me" and "everyone is mean to me for no reason" sort of response to correction. What I have seen is a person provides a list of people from the past who made similar observations about that person's behavior with the conclusion that the person in the present who is attempting to correct the same negative behavior is just like those people from the past who attempted to correct the person (and obviously failed). Cassandra did this same thing when her destructive behavior (attacking vulnerable children in the unit) was punished - she stated that people hated her and wondered why they were so unfair to her instead of recognizing that her behavior was the problem. She took no responsibility for her own behavior, which clearly needed to stop. She put the blame onto others for their "unfair" treatment of her rather than to look at how her own behavior resulted in natural consequences. It is hard to like people who display unacceptable behavior but it was not the feelings that people had towards her actions that was to blame for those very actions. Making other people out to be unfair, mean, abusive, etc. for their attempts to set boundaries on inappropriate behaviors is an example of putting the blame on them rather than accepting personal responsibility for one's own behavior. The manipulative person attempts to manipulate reality so that others are to blame so they can avoid responsibility for solving their own serious problems.


Can you further explain your definition of countertransference for me?

I am guessing your many questions were either rhetorical or no longer need an answer. I am not even sure if they were addressed to me initially or just general questions that came to mind as you were sharing your thoughts. Please let me know if you have a question for me specifically that needs to be answered because I don't want you to think I am ignoring your post.

My understanding of a counter-transference reaction is that it a therapists transference reaction (their stuff) in reponse to a client's transference reaction (the client's stuff.) These counter-transference reactions are IMHO, neither helpful nor appropriate, and should not be shared by the therapist. My T has told me when she finds herself having a strong reaction towards something I say/do, she then goes away and processes "her reaction" in her own supervision (counselling for psychologists) and only once she is sure that her reaction is devoid of "her stuff" would she share it, if she felt it was appropriate. That sharing, would then no longer be classified as a counter-transference reaction because it is not about "her stuff", it is about a normal reaction to somebody else's stuff.

In the example that you talk about it, it sounds like the client learned that she could act badly and stay sick and this would bring out a caring reponse from the T. The client is being manipulative. The caring response from the T isn't counter-transference. I hear you now saying that the T was being kind and caring on the outside, but on the inside she felt frustrated, etc, etc. I hear you saying that she hid her real reaction, and has described that as counter-transference. IMHO, it isn't counter-transference unless her negative reactions are coming from her "own stuff." I think the therapist involved here played a big part in keeping her client stuck by not sharing her true responses. She did eventually "get it" that her fake responses were not helping.

I'm still not really sure what you are getting out of this DenimBlue. I mean are you in the habit of pretending to be concerned and to care, whilst inside you wanna spit tacks? Are you wanting to spit tacks because of your stuff? Or is your response normal/healthy? If you're sure that it's a normal & healthy response, (devoid of your stuff) then are you sharing that response? It sounds like it worked for the T in the end - the balance of care & concern with honesty about the unhealthy behaviour.

Denim,


It was a little of both, rhetorical and general. When I read your posts I think I understood where you were coming from better. I am really just trying to sort this out and I suppose I am a rambling a bit. I am thinking up questions as soon as I write a question. I will try to be more precise.

I understand that you (or any therapist) would have a negative response to manipulative people. What I'm not getting, really, is why 'their' stuff is not more seperated from 'your' stuff. I'm not just talking about you here. I'm saying that IMO, a therapudic relationship isn't supposed to involve strong opinions concering 'like' and 'dislike'. Why aren't the boundries more clearly defined so as not to devolop these 'negative' resonses? I agree that the therapist has to care to be able to do there job, but aren't there degrees? I realize that manipulative people try to generate these feelings in the therapist. Are you saying they are usually successful? That there are not well-defined, known tactics for defusing this behaviour? Is is hard to recognize?

I'm rambling again. I'll stop. Thanks for not ignoring my earlier post. Don't feel obligated to respond to my many questions. I like the discussion. I think I am just trying to ascertain where your coming from and how this is all helping you. I just seem to be struggling with this one. I'm going to step back and just read for a while, not post.

I suppose that is the conclusion I have come to by discussing my negative reactions with other people (I don't know if there is any initial "transference" in order to call my reactions "countertransference" to meet your definition, though). My feelings are "normal" rather than being a product of "my stuff" and therefore I don't need to take responsibility for someone else's stuff.


I don't believe I stated that Torey was being "fake" in any way. What she was doing was allowing the girl to act out in unhealthy ways, thinking she was "building trust" when what was actually happening was the destruction of the therapeutic relationship. Had the girl not been so manipulative, the strategies may have worked for her the same way they worked for other clients. Once Torey realized her mistake, she explained to the girl that she needed to change the way they would work together in the future because what she had been doing clearly was not helping her get better. Her caring feelings and her frustrated feelings were happening together, not in isolation of her other feelings, so it was not a matter of feeling one way and acting another. It was actually her allowing the girl to act out that was keeping the girl stuck and her setting boundaries that helped the girl begin to make progress.


