Obsessive Love Disorder: A Profile by Paul J. Hannig, Ph.D., CCMHC, NCC This is an excerpt from the full length article, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OC): A Profile. This excerpt entails information concerning the "Obsessive Love Disorder". It is written to include only the pathological aspects of the disorder with full recognition that healthy aspects of behavior do exist. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) "the essential features of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder are recurrent obsessions or compulsions that are severe enough to be time consuming (i.e., they take more than 1 hour a day) or cause marked distress or significant impairment". Obsessions are a true anxiety disorder created in response to a very stressful, overwhelming and painful situation. A crazy family, school or work environment may cause an over-anxious or emotionally injured person to escape these painful realities by retreating to a safer, although sometimes uncomfortable, world of fantasy and obsessions. This obsessive world is created by an intense deprivation of wish and need fulfillment. Because basic needs of love, nurturance and acceptance have been denied, the injured person "trips" to the world of obsessions. The development of an obsessional disorder is similar to the development of other types of disorders. Generally speaking, when an infant is denied the presence of a significant other (parent),the baby will innately scream and cry out in order to communicate with a parent. This painful screaming cry is the infant's primal attempt at getting a parent to respond to a real need (the cry is "Mama, I need you"). If there is no parental response, the child will go into extreme shock, as every cell in the body aches for love and attention. Unfortunately, the child eventually stops crying, goes emotionally dead, stops feeling and becomes crazy. Thus begins the escape and retreat into the psyche and the development of a mental disorder. Continual parental unresponsiveness will cause a systematic and methodical closing down and denial of the child's real self. The child is left wondering why someone doesn't come to relieve the pain. At an early age, when a small child is left alone continuously, she or he will suffer until a parent comes. If the parent doesn't come, the child will become a candidate for disturbing obsessions. In order to survive, a retreat into an unreal, unfeeling world of obsessive love fantasies will be necessary. It is from this fantasy world that, as an adult, the individual will obsess about seducing a sought after lover, perhaps a fatal attraction, who is misperceived as being able to provide all of the narcissistic nutrients (love) that were needed in infancy. Narcissistically, the adult longs to return to that very unique and special place of nirvanic union and exclusive intimacy with mother. Intense pain is caused by the casting out and separation from the world of perfect union with mother, never to return again. The father may be experienced as a highly evaluative, punitive and critical parent. As such, the child may grow up feeling criticized, disapproved of and not good enough. Without early childhood needs and feelings attended to, a sense of not being valued will create powerful feelings of trauma and inadequacy. Strong terror emotions permeate the psychic and interpersonal life of the obsessive person. The child is literally terrorized, especially if punishment is of the "banishment to your room" type. The child's needs are completely ignored in deference to the parent's need for power and authority. The dictum is: father is always right and the child is always wrong. The father wound may be exasperated by unfair comparisons to other children and families. For the child, the ensuing feeling is "there is something wrong with me". The parent literally distorts the inner being of the child which may manifest as psychotic episodes when the child reaches her 20's. Since the child needs to love and idolize the father, she will feel like a disappointment to him. This will necessitate a withdrawal into a fantasy world as a defense against an excruciating reality. The father himself may possess an obsessive compulsive mental and/or personality disorder as a means of denying his own pain. He becomes emotionally intrusive and inaccessible to his children. Unable to take in and receive his young daughter's love, he blocks the child's need to express the passionate part of her libido. She then redirects her love energy into a world of anxious fantasy,unmet need and obsession. The same is true in the mother/son relationship. As such, the Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an attempt to neurotically resolve a child's dilemma. The young child grows into adulthood arrested at an earlier stage, continually failing to establish normal, healthy, bonded love relationships. Instability in the parental relationship has left the child traumatized, anxious, fearful and erotically aroused when there is anticipation of contact with a symbolic, parental love object. S/he becomes attracted to and fixated on unavailable and emotionally inaccessible partners, many of which do not feel the same way about him/her. This struggle between partners is actually a deflection from the fact that Obsessives do not want to feel their own terror. Many obsessional people suffer difficulties which stem from birth trauma. As the child grows, the impact of birth trauma creates a strong unconscious need to cling and hang onto mother. Consequently, many obsessives possess a powerful desire to cling to a desired lover. However, they suppress this desire by cutting off sexual feelings from the emotions of love and need. Obsessives experience a double bind situation: separation is very painful, while contact is very frightening. Since an obsessional disorder is characterized by anxiety, terror becomes internalized and well disguised. This produces tension which manifests itself differently than other anxiety disorders. Terror is directed towards the ideational rather than the motor realm. As a young child, the obsessive person may be afraid of being watched or being in front of people in a particular room or locale. The child just wants to go away and hide, but all escape routes are cut off. With the home environment being so painful, she or he becomes emotionally frozen. Since running away is not possible, the only available means of escape is the retreat to the head and the unreal world of fantasies and obsessions. Shame of the self develops as she or he cannot meet the expectations of the critical inner parent. The child's world is one of constant tension,living hell without relief or physical escape, where fantasy becomes the only option. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a debilitating and destructive disorder. However, it can be healed. If you or someone you know displays more than half of these behavioral characteristics, please seek qualified professional help. Feel free to contact me for a free referral. Good luck in your Odyssey! To order the rest of this article, call 1-818-882-7404, or email us at hannig@mail.earthlink.net

