First and only post.

[queengodzilla.livejournal.com]

    Hi. I don't mean to intrude. I have no system and so I just thought to post an odd connection I found before I quickly left you all to your own devices:

    It seems that those who developed their persons without the goading of horrible traumas (i.e., the natural multiples) seem to have a penchant for otherkin in their systems. I thought it was an odd connection.

    For instance, my friend myorp here has what I believe he/she/they define to be naturally occurring multiplicity and they have a supernatural/otherkin being in their system. elenbarathi and arhuaine are parallels in this regard, as is saturniakitty too. (That is, if I haven't gotten my facts mixed and selected the wrong people n_n;. If that happens -- whoa, sorry! X_X)

    I just found it odd that the *hesitates to use the word* traditional multiples who have developed by the DSM-IV defined prerequisite of extreme trauma don't usually have mythical/otherworld persons within. It seems to be a goodly difference that I've noticed.

    "Why does this occur? Why is it that non-trauma multiples are more likely to have supernatural/mythical/offworld persons within?" I think I've absorbed enough information to think this question and ponder it at length.

    It's just something I thought about and wanted to know your opinions on.

    And now that it's been given, I shall withdraw and leave it to you to discuss it amongst yourselves. I thought it was very interesting. Sorry for intruding on your community. I just had to ask this question as it was a noticeable trait in my eyes.

        -Jessica

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... it is an interesting question. I would guess that perhaps it's because those of us who are "other" don't necessarily follow the ordinary human pattern of one body=one personality, any more than we necessarily follow the ordinary human pattern of either-or gender identification or sexual orientation (i.e. either male or female, either gay or straight.)

After all, why should we? According to all the traditional lore, a marked tendency toward... fluidity of identity, let's call it... is normal for us. It takes force to split ice into fragments, but fog naturally separates and recombines - both are made of the same stuff, but their forms are different, so they behave differently.

One correction of an apparent misperception: it's not that I 'have' otherkin in my system - all three of us are "other". People have a tendency to think I'm the primary person just because I'm the talky one, the one who deals with communication, but actually it's Duathir who is "head of the household" and has the final say on most decisions, whereas Crist-Erui is definitely the strongest, having the ability to become corporeal at will and to block us out of contact with the body. They're not within me (nor am I within them) any more than three people sharing a house would be "within" each other - we live here together, is all.

*wry grin* Neither of them are good at "passing for human", though, and I am reasonably good at it, so I'm the one who does it. However, I'm apparently not as good at it as I thought, because I recently learned that a number of people have known for years that there was more than one of me, and were just too polite to mention it. Kind of embarrassing, but fortunately, the people in question are "other" themselves, so don't have a problem with it.

[ex-khailitha846.livejournal.com]

I have been functioning as a multiple system for many years and just recently (through my interaction here in this community) became aware of the phenomenon of "naturally occuring" multiples and otherkin. This didn't seem completely strange to me, because not everyone in my "system" (and I'm using that term loosely here, for reasons I'll try to explain) is of the original birth "soul" or from this dimension.

I can't speak for any other "trauma induced" multiples, but there are entities that have always interacted with the rest of my system that have their origin elsewhere. I have never considered them to be members of the community that are sharing the body and the life, nevertheless, some of them do have the ability to "be" in the body and to speak and act, if invited. Actually, they all probably do. It seems a difference (and here I may be speaking from ignorance; if so, please forgive and correct me) is that my "otherkin" (which is a cool new term) don't seem to have an interest in *living* here or sharing the body. They appear to be highly evolved entities that act as guides, teachers, and healers.

More than inhabiting this space (the body and the life on this planet/dimension) they live in the non-ordinary reality landscape where many of my people also spend alot of time. According to shamanic belief systems, (which I learned about long after I became aware of the multi-dimensional nature of my system) it is normal for pieces of one's soul to travel to these other realms, especially when motivated by trauma. (In fact, the tradition in most of these belief systems defines the role of the shaman as one who is experienced in journeying to the "spirit world" and who can encourage these lost "soul pieces" to return and soften the re-entry shock. A coolness that gives a different spin to the concept of dissociating and the historically basic nature of DID that many therapists could benefit from looking into.)