I am not familiar with the phrase "spit tacks" so I am not sure what you are asking me. I can say that I don't pretend to care about someone I don't care about and I don't pretend to be frustrated if I am not frustrated. I am a pretty straight-forward person, which can be difficult for people who are not used to dealing with straight-forward people or would rather deal with people they can more easily manipulate. What I have discovered is that my response to manipulative behavior and lies is normal/healthy and therefore I don't need to keep wondering what is wrong with me when it is not my problem to own. I have already shared my response and determined that it is a common response among others in the same situation but I am not in a position to share my response with the manipulative person because my level of frustration surpasses my feelings of caring at this point and it would not be productive for me to open any sort of discussion about the behaviors with the person who is acting out such behaviors. Besides, I am not a therapist so all I can do is to relate to people as peers.

It is helpful for me to recognize that it is okay to care about people who are not manipulative and continue to help them because they will get better, while understanding that manipulative people will continue to play victim in order to feed off my caring feelings instead of taking steps towards getting better. I want to avoid getting caught in the destructive cycle that benefits no one in the long run so I just need to be able to recognize and avoid being in the destructive cycle with a manipulative person. It would also be helpful for manipulative people to understand the dynamics that keep them stuck so they can take responsibility for their behaviors and work towards changing them but I personally have no control over that so I can only hope for the best for them.

What am I getting out of this? I believe it will be easier for me to recognize that it is not my stuff in the future so that my concern for people and my desire to see people get better does not contribute to their destructive manipulative behavior. Perhaps if I were better at setting healthy boundaries with people, I would be more capable of protecting myself while also helping them so that is something I can work on in the future. Knowing that my response is "normal" and in fact equal to what a professional would feel under the same circumstances is reassuring to me because I tend to have negative feelings about my own negative feelings, especially in situations where my negative feelings are so resistant to changing into more positive feelings.

This sounds healthy. I've recently came to the same conclusion about certain behaviours in others that I felt uncomfortable with. I'm having a perfectly normal response.



This was helpful for me too - To get an opinion of a professional and to find out that they'd feel the same way.

I have however been able to get to the point where I actually feel sad for the people engaging in the behaviours; and came to the conclusion that they are the way they are, and there's nothing I can do to change them. I can only change me and how I respond to them. I'm getting to the point where I'm able to see past the negatives (having a better understanding of how those behaviours serve them, helps) and to see the positives. I'm starting to be able to separate the person from the behaviour. I'm aware that is futile to try to point out the maladpative behaviours to those concerned. I can save myself a whole load of frustration by letting go. Maybe you'll get there one day too?

So basically this thread was to share that "your reactions" to manipulative/lying behaviours in others are "normal" because you read it in a book, and it confirms your views? Well, that's really cool and I'm happy for you.

Denim, this is an interesting thread. What I'm wondering though is if you're not a T, how do you find yourself interacting with manipulative people? Are you talking about friends and/or relatives? Do you find these are the people trying to manipulate you? Thanks.

Therapists are not the only ones who deal with mentally ill people! In fact, they deal with mentally ill people on a much more limited basis and under a much more structured setting than anyone else so they don't get to see the full range of behavior a person exhibits outside of the therapist's office. Therapists also get paid while the rest of society is not compensated for suffering through issues with these same people and they have the option of terminating the relationship for reasons the rest of us are stuck tolerating.

Thanks. I just misunderstood. I can see how you would want to figure this out. I guess we all deal with different types of people on a daily basis. I'm remembering a book I saw years ago, maybe back in the 70's. Something like "How to Deal with Difficult People." I don't know the name of the author. I'm sure you can google it.

For me, I have learned that staying away from manipulative people is the best thing for me. I have had manipulative friends in the past and it wore at my patience. I was a teenager so had very little insight. So my gut reaction was to stay away. I still am like that I think. As an adult, I can more-or-less choose to stay away from whom I want. Now I do belong to a few organizations and sometimes you have to be in contact with those people. I just try to have as little to do with them as possible. I know I can't change their behavior and I don't feel it's up to me to try. So I just choose to not get too involved with them.

With relatives it's different. Sometimes we have no choice but to be around them. I guess this is where boundaries come into play. I had that situation with my sister, and I had to put up boundaries. And it worked!

So I guess these are my ways of dealing with manipulative people. Right now, at this time in my life, I cannot think of anyone who behaves that way, so I'm doing okay. But if I did come across another manipulative person, the boundaries would go up again. I think I am learning and getting better at this. And I can also discuss it with my T and get some insight from him.

