My Toxic Trait Quotes

I started getting Mal's texts just before lunch. Mal: Awake Anne: Morning Mal: Going for a run with Jim Anne: Have fun! Mal: Back from run having lunch ... Mal:Your taste in music sucks Anne: Thanks Mal: Seriously, we need to talk it's that bad. Everything apart from Stage Dive needs to go. Anne: Wait. What are you doing? Mal:Fixing it. Anne: Mal, WTH are you doing? Mal: Making you new playlist wih decent shit. Relay Anne: K Thanks Mal: Bored again Mal: Ben's coming over to play Halo Anne: Great! But you don't have to tell me everything you do, Mal Mal: Davie says communication's important Mal: When are you on the rag? Davie said to find out if you want cupcakes or ice cream Anne: I want to not talk about this ever Mal: Bored. Ben's late Mal: Let's get a dog Anne: Apartment has no pets rule Mal: Nice green lace bra Anne: Get out of my drawers, Mal. Mal: Matching panties? Anne: GET OUT NOW. Mal: :) Mal: sext me Mal: Some on it'll be funny Mal: Plz? Mal: High level of unhealthy codependency traits exhibited by both parties relationship possibly bordeing on toxic Anne: WTF? Mal: Did magazine quiz. We need help- Especially you Anne:... Mal: Booking us couples counseling. Tues 4:15 alright? Anne: We are not going to counseling. Mal: What's wrong? Don't you love me anymore? Anne: Turning phone off now.

My toxic trait isn’t the fact that I don’t have feelings; it’s that I feel too much, all at once, so I suppress it instead of learning how to cope.

my toxic trait is; i know how to love but i don't know how to believe i'm loved

Dear my strong girls, you will all go through that phase of life making a mistake of helping a toxic girl whose friendship with you turns into her self-interest. This kind of girls is a real burden towards the empowerment of other females as they can never get past their own insecurity and grow out of high-school-like drama. Despite how advanced we are in educating modern women, this type will still go through life living in identity crisis, endlessly looking for providers of any kind at the end of the day. They can never stand up for others or things that matter because they can't stand up for themselves. They care what everyone thinks only doing things to impress men, friends, strangers, everyone in society except themselves, while at the same time can't stand seeing other women with purpose get what those women want in life. But let me tell you, this is nothing new, let them compete and compare with you as much as they wish, be it your career, love or spirit. You know who you are and you will know who your true girls are by weeding out girls that break our girlie code of honor, but do me a favor by losing this type of people for good. Remind yourself to never waste time with a person who likes to betray others' trust, never. Disloyalty is a trait that can't be cured. Bless yourself that you see a person's true colors sooner than later. With love, your mama. XOXO

This was the most disorienting and upsetting idea that emerged from my reading: the idea that C-PTSD was baked into my personality, that I didn’t know where my PTSD stopped and I began. If C-PTSD was a series of personality traits, then was everything about my personality toxic? Was everything about my history toxic? And would I have to throw it all away? My diagnosis called into question everything I loved—from ginseng abalone soup to talking a whole lot at parties to doodling during meetings. I couldn’t tell which parts were pathologically problematic and which were fine as they were.

Men like my father, and men like him who attend Trump rallies, join misogynistic subcultures, populate some of the most hateful groups in the world, and are prisoners of toxic masculinity, an artificial construct whose expectancies are unattainable, thus making them exceedingly fragile and injurious to others, not to mention themselves. The illusion convinces them from an early age that men deserve to be privileged and entitled, that women and men who don’t conform to traditional standards are second-class persons, are weak and thus detestable. This creates a tyrannical patriarchal system that tilts the world further in favor of men, and, as a side effect, accounts for a great deal of crimes, including harassment, physical and emotional abuse, rape, and even murder. These men, and the boys following in their footsteps, were socialized in childhood to exhibit the ideal masculine traits, including stoicism, aggressiveness, extreme self-confidence, and an unending competitiveness. Those who do not conform are punished by their fathers in the form of physical and emotional abuse, and then further socialized by the boys in their school and community who have been enduring their own abuse at home. If that isn’t enough, our culture then reflects those expectations in its television shows, movies, music, and especially in advertising, where products like construction-site-quality trucks, power tools, beer, gendered deodorant, and even yogurt promise to bestow masculinity for the right price. The masculinity that’s being sold, that’s being installed via systemic abuse, is fragile because, again, it is unattainable. Humans are not intended to suppress their emotions indefinitely, to always be confident and unflinching. Traditional masculinity, as we know it, is an unnatural state, and, as a consequence, men are constantly at war with themselves and the world around them.

My toxic trait is I love watching Christmas movies in July.

It’s that toxic trait that I need to be owned. Put in my place. Hurt me, fuck me, make me come. I’ll never learn but I want him to think I can. That I’m somewhat able to be saved. Even though we both know, deep down, I’m too broken to change now. Sin may be the devil, but I’m the sinner. Doing the same thing over and over, knowing that I can’t be saved.