I've read some, lately, about the concept of "soul groups", connections between our own souls and a sort of community of other souls with which we share a connection and a sense of purpose. The other souls in one's community don't necessarily have to be living on the same planet, or in the same space-time continuum. I'd never heard about them sharing a body, but it seems that is a logical situation for some soul groups. (This is speculation... I could be way off.)

I've always viewed Our multiplicity in kind of a supernatural light, because so much of my experience of being multiple involves experiences that are not limited to the current world-view of reality. The other multiple systems I know personally (and there are only a few, and they are all trauma induced) have also experienced varying degrees of extranatural experiences and interactions with guide entities of various sorts who, while participating greatly in the system, nonetheless, can not be explained by the clinical description of multiplicity.

I'm interested in getting a better definition/description of "otherkin". While similar to the "guides" I have in my system, they do appear to have different functions or intentions.

(Funny, but there is now an internal conversation about where everyone in here came from. A much friendlier form of a security check... "Hey, does everyone in here have identification? When and where were you born?" Who knows what'll turn up. Sheesh.)

Thanks for the time, the space, and the question. Mirth!

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Wilburian trauma/split multiples who have "otherworldly" people in their system might not talk about them, because it doesn't fit with the prescribed pattern. Those few who have have often been labeled oddballs or as having something else wrong, even by their doctors. A few years ago Dr. George Ganaway wrote an article in a peer-reviewed journal which was heavily quoted by the FMSF types as well as mainstream press -- he wrote that ALL multiplicity is a crock and therapists shouldn't be "taken in" and what was his rationale? Some trauma/split multiples (or at least, multiples in therapy and therefore assumed to be of trauma/split origin) had people in their system who were, or were like, people from books, comics, tv and films. In other words, soulbonds. With an authority like that on public record saying all multiplicity is baloney because somebody had the audacity to have Ninja Turtles in their group, it creates a chilling effect on the rest of 'em. Hell, it did on us for a long time and we've never been in MPD therapy.

Or guys like Dr. Ralph Allison, who was so blown away by the concept that he started his own religion.

The idea behind trauma/splitting multiplicity is that all the people are supposedly aspects or facets of the original person at different ages. Not all doctors believe in an inner self-helper (Allison's concept -- an angelic spirit said to come from outside the system). Many doctors think the ISH doesn't come from outside but is another aspect of the original person, representing hope, confidence and such. So it wouldn't "fit" to have people who were supernatural, mythical or offworld.

Example: The Idian Shire are a trauma/split group who also had a world of their own. In therapy, they were told they were delusional. Therapists tend to see ownworlds as part of the sickness, or as a defense mechanism, a cute little fairyland to escape to during the abuse.

Another difference between nontrauma multiples and trauma/split multiples is that the latter are the ones who went to the doctor. A lot of nontrauma multiples have never received a diagnosis of MPD or DID. Many of them have never been in therapy at all for any reason. Trauma multiples tend to go to the doctor for other problems initially, then find out they are multiple. (Traditionally they know nothing of it before the doctor's imprimatur, but I'm betting a lot of them suspected SOMETHING.) The objective of MPD therapy is usually to find what all the people are "holding" in terms of memories, etc., and then integrate them (or a lot of doctors now will help work out a cooperative instead of integration). Anyone who is supernatural, mythical or otherworldly is liable to be seen as an introject or personification of some quality, trait or experience -- not as real. If you've read When Rabbit Howls you remember how dismissive her doctor was that one of her people was a tall black man -- he said "in your mind he is that," as if there couldn't actually be such a person. Patronizing twit.

Also, today it's DID, the official dudes don't think anyone's really multiple, and the treatment guidelines say not to spend a lot of time exploring the system or giving credence to the idea that these are separate individuals, but to relate to the client at all times as one person.