Could it be as simple as the fact that you never got to (for lack of a better phrase) 'play victim' and receive a care and love in response? You got punishment instead, (now you might even punish yourself for thoughts/feelings that you equate with weakness/vulnerability/victimhood), and that causes the frustration and even anger reaction? I would think that would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance at the very least.

When you were small and you got brutalized, you WERE a victim and deserved to be protected and loved and cared for. Instead, you got punishment if you showed any 'weakness' or sought out any 'sympathy', etc,. That would be devastating for anybody, and incredibly unfair to say the least.

[[Denim]]

Hi again. :-)

A couple of clarifications. I think that having an adverse reaction to manipulative behavior IS normal. It's the degree to which one has it that tips the balance toward whether it bears looking at ones' own stuff or not.

Also. I think that if a person continues to display these maladaptive 'manipulative' behaviors as an adult, that the behaviors need to be addressed, but the T, for e.g., can usually do that, and still have compassion, IF they have made sure that any extreme reactions (equals potentially their stuff getting mixed in) has been examined and dealt with. Otherwise, the T really does, imo, owe it to the client to get them an new T who does not feel such strong, unresolved counter-transference.

In my personal experience, I tend to draw their counter-transference, but of so-called 'positive' feelings. The T wants to confide in me, earn my respect and caring, etc..

Well, that's my issue of care-taking, etc., and their 'need' for someone to care. Transference and counter-transference.

My current Pdoc won't do therapy with me, bc he already recognizes the potential for this, (his Dad and my Mom both killed themselves in the same town in the same year - and we both got taken in and screwed over by the same prior Pdoc turned preditor [him in business, but through personal; me through therapy].

I've gotten far afield, but what I'm saying is that their are 'coping' behavior patterns are hard-wired in ways of being that are not, inherently, or I should say consciously, manipulative, that can still cause strong 'counter-transference' issues that are beyond a normal aversion.

I just have different buttons that you who may have different buttongs than others. Also, sometimes, groups who have other things in common, could have the same buttons, but I think it still takes a lot of courage like you are displaying here, to see if your 'normal' reaction is devoid of your stuff.

I can see my 'stuff', but have lost the courage to face it, so I mean what I just said with the utmost of sincerity.

As ever,

J.

I was not allowed to be sick or injured as a child but I recall this friend of mine who was always exaggeraging every illness and injury. It really disgusted me that she would do that and I was even disgusted at her mother for allowing her to do it. The mother had polio as a child so that could have had something to do with the way she treated her daughter over medical conditions. It was so ridiculous that the mother fed her daughter baby food every time she had her braces tightened. I would not have wanted anyone treating me that way!

When I was sick it was a sign of weakness and not something I wanted other people to know. I suppose I didn't even want to know when I was sick because I did not want being sick to get me down. When my father was sick, he made everyone else miserable so I was always afraid of him getting sick if I got sick. Fortunately I was very healthy (or asymptomatic, such as with strep throat).

When I was injured, it was usually a sign that I had done something bad and had been punished for it so I did not want anyone to know about my injuries either. Even accidents indicated that I was not paying attention or that I was not coordinated enough to prevent injury. My own daughter broke her arm playing soccer, however I still see kids with broken bones and assume they must have done something to make someone mad at them. I suppose that is one way my view of reality is distorted from the way I was raised because I have to tell myself that there are many other reasons for children to be injured and most of them are not deliberate punishment.

I don't tell my kids they are "not allowed" to get sick (it sounds funny to me now that my father used to say that) but at the same time I don't "baby" them when they are because I don't want them to be like my friend who expected everyone to "baby" her when she was sick. When my daughter broke her arm, she still delivered all her 1000+ boxes of Girl Scout cookies, we just had to use our dogs with dog packs to get orders from the truck to the door for customers so she wouldn't drop them. I was very proud of my daughter for the way she handled her broken arm because she did not use it as an excuse to get out of doing her normal routines.

You are correct that I do not "play victim" nor do I like it when other people do. It is not necessary, especially as adults. I lose respect for people who act like children when they are plenty old enough to act like adults. I don't know what their "pay-off" is but I would not want to be like them. Even as a child, I was always told how "mature" I was and how much I acted like an adult. Why would anyone want to be a child once they left childhood behind? Being a child is being powerless and I could not grow up fast enough as a child. I prefer being an adult - I would not want to be a "victim" to anyone. I would rather be a "control freak" than to give up control to someone else.

I think I got off on a tangent there. I will come back to this when I am not breathing so hard and my heart stops racing. I need my physical strength and mental energy to get through the day so this is not productive for me right now.