Uh, Rhiannon? Was that you?

No. I would have been more conscientious about fixing the formating (or whatever making sure the lines are nice and even is called). Also, I would never endorse such things that are so obviously theory-driven when it comes to etiology. That, and there is no reference to any empirical research. "At an early age, when a small child is left alone continuously, she or he will suffer until a parent comes. If the parent doesn't come, the child will become a candidate for disturbing obsessions. In order to survive, a retreat into an unreal, unfeeling world of obsessive love fantasies will be necessary." I find this to be an outrageous statement, especially the last sentence. Also: "The child is literally terrorized, especially if punishment is of the "banishment to your room" type." This is being terrorized? Really? And let me tell you, I'm not particularly resilient, but my father never payed attention to me as a kid and I can assure you my inner being is not distorted nor have I ever experienced a psychotic episode, nor do I feel that my growth as a person has been any way damaged. And I certainly do not have OCD: I meet *none* of the diagnostic criteria. And I am anything if emotionally frozen, and I must say that that article offends me on many levels, mainly because it seems to feed the need that many people have to claim themselves as victims. Jeez, who *isn't* attracted to the unattainable? That doesn't mean that you're a psycho and it's all daddy's fault for not meeting your emotional needs (another irritating phrase).

You have no idea how glad I am to hear you stress empirical data. GLad that wasn't you, but who was it then, and why do they want to post such a thing? What is the point?

I was hoping the point was that Semi-Freaked didn't buy the article either. This is precisely why I have so little faith in shrinks.

The fact that the guy had a Ph.D. after his name doesn't mean anything. You know that "men are from mars, women are from venus" guy? he too has a ph.d after his name, but he didn't get his degree at an APA-accredited university, which means the Ph.D. is next to worthless. Judging from the language that the guy above used ("Unfortunately, the child eventually stops crying, goes emotionally dead, stops feeling and becomes crazy." -- excuse me, I didn't realize "becomes crazy" is a clinical term.), I would guess the same for him.

the only thing I understand is, Rhiannon knows her shit. I am waiting for my computer to recoonect to my isp. There it goes.

I try to, anyway. I don't know as much as I should. It just really angers me when people in those kinds of positions use a little bit of knowledge to screw up a whole lot of people. Whoever posted that in the first place bought into it, and it's wrong. And you're right: empirical data is everything. That's what keeps psychology grounded in reality. Otherwise, anybody can say anything and be believed.

I feel the same way whenever I read about some guy that claims the Welsh taught the Algonquin peoples how to speak, or stuff like that. Although there is intriguing evidence form Peru that Chinese sailors may have had contact with the Inkas about a thousand years ago. The data is based on close similarities in Inkan writing and chinese writing of teh same period. There are supposed to be cultural similarities as well, but I can't quite remember them right now. Empirical evidence, though, and being rigorously reviewed.

That's really neat. Tell me more, please.

here's teh story: http://www.ngnews.com/news/1999/10/100599/mesochina_6185.asp and I got it wrong; 3000 BP not 1000 BP, and it's the Olmec, not Inka.