So our theory is, non-trauma multiples, and in general any self-recognised multiple who didn't come to know about their system through the Wilburian protocols, might have more of a sense of freedom and permission to explore and find out for themselves. The internet communities and lists for multiplicity give multiples what Andy calls cultural permission also, so the trauma/splitting multiples are more likely to get comfortable with the idea of nonhuman persons in their group from on line experience than they are in the shrink's office. But it's possible they are less likely to talk about it, especially right at first.

Re:

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Also, today it's DID, the official dudes don't think anyone's really multiple, and the treatment guidelines say not to spend a lot of time exploring the system or giving credence to the idea that these are separate individuals, but to relate to the client at all times as one person."

The thing that puzzles me... why would anyone tell the official dudes about being multiple, when they aren't going to believe it anyway? If they're supposed to "relate to the client at all times as one person", what's the point of talking to them at all? It would be like going in for Family Counseling and having the counselor treat everybody in the family as if they were one person: too bizarre, and not very likely to help solve whatever problems the family came in with.

Re:

[oihanen.livejournal.com]

exactly why i never bothered. infact, kicked,screamed, and generally raised all hell so as not to go to *any* doctor. incase they suspected something. me? paranoid? bah! ;-)
-kelly

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Possibly because it is not well known that DID is not just MPD under a new name. The treatment guidelines and indeed the whole attitude of mental health authorities (ISSD, APA, etc.) have changed.

And due to the scandals and lawsuits of the 90s, and the recent pronouncements of Herbert Spiegel on Sibyl, many therapists are unwilling to address multiplicity at all, and some believe it has been officially discredited.

We've had correspondence from at least four groups who disclosed to their therapist or to hospital staff -- while they were being treated for other things -- that they were plural. One was having operating system troubles, got a diagnosis of DID just so the therapist could address that situation, and their therapist was promptly fired -- clinic authorities told her "there is no such diagnosis". One got hold of their chart later and discovered they'd been put down as malingering because they didn't want to finish university and get a job (assumed because they were one semester away from graduation), and that they'd gotten the idea they were multiple from fantasy novels and the Internet. Another found they'd been written up in their chart as "fascinated with multiple personalities" and possibly schizophrenic. The third group were flat-out told they were psychotic.

[myorp.livejournal.com]

yes, i had this problem when i went in for therapy related to my /own/ depression and general problems dealing with how we should relate with society. i didn't really know much about how the entire issue was treated in the psychological community at the time otherwise i think i would have stuck with just asking my closest friends and family for advice... the ones i knew could handle it intelligently.

two of my counselors didn't really believe in the diagnosis per se or were too unfamiliar with the entire concept other than apparently the usual /half-chapter/ that it recieves in most psychology textbooks. it seems that alot of counselors and mental health proffesionals think of plurality as so rare that they don't really need to worry about it. and then the few who do treat it seriously often get treated as if they are little more than eccentric or sometimes even obsessed with an out of date concept.

i really hope that changes. it is a shame that in order for someone in a plural system to get psychological help they would sometimes nearly have to pretend that they /weren't/ plural just so that the issues they /do/ want help with will be taken seriously.

Re:

[ex-khailitha846.livejournal.com]

When one's system is at war with itself and doesn't have co-consciousness, going to get help is often a life-saving necessity... especially with cutters and self-destructive people being so common in the multiple systems I have encountered. I don't think ANYONE would willingly take their system to a doctor to have it be discredited, invalidated, threatened with integration (murder), and abused. Trouble is that alot of people don't know they are multiple when they start therapy, or they don't know that the current view of "help" is often not. Often, the therapy is so indoctrinating that the system never gets a chance to trust itself enough to see that the therapy is also invasive and bizarre.