This is what I wanted. For him to drag me out of the party and fuck me. To want me. To need me like I need him. It’s that toxic trait that I need to be owned. Put in my place. Hurt me, fuck me, make me come. I’ll never learn, but I want him to think I can. That I’m somewhat able to be saved. Even though we both know, deep down, I’m too broken to change now. Sin may be the devil, but I’m the sinner. Doing the same thing over and over, knowing that I can’t be saved.

This is what I wanted. For him to drag me out of the party and fuck me. To want me. To need me like I need him. It’s that toxic trait that I need to be owned. Put in my place. Hurt me, fuck me, make me come. I’ll never learn, but I want him to think I can. That I’m somewhat able to be saved. Even though we both know, deep down, I’m too broken to change now.

My toxic trait is thinking I could change him,” she said.

It’s that toxic trait that I need to be owned. Put in my place. Hurt me, fuck me, make me come. I’ll never learn, but I want him to think I can. That I’m somewhat able to be saved. Even though we both know, deep down, I’m too broken to change now. Sin may be the devil, but I’m the sinner. Doing the same thing over and over, knowing that I can’t be saved.

But here’s the thing. My toxic trait is curiosity, like I really can’t sleep at night if I don’t satisfy that thirst for knowledge.

Where does such forsaking of the self come from? “Type C,” Lydia Temoshok pointed out, “is not a personality, but rather a behavior pattern that can be modified.”[10] I completely agree with her view. Precisely because no one is born with such traits ingrained, we can unlearn them. That’s a pathway toward healing—not an easy road by any means, and one we will take up later in detail. But first, let’s see if we can trace the origins of these patterns. A recurring theme—maybe the core theme—in every talk or workshop I give is the inescapable tension, and for most of us an eventual clash, between two essential needs: attachment and authenticity. This clash is ground zero for the most widespread form of trauma in our society: namely, the “small-t” trauma expressed in a disconnection from the self even in the absence of abuse or overwhelming threat. Attachment, as defined by my colleague and previous co-author, the psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld, is the drive for closeness—proximity to others, in not only the physical but the emotional sense as well. Its primary purpose is to facilitate either caretaking or being taken care of. For mammals and even birds, it is indispensable for life. For the human infant especially—at birth among the most immature, dependent, and helpless animals, and remaining that way for by far the longest period of time—the need for attachment is mandatory. Without reliable adults moved to take care of us, and without our impulse to be close to these caregivers, we simply could not survive—not for a day. As we’ll see in the next chapter, we each arrive in the world “expecting” attachment, just as our lungs expect oxygen. Hardwired into our brains, our drive for attachment is mediated by vast and complex neural circuits governing and promoting behaviors designed to keep us close to those without whom we cannot live. For many people, these attachment circuits powerfully override the ones that grant us rationality, objective decision-making, or conscious will—a fact that explains much about our behavior across multiple realms. In infancy our dependence is an obligatory and long-haul proposition. Everything from crying to cuteness—two unignorable cues babies transmit—is an inbuilt behavior tailored by Nature to keep our caregivers giving and caring. But the need for attachment does not expire once we’re out of diapers: it continues to motivate us throughout our lifespan. As we saw in chapter 3, unsatisfactory attachments can wreak havoc even with adult physiology. What distinguishes our earliest attachment relationships—and, crucially, the coping styles we develop to maintain them—is that they form the template for how we approach all our significant relationships, long after we have grown out of the do-or-die phase. We carry them into interactions with spouses, partners, employers, friends, colleagues: into all aspects of our personal, professional, social, and even political lives.

But the idea that features of our personality may contribute to the onset of pathology is anathema to many. In her still-influential 1978 essay “Illness as Metaphor,” the late filmmaker, activist, and brilliant woman of letters Susan Sontag—then a forty-five-year-old cancer survivor—flatly and forcefully rejected the possibility that ill health might signify anything beyond bodily calamity. “Theories that diseases are caused by mental states . . . are always an index of how much is not understood about the physical terrain of a disease,” she wrote.[1] To assert that emotions contribute to disease was, for her, to promote “punitive or sentimental fantasies,” to traffic in “lurid metaphors” and their “trappings.” She found this view especially distasteful because she perceived it as a way of blaming the patient. “I decided that I was not going to be culpabilized.”[2] Sontag’s acerbic rejection of the mind-body connection resonated not only in intellectual circles but also in some of the most hallowed centers of medical thinking. A few years later, the New England Journal of Medicine’s future first woman editor, Dr. Marcia Angell, cited it approvingly, deriding as “folklore” the idea that “mental state is a factor in the causing and curing of specific diseases,” a “myth” for which the evidence is at best “anecdotal.” Like Sontag, Dr. Angell espied in this line of thinking an insidious patient-blaming tendency: “At a time when patients are already burdened by disease, they should not be further burdened by having to accept responsibility for the outcome.”[3] I agree wholeheartedly that no one, ever, ought to be made to feel guilty for whatever transpires with or within their body, whether that guilt arises from the self or is imposed from without. As I stated earlier, blame is inappropriate, unmerited, and cruel; it is also unscientific. But we have to take care not to fall into an easy fallacy. Asserting that features of the personality contribute to the onset of illness, and more generally perceiving connections between traits, emotions, developmental histories, and disease is not to lay blame. It is to understand the bigger picture for the purposes of prevention and healing—and ultimately for the sake of self-acceptance and self-forgiveness. My intent in reframing Sontag’s perspective, then, is to offer a more helpful view. I empathize with her apprehension about being blamed for becoming ill, even as I see her refutation of the mind-body confluence as misguided and scientifically untenable. A clear and honest look at the biographical factors that can disrupt our biological well-being helps us respond intelligently and effectively to illness—or preferably, to mitigate the risks in the first place. This is as true for individuals as for society.