I remember proofreading some book at work talking about welfare, and it completely bashed on single mothers. I haven't been that pissed in a while. I really wanted to write the woman who wrote it and ask her what the heck she was thinking. (That was kind of a nonsequiter. Sorry. I was just reading Rhi and Sem's stuff above and had this on the brain.) And the Chinese/Olmec connection is neat.

There's a somewhat related article in Newsweek, the my turn feature, written by a man who is a professional writer for magazines and a stay at home dad. Apparently, he's been turned down from several major parenting magazines due to his gender, according to him. Th examples he cites are believable. There's a great little anecdote about him on teh bus with his child, and a lady asks him where the mother is. He replies that she's at work and the lady says, Oh, so you get to play Mommy today. Made me think for a bit.

I have to say that I belive the science of Psychology is much like the science of religion. I realize that yes that is a contridiction but thats the point. I'm not much of a religious person, that much is obvious, but when you look at the "science" of Psychology you see its all theoretical, you can't say that because a person recives a certain treatment as a child they will act a certain way as an adult. Its ludicrace. People act a certain way due to the events in each individuals life, people react to an expeirence due to previous events in their life, and respond and change accordingly. So to say a person acts this way because they were left alone as a chile is nuts, I was left alone alot I'm not obsessive in anyway. The number of possiblities for a persons personality due to the events in "their" life are exponential. No one can convince me that a shrink can tell me why I might me crazy based on a singl

You obviously have a much more catholic notion of science than I do.

No, Psychology is a science because it sets out hypotheses, tests them, and discards those that are proven false. Religion doesn't dare do this, and is therefor not a "science" which of course it isn't supposed to be. Ask Rhiannon for more details on why psychology is a science.

Yes. I also agree that no one can say that if person X has *any* kind of childhood, they will grow up to be a certain way. No one *does* say that. Or no one whose voice is worth listening to, anyway, and I exclude the author of the above article from that category. What psychologists say is this: Look at all these adults in Group 1 who exhibit Behaviour (or Trait) X. And look at all these other adults in Group 2 who don't exhibit this behaviour. *All* these people have different backgrounds, personalities, lifestyles, etc. and yet the people in Group 1 are not alike *only* in that they behave a certain way. Upon examination, a significant percentage (NOT 100%, I would venture to say NEVER 100%) also have another factor (Y) in common. Therefore, it is concluded that the presence of Factor Y in someone's life increases the probability that they will exhibit behaviour X. NOT that ALL people with Factor Y do it, or that Factor Y MAKES you act like that. Then there are prospective studies that look at children who have Factor Y in common, and they are studied over the course of their lives, and it is determined that a significant percentage of the sample exhibit behaviour X. Again, all that's concluded is the increase in probability. Nothing is ever stated in absolute terms (except this sentence...argh!) Easy example: child abuse and criminal behaviour. So you can look at criminals and determine that a significant percentage were abused and then conclude that there is a correlation between child abuse and criminal behaviour. You can also look at abused children and see how many turn out to commit crimes and come to a conclusion that way. But no one says that if you are abused then you *will* go on to become a criminal. And then cognitive psychology looks at the physical properties of the brain. So if you equate medicine with science, there's another connection. Got that? And since when was religion a science? But on the other hand, since when did religion preclude scientific study?

Just wanted to point out that I was using catholic for its non-denominational definition.

Got it.

One, I'm far from Catholic in any way. I do belive that the idea of phsycology has its benifits, BUT, (and yes that is a big but. ) Phsycology is still a purely hypothetical "science" which doesn't make it a science at all. Its all just guess work. Now what I belive is when a person lays down on a couch and tells someone all of their problems, that is benificial because that person releases a problem that may of been bothering them from the current conscience. This is just another form of relese much like the martial arts. It lets one escape from their problems. Psycology, the "science" of determining peoples problems based on thier past is crap, where as Phycology the "science of helping people by having them lay down their burden upon a Dr. is a true art, it works.