Re:

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

Because the official dudes arent terribly forthcoming about the extreme extent that they have decided you are delusional, or that all but one of you dont exist. We in Tir Nan Og are having this experience NOW. We are just realizing the extent to which the dude insists on treating us as one person and not exploring the system. We will attempt to educate him and if he is unteachable he will be dropped.
To be honest, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the heavy emphasis on trauma versus natural in a mutliple. I'm glad to see systems commenting that they have trauma, but also have innerworlds/otherkin.
Just to stand up and be counted, I consider myself a natural multiple who also has disfunction and trauma happening in one of her three families. I consider the origin of my multiplicity to be my autism. I was born without a self, and my inner world was the place where I was fully alive. In innerworld, I developed not a self but selves. Must put child to bed, more later...be well..blue morpho

Re:

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

Ugh. That previous post of mine was a wretched, inarticulate thing. Please indulge me and allow me to clarify the muddle.
I was trying to answer elenbarathi's question, 'WHY would you tell a therapist you were multiple if there wasnt a snowball's chance in hell they'd believe you anyway?' That was a paraphrase, not a quote. The answer, in my case, would be, I was naaive, I hadnt done my research, and even if I had gone into it with my eyes open, still..I was desperate. I figured the guy was gay, new agey...hey, maybe a trifle more openminded?
None of this is terribly new to me. For the record, just to warn any young female multiples about what is possible.. I lost my virginity to my psychiatrist from the institution where I spent four months. I suppose all this was part of his attempt to transform me, My Fair Lady style, from a geeky autistic multiple dork enraged by sexuality and the vulnerability of the female body, to a successful yuppie singlet hottie. The result was that I spent almost ten years encased in a living coffin, dressing and acting to please men, allowing myself to be abused by any freak who took a fancy to me. There was nobody inside me to tell me to do otherwise, as all the selves who knew their own worth were 'dead', having not stuck around to hear themselves sneered at as a childish fantasy...
Gracious. Didnt intend to say all that, but if it would be sufficient to convince any young multiples to be cautious, trust their basic sanity, and value themselves even in the face of some invalidating therapeutic opinion, it would be well worth it.
I want to thank everyone for posting their thoughts in this exceptionally enlightening dialog. I had been operating under the erroneous idea that some natural multiples had a bias against anyone who considered trauma part of what made their multiplicity develop. It was foolish, because there are some multiples I would have wanted to befriend, and I would think 'no,they'd have contempt for me because they're Natural and Functional and they dont wanna read something rife with suppressed memories of abuse, and appalling innerworld catfights!' Looniness.
Oh yeah. If anyone else is aspie and raises their hackles over the statement,'because I was autistic, I was born without a self..' That was inarticulate as all hell, and I'd be happy to explain how I defined 'self'. But perhaps not now, having blabbed enough.
roman and co.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

Excellent question to which I don;t have much of an answer at present. I will think about it and if anything occurs to me, I'll post about it later. Right now, I have to dash. :/

[judiff]

it does seem like a trend but i do know trumatised people/systems that do have otherkin. And i'm not sure where animals fit on with this.
But i can't like realy comment a lot becos we are all human. We think of ourseleves as being natuarally multiple shaped/made more so by truama - i'd be intrested in knowing how many of us inbetween people there are out there.

[kiya]

I have suspicions that that's how we are. Unfortunately, I do have an honest-to-gods dissociative period in there, which means that I don't trust my interpretations of my memories on the other side.

Re:

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

We have the same problem. While some in our system do seem to be natural/walk-ins, there are others who seem otherwise. And yes, lots of dissociation for us too. :/

Re: trauma-induced(?) systems with Otherkin...

[qilora.livejournal.com]

we tend to think that our trauma (pysical brain damage) as well as the emotional abuse we suffered as kids, made us band together and encouraged us to keep in touch, and remain present for each other... but we aren't sure if we were *born* as a natural multiple, or if the abuse actually "created" our multiplicity...

we kind of see it as a moot point, most of the time...
as long as we are working together to be functional, than it sort of doesn't really make a difference to us how we came about...

and we do have otherkin, animals, and supernatural/mythological members in our system... and we think that its possible that our father being Lenape might have encouraged this in us as well...

as soon as we were born, one of the first things he said to my mother (after seeing us) is "Oh, look at her... she's got Raccoon in her"... and he called us by that nickname when we were younger... so our having supposed "human", animal, and plant "friends" in the 3D, and likewise "inside" was also not discouraged by Daddy... it just never seemed to frighten him, or strike him as odd... granted, he was raised Lutheran and the family on his side was hyper-strict with this particular religious leaning, but there are some things that they might not have realised were "Native American" about their inherited-beliefs (don't think they would have changed even if they *did* know that they were being 'pagan' about some of it)....