In no particular order, these traits are an automatic and compulsive concern for the emotional needs of others, while ignoring one’s own; rigid identification with social role, duty, and responsibility (which is closely related to the next point); overdriven, externally focused multitasking hyper-responsibility, based on the conviction that one must justify one’s existence by doing and giving; repression of healthy, self-protective aggression and anger; and harboring and compulsively acting out two beliefs: “I am responsible for how other people feel” and “I must never disappoint anyone.” These characteristics have nothing to do with will or conscious choice. No one wakes up in the morning and decides, “Today I’ll put the needs of the whole world foremost, disregarding my own,” or “I can’t wait to stuff down my anger and frustration and put on a happy face instead.” Nor is anyone born with such traits: if you’ve ever met a newborn infant, you know they have zero compunction about expressing their feelings, nor do they think twice before crying lest they inconvenience someone else. The reasons these habits of personality, as we might call them, develop and grow to prominence in some people are both fascinating and sobering. At root they are coping patterns, adaptations originally formed to preserve something essential and nonnegotiable. Why these features and their striking prevalence in the personalities of chronically ill people are so often overlooked—or missed entirely—goes to the heart of our theme: they are among the most normalized ways of being in this culture. Normalized how? Largely by being regarded as admirable strengths rather than potential liabilities. These dangerously self-denying traits tend to fly under our radar because they are easily conflated with their healthy analogues: compassion, honor, diligence, loving kindness, generosity, temperance, conscience, and so forth. Note that the qualities on the latter list, while perhaps superficially resembling those of the first, do not imply or require that a person overstep, ignore, or suppress who they are and what they feel and need.

In 1987 the psychologist Dr. Lydia Temoshok[*] proposed what became known as the “type C personality,” referring to traits strongly associated with the onset of malignancy.[*] These couldn’t have been further from the type A traits on the temperamental spectrum; they included being “cooperative and appeasing, unassertive, patient, unexpressive of negative emotions (particularly anger) and compliant with external authorities.” She had interviewed 150 people with melanoma and found these patients to be “excessively nice, pleasant to a fault, uncomplaining and unassertive.” They were identified “pleasers”: while anxious about their disease progression, their worries were focused in a specifically outward direction, away from themselves and toward the effect that their illness was having on their families. Such self-abnegation was too well typified in an article I once read in the Globe and Mail, written by a woman just diagnosed with breast cancer. “I’m worried about my husband,” she immediately told her physician. “I won’t have the strength to support him.”[7] Around the same time, about ten years into my medical practice, I was beginning to notice similar patterns in the lives of many of my patients, folks with all manner of illnesses. This, despite my lack of familiarity at the time with the voluminous research that in the past half century has shed light on how stress, including the stress of self-suppression, may disturb our physiology, including the immune system.

So when the two come into conflict in a child’s life, the outcome is well-nigh predetermined. If the choice is between “hiding my feelings, even from myself, and getting the basic care I need” and “being myself and going without,” I’m going to pick that first option every single time. Thus our real selves are leveraged bit by bit in a tragic transaction where we secure our physical or emotional survival by relinquishing who we are and how we feel. The fact that we don’t consciously choose such coping mechanisms makes them all the more tenacious. We cannot will them away when they no longer serve us precisely because we have no memory of them not being there, no notion of ourselves without them. Like wallpaper, they blend into the background; they are our “new normal,” our literal second nature, as distinct from our original or authentic nature. As these patterns get wired into our nervous system, the perceived need to be what the world demands becomes entangled with our sense of who we are and how to seek love. Inauthenticity is thereafter misidentified with survival because the two were synonymous during the formative years—or, at least, seemed so to our young selves. Here we see the perilous downside of our much-vaunted and wondrous capacity to adapt to diverse and challenging circumstances. After all, most adaptations are meant for specific situations, not as eternally applicable responses in every possible case. Here’s an analogy plucked from the headlines: At the time of this writing, freezing weather has enveloped Texas.[*] People are adapting by wearing extra clothing, heating their homes when power is available, wrapping themselves in warm blankets—all necessary strategies for surviving inclement winter conditions. Those same adaptations, meant to be temporary, would jeopardize health and life if not discarded by the time of summer’s blazing heat. The internal adaptations we make to our own personalities in order to survive adversity early in life carry the same risks as conditions shift, but we are far less wise to the danger. No matter how the weather changes, the protective gear, welded as it is onto the personality, never comes off. It is sobering to realize that many of the personality traits we have come to believe are us, and perhaps even take pride in, actually bear the scars of where we lost connection to ourselves, way back when.