First of all it's p s y c h ology, so I don't know what your intention is when you distinguish between "psyc" ology and "phyc" ology, unless those are typos. What you seem to be talking about is the difference between psychoanalysis (the couch, developmental approach) and psychiatry (the Dr.). Very few people practice psychoanalysis anymore. Second of all, there are a wide range of types of therapies: cognitive, behavioral, rational emotive, etc. The reason one goes to therapy in the first place is the same reason one goes to the doctor when one isn't feeling well...to get better, and to have someone help you do it. You choose which kind of therapy you go into much like you choose among physicians. Thirdly, it has been proven through analysis of data that *all* types of therapy provide help. Even weird ones like the eye movement therapy. People attribute this to the fact that all therapies provide an environment where one feels free to talk about all their defects without fear of censure. You don't find this kind of environment easily in your daily life, and so just being in the presence of someone who you know will not criticize you or react in a disgusted way when you tell them something ugly about yourself teaches you that you are not disgusting or bad. Fourthly, therapy does anything but allow you to escape your problems. That's like saying taking penicillin for an infection is a way out of dealing with the sickness. That's ridiculous. Therapy requires you to speak openly about your problems and to use different methods to retrain your mind or your behaviour to eliminate the problems. If I'm afraid of heights, I go to therapy to eliminate my fear (through gradual exposure or flooding exercises, for example), not to escape the fear. And to think I had been under the impression that the stigma surrounding mental illness was exaggerated.

I would like to add fifthly, all science by definition is "hypothetical". Take Pure Mathematics, for example. Hal, it seems like you have strong feelings on this subject, whcih I respect, but you should listen to Rhiannon, she know's what she's talking about.

Furthermore, for information regarding the role that childhood environment has in psychological development (particularly the issue surrounding why some people come from horrible backgrounds and end up okay), I refer you to the following sources: Kazdin, A.E. & Kagan, J. (1994). Models of Dysfunction in Developmental Psychopathology. *Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,* Vol. 1, p. 35-52. Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., & Schulz, M.S. (1996). Thinking about risk and resilience in families. In E.M. Hetherington & E. Blechman (eds.), *Stress, coping, and resiliency in children and families.* Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p 1-17. Werner, E.E. (1995). Resilience in development. *Current Directions in Psychological Science,* Vol. 4, p. 81-85. The M.S. Schulz in the second article is my psychopathology professor. The Werner study was conducted on the island of Kauai, which Sarah is familiar with. The things between the asterisks are the titles of the journals/books. If I have time, I'll post the relevant pieces of each article.

Find something in layman's terms as well, if you can. (I was just thinking about presenting archeology to the public, and here comes my first issue of American Antiquity, the journal of the Society for American Archaeology, and the lead article is Structural Marxism - i'm an archaeologist and there's so many $25 words in there it's damn near indecipherable. Anyone not an archaeologist or a political scientist would be completely lost.) I think Hal's raised some questions that are pretty common to get if you make psychology your chosen field, but ones that I for one am curious to see how a student of the science explains. It throws a different perspective on things i experience in my field.

Okay, I'll try the laymen-terms thing. You're right, primary sources for any field are a bear to slog through, and if you're not in the field in question, it's head-swimming. Even if you *are* in the field. I'll do it tomorrow, though. I'm too tired now. Though let me take this opportunity to profess my adoration of my professor. This is the same man who let me turn in that strappado-like PTSD paper waaaaaaay late last spring. I love him. He often tells us about his little boy, and I always like it when men are explicit in their fondness for their children. He's just the nicest man, and he remembered my name, and today when I made a small comment in class, he told me it was good. I wish he were my major advisor instead of the one I have.

so switch. Don't they let you do that?

Well, this is my last semester. There's no more advising left to be done. Except where it to a career, and then I can go to the career development office, which I really should do soon. No need to bother him about it. Say, what was your dad like when you were growing up?