i'm not sure if we would have given ourselves permission to explore these parts of our systems if it were not for the support of our Father... but hell, it took us until we were about 32 (about a year and half ago!) before a friend in Germany suggested that we investigate DID (she herself is functional, although i do not think she had been exposed to many functional-groups online)...

after lurking around NeeDID for a while, and causing a little bit of a ruckus with our obvious non-compliance of the dominant mindset over there, we sort of bowed out of the forum.... but discovered Astraea's Web (http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural), and suddenly things started to *really* make sense for us...

all those years spent, growing up with a gazillion "nicknames", having friends all of my life that were "internal" (for lack of a better word at the moment), finding functional-systems online started to cause some things to gell in this dusty brain of ours ;-)

and yeah okay, we do have some residual problems from the abuse, but of all our problems, multiplicity is NOT something that we think we need any therapy for....

sorry for the long ramble ;-)

Julie & Co.

[jenscovia.livejournal.com]

hi judiff,

we are natural born, but made more so by trauma/abuse that happened later in childhood. i supose that some might think that we are 'in denial', but it really doesn't matter what they think. we know we were born this way.

jens

[oihanen.livejournal.com]

in nod to elenbarathi's reply, that is a fantastic analogy! and imminently applicable.

i hadn't noticed that honestly. we've quite a few non-humans among us, and we're naturally multiple. (at least, you mean, we don't have a history of abuse.) so i guess i wouldn't know exactly how to appraoch this from the other end. incidentally, we were aware that some system members were merely humanoid and some outright non-human, but we didn't know if that was widespread among multiples or not(as no one had ever brought the topic up), or about otherkin, until we came upon a lj community while doing some random surfing.

sorry, no answer to "why?" though. maybe it's just incorrect data? if trauma multiples are being told that there can't be a unicorn in there, and that if there is, they're not really multiple and shouldn't be there, then a lot of them are probably going to say they're all human. and all the same sex. and race. and..whatever. shrinks must think it's easier to integrate 4 young girls than 1 girl, 1 crone, a male elf, and gender-neutral dragon. taking their stance that it's all in your head, it shouldn't matter if they're all alike or vastly different. this IS a crazy person's head we're talking about here. i love the smell of double standards in the morning. not.

hope you find a more suitable answer than ours
-beast and eve

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

I can't really give a good answer about that, but I do think it's interesting. I was aware of the presence of our resident Goddess of Death long before I knew being a natural mutiple was even a possibility. Actually I'd never even heard of the concept until recently. And now it seems completely normal that Shi exists, while once I was convinced I was crazy because of her. After all, like mentioned in the posts above, that hardly fits the traditional trauma-induced multiplicity model (especially since I never experienced any trauma). So yeah, I don't know of any of this adds any insight, but I felt like commenting nonetheless.

[myorp.livejournal.com]

yeah, malmenel and gilia who were the first two of us who were self aware thought we might be crazy as well when morgil uhm... popped up. he said he'd been around for a while but was laying low because everyone would say we were crazy.

for a while he even would tell people he "knew he was crazy" for believing himself to be a god/angel of death and having blurry memories of such because it would cut off their objections to it. ironically the rest of us didn't really believe it either until we came across you and heard about shi. from what i remember their stories were a bit too similar for us to really think he was crazy anymore, even if the specific words they use to describe it seems to varry.

hum... i don't remember where i'm going with this. oh well. maybe i'll remember and finish this later. ^^;;

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

What exactly is the traditional trauma-induced model?

I assumed I was a "natural multiple", until some delving into my past made me recall some severe physical and verbal familial abuse that occurred, as well as being ostracized and alienated at an early age. I assumed this was "natural" for most children, and did not categorize it with such a severe a word as "trauma."

