Coming Out of the Multiple Closet...

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

I came out to close friends and relatives several months ago, and have only now received some backlash. Apparently two close friends of mine believe I'm rather off my rocker and one is suggesting medical attention, though the both of them do not have the courage to say this to my face. Assuming this isn't just vengeful hearsay from the informant (an ex-significant other), and that these are truly their opinions, I have to wonder whether seeking medical attention will prove futile as my system seems to be operating fairly well. I'm wondering if I should just have stayed quiet about the whole thing. Have any of you lost friends when you came out? I certainly don't want to lose mine, but I feel this is my right to live and be who I am. I'm tired of hiding and repressing-- at some point, a person(s)' got to take a stand. It would be easier if I could get ahold of these two "close" friends, but since we live in different cities now, this poses a problem.

At the same time as this escalating and foolish drama, I've begun seeking the origins of my multiplicity to understand myself better. Having never gone to a therapist, I was not familiar with the trauma-splitting model. I have asked the question before as to what it is, exactly, and what counts as trauma. I'm also curious whether some of us are walk-ins, or (re)incarnations of previous lives or Otherkin. Have you ever heard of this theory? I've recently picked up a rather flaky book called "Earth Angels: A Pocket Guide for Incarnated Angels, Elementals, Starpeople, Walk-Ins, and Wizards" by Doreen Virtue, Ph.D. If her style and tone wasn't so pop culture and New Age mumbo jumbo based, I would be able to take the ideas she presents seriously.

I just wish there was a better way to deal with the undercurrents of animosity. I'm lucky enough to surround myself with furries, otherkin, and transgendered people who accept and slightly understand my situation. Have you guys found that other multiples tend to ease the alienation, or is it enough just being surrounded by acceptance and validation?

Thanks for reading my long-winded babbling.

Stelle, Aster & Fey
speaking for The Hex

Comments

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

Yes I have lost at least one friend after coming out to them as multiple, however coming out also showed me who my true friends really are, those people who could accept me/us for who we are. There was concern at first, because when I first "came out" Shi was acting rather self-destructive towards the body and it was causing some major problems, but now that that's over my friends just see it as how I am, and don't think much of it.

If your friends really can't accept you for who you are, then they're not people who you should want to be friends with.

Re:

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

Eh, the same old "If they're really your friends..." I understand. Well I think it's cuz they want to be friends with me still, and supportive and stuff, but they just don't believe in multiplicity. I'm wondering, if they don't believe in my reality, our existence, could we still be friends?

Aster & Fey
of the Hex

Re:

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

That what happened with me - my former friend refused to believe that I wasn't making it all up to get attention, no matter how much I tried to explain it to her. I just couldn't stay friends with someone like that.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

If your system is operating well, you have no need for therapy for multiplicity. Your friends are unaware of the facts about healthy multiplicity; they probably assume it's all Sybil. Tell'em to check out our website (URL below).

Many multiples report having members who came from outside the system, which have colloquially been referred to as walk-ins. However, these are not necessarily (or even generally) walk-ins in the original or Spiritualist sense of "advanced beings" or angels who take over the body after an illness or accident causes the soul that originally occupied that body to leave it and go to Heaven. Such takeovers are usually one-way and permanent; with multiples, this is not so, and the persons who come from outside are just as likely to be quite ordinary. We have four walk-ins in this system, and believe me, they are anything but spiritually advanced in the New Age sense.

Doreen Virtue's speculations are based on the old Starseed idea which was initially proposed by Timothy Leary and propounded ad nauseum by Brad Steiger. As you have found, the New Age religion's approach to these things tends toward the flaky. Multiples who experience some of their people as incarnations of previous lives or as otherkin do not tend to view these things in the same way as the New Age. Their terminology for talking about same tends to be more practical and often lifted from books, TV, and fantasy roleplaying games that discuss these things in a more down-to-earth fashion.

http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/

Re:

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much. I'm familiar with your site, and it has helped me much as a resource. I will refer it to my friends, though I believe their concern is more that I am "making it up" for "attention" or some other lack that I must fulfill.