You know what I'm doing now? I'm putting together a Power Point slide show thingy for my presentation on the psychopharmacology of OCD that I have to give tomorrow. I was thinking about how completely off-target that description of OCD above is. It doesn't even correctly define obsessions. Pathetic. You know what's cool, though? PET scans show that the brains of OCD subjects respond in exactly the same way to SRIs and behavioral therapy. Therapy has the same effect as chemical medicine in this case. That's very interesting.

synchronicity. by the time you posted this i had just finished an article in the new yorker on ocd. it was written by a harvard professor who wanted to know "what's wrong with obsession". he had gotten the idea for the article at a conference in cambridge where he found himself at a table with a bunch of scientists who started talking about their obsessive habits and how it fed the way they did their work. the author goes on to interview 3 other doctors who give different views on ocd. ocd has always fascinated me because i'm sure that my grandfather had had it - and it's not just because of the fact that, when he died, he left behind a garage big enough for two cars and a workbench filled to the four walls and rafters with virtually every object he'd ever come in contact with saved and labeled in boxes or piles or at least in "neighborhoods"; what clinched it for me was when i learned years ago that that the french called it "the doubting disease." it had always seemed to me that he collected this stuff, not just for the hell of it, but to fulfill some need. it's a long story. which i don't want to get into. but i'm closer to understanding. thanks for making me think about that. and thanks for the "devil" saying last night that got me thinking about a few things - like the cousin whose funeral i attended this morning who had drunk himself to death. and i'm as fucked up as the rest of the gene pool. you have no idea.

God preserve us from college seniors who think they know everything. Thank you for putting up with me all these years.

I know what you mean, I hated these people who think they knows everything when they are fresh out of college, They don't have one thing: Experience! They got to have EXPERIENCE in for for them to achieve their goal. I thank you for posting this message, so I can get this behind my back!

there is nothing like experience to teach one how to communicate clearly and concisely in service of ones goals

nothing like experience to point out to us what idiots we were in the past. p.s. i get a lot of therapy at a place that always hires people right out of college. recently a case manager asked me, "hey, what is mania, anyway? i hear a lot of the clients use that word." oh for petes sake. what are they teaching these people anyway?

You get a lot of therapy there? Try expresso and Bosnian desserts. Don't trust a therapist right out of college. or one under forty, or over forty for that matter. I've been teaching counselors for a number of years, and being one myself. Without reading Anne Wilson Schaef, the feminist addictionologist and cultural mainstream dropout....I would never have found the truth that I am a recovering therapist, meaning that everything I learned in schoool, I threw out. I learned more about human nature from human nature, Shakespeare, Poe, Hawthorne, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Geothe, Ibsen, Camus, the German Shepherd I grew up with, the Doberman and Airedale I nurtured, and my unwilling to communicate cat...and simply listening to my clients tell me their story...than I ever learned in a classroom. My teaching and consultation reflect that bias. I left The Academy in 1979 and never looked back. Took another 8 years to dry out and get the drugs out of system, and another many to wake up. twenty one years later I am teaching again, this time in a wholly different manner. Most of us are full batshit crazy and asleep. One of my mentors has stopped using a bio when he speaks (and he gets good money when he speaks). He simply says he is a teacher. Last I spoke with him, in Iowa in April, he was uncertain he was a teacher, would continue or not. Those of us who teach, really teach, simply go about our business daily. Call it what you wish. then... Take a look at our society, read "On the justice of roosting chickens", "bowling alone" or "founding mothers" or anything that the wrenegade Ward Churchhill wrote. Read VineDeLoria's "God is Red" Aldo Leopold's life stories. Only if you have time. First, experience. Walk in the woods. Listen to the water. Contemplate the Sky. Sleep night after night along the Appalachian trail. Visit Machu Picchu and bath in the cold waters at its base. Swap stories with a Korean rice farmer, and give him your last bit of chocolate for the favor. Watch the coastline of Hiroshima from offshore, and swat mosquitoes in the humidity of the tent, no hint of acid in the night air some half century later. Then I can understand my insignificant self as part of the Milky Way. A truly divine invention with a limited, oh so limited lifespan and understanding. Then Jen can write her way out of the past here at Sorabji. And Heather can draft new edifices in the air. And Spider can catalog arcane treatises on obscure quinoa strains. Sem can find new dirt to dig in, Mark a note to strike, Sarah a new recipe or baby... We westerners know two of perhaps 36,000 strains of quinoa. Geezuz. And only then can we reinvent the self daily on the crisp and fertile lava cones of Imbabura's hillside, 14,000 years after its last eruption. So thinks the creepy bastard resident therapist.