[ex-khailitha846.livejournal.com]

Reading through the posts to this, I've had some thoughts about the whole "natural" vs. "trauma" issue.

Elenbarathi wrote: It takes force to split ice into fragments, but fog naturally separates and recombines - both are made of the same stuff, but their forms are different, so they behave differently.

The analogy of splitting ice into fragments doesn't really fit with my view of my system. While it is true that there was severe trauma in my childhood, and that the shape of many of my people was profoundly influenced by it, I have never felt like something solid that was broken into pieces. My analogy has been water in a tray. Everyone has different ego states, situational behavior patterns, state dependent learning modes, and some have (as elenbarathi says) a marked tendency to fluidity of identity, and they flow around like water on tray, forming separate puddles and then flowing back into the whole without any problems. To me, I've always viewed the abuse as a sort of putting the tray in the freezer and solidifying those naturally occuring separations so that they can no longer flow together.

Yet, in the light of reading what you guys say about naturally occuring multiples, I'm wondering if we can really tell the difference. It seems that most of the people in my system DID originate from a "core" (who died early in childhood). But there are many people who are horribly abused in childhood who don't use multiplicity as a coping mechanism. It also makes sense that any natural occuring multiple system would be profounding shaped and scarred by severe abuse that happened during childhood. I agree with ksol1460 that someone who goes into therapy to get help with debilitating problems and turns up a multiple system has a very different experience than someone who doesn't. I guess I'm wondering if it is fair to draw such a clear delineation between the two when it seems that there could be a lot of overlap and common ground.

Also, could anyone out there tell me more about "otherkin"... I would really like to compare notes and don't have much information to go on.

Thanks!

Re:

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

This is the current theory I'm using to explain the origins of my multiplicity-- that I naturally had the tendency to be a multiplie, and what might be considered trauma only helped it along to fully develop.

As for Otherkin, generally it's an umbrella term for anyone who is not "human" within their minds, or even in their reality. People who call themselves vampires, elves, dragons, mermaids, fairies, cats, dogs, etc.-- they're Otherkin. However, what always confused me about this is that human beings themselves have trouble defining the term "human", so to say you are "other than human", can also be confusing, and may be futile.
Perhaps a good site to consult would be this one:
http://www.otherkin.net/articles/index.html

Stelle
of the Hex

[shandra.livejournal.com]

I don't subscribe to any particular creation theory.

But we have trauma in our background and we also have otherkin in our system. Not mutually exclusive 'tall. :)

I do think it's possible some multiples who have a lot invested in a view that they could integrate or are all somehow related to an original self would have less motivation for exploring otherkin/otherworld issues. After all if people are only being asked "what do you remember?" and not "who are you, what do you feel like, what do you believe in?" they may only answer that question.

Shandra

[cheshire-house.livejournal.com]

This is a wonderful question. Thank you! Now I have something to think on...gears grinding empty is bad for the mech. :lol:

Obviously, there will be exceptions to this hypothesis...but that's to be expected. (i'd probably fall over if someone nailed a hunch that was 100% applicable.)

[myorp.livejournal.com]

hwerm... this is a tough question. i honestly hadn't noticed this because most plurals i know seem to have some kind of "other" type of entity involved. i think i probably agree with john(ksol1460) that those who have been diagnosed and weren't previously aware of it are probably very hesitant to say something that might be percieved as even "crazier" than multiplicity. i think anyone who says "this world is not my home" or "not all of us are from this planet/dimension/whatever" is probably even more likely to be ostracized than someone who says that there is more than one of them.

and if you ever have any other good questions i don't think anyone would mind if you asked them here. from what i understand this community is open to anyone whose curious about plurality... not just those who are plural themselves. so i don't think its an intrusion; no apology necessary as far as i'm concerned.

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

We're "trauma-caused" multiple and almost all of the people in Our system are therian/otherkin. We know quite a few others like this too.

~Feral and Ash

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

i know this is an older message but it caught my eye... most of my multiple friends that have trauma based DID have otherworldly type creatures... including myself. We have just been taught through experience not to reveal this.,.. and its tough to get beyond that...