Do you know any good reliable resources that can explain the Starseed theory, and more "down-to-earth" information on past lives, spiritual beings, and walk-ins?

Re:

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Check your personal journal. Left msg there.

"Making it up for attention" is a common reaction. We have found that we are accepted and understood only by other multiples. We've certainly heard of multiple/singlet relationships working out alright, but this has not been our experience nor that of several of our plural friends.

[kiya]

As a datapoint on singlet/plural relationships, my boyfriend's opinion of my plurality is that it helps him make better sense of my behaviour and reactions -- he could tell that there was a pattern underlying the chaos, but not what it was. When I started conceptualising myself as plural and talking to him about it, he basically said, "Ah! That's the datapoint I need to organise this into a pattern!"

On the other hand, we have a few issues that are pretty directly related to him not having a visceral understanding of plural stuff; one of us will be an emotional wreck and communicating with him, and another will be making fairly calm public posts or something, and he winds up feeling like I'm lying to him because he doesn't have a good gut-level grasp on the division. (I'm hoping since we talked about this in the past week it'll get easier to handle; I hadn't mentioned it explicitly before, but it came up in conversation.)

Re:

[kao-no-san.livejournal.com]

I've had the same thing happen with my significant other. He knows that I act like I'm all over the place one moment and then change on him in a blink of an eye. But now that he knows I'm multiple, he understands.

Re:

[jinxtigr.livejournal.com]

As another datapoint on plural/singlet relationships, I'm tir_nan_og's mate but I am neither monogamous nor neurotypical. I've always been pretty disconnected with romance and dating and wound up capable of polyamory, and I am 'aspie', a sort of autism, so I've never for a moment in my life been able to play 'normal' and fit in- I have had to create my own context. The people in tir_nan_og have all been hugely supportive and encouraging in this and never demand what I can't give. And, now I use my polyamory capabilities to encompass those who reside in tir_nan_og, and make the effort to not play favorites or unfavorites- since those people are not automatically polyamorous just 'cos they reside in a single host brain!
We do pretty well, I think. But I think it's relevant that I'm such a serene madman myself- enlightened madman? Point is, I may be 'singlet' but I can't really make a relationship with a 'normal' because my boundaries will seem arbitrary and weird. tir_nan_og is capable of accepting me as I am, and vice versa.
Interestingly, I have a mechanism that's vaguely akin to multiplicity- a subconscious 'back burner' that processes ideas for me. It's not a person, but I still have to make allowances for when resource allocation is heavily biased to 'back burner' and I'll be tripping over curbs and daydreaming too much.

Re:

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

1: There is a unanimous liking, with some humor-based appreciation, of your icon. The humor-based apprecation, is tied to the intent expressions, and the "looking over one's shoulder" idea.

2. Insofar as single/multi relationships, I've found some multiples to engage, even in the banner of acceptance in a manner that is not helpful to the multiple. To wit: Steriotyping and restraintive labeling of individuals inside a system. It has been difficult to find anyone that we've been able to relate to in this context, single or plural. Those we do, we can't help but treasure. It seems however, that the most we're getting is relatability within certain contexts.

It is our suspicion that the various criteria that people look for to figure out who is trustworthy, or relatable, may effect the demographics when the day is done.

--Us

I guess the fact that we have vastly different ones might cause some of the bizarre effects we've seeen.

--Me

Re:

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

1. Thank you! Very glad you like it. It's one of the prizes of our collection -- and one of our all time favourite movies, too.

2. Boy, don't I know it. We've had completely good, decent people in this system go underground because they got stereotyped by a singlet SO -- ISH-like and sexual expectations. One of those so typed was the guy who stayed patiently at my side for six months trying to tell me there was really more than one person in here, that it wasn't imaginary friends or insanity, and that it didn't have to be like Sybil. That fellow was done a hell of a lot of damage by others' expectations, as was his sister. Neither of them front much now.

Well For Me?

[gia1977.livejournal.com]

Well for me, some friends knew I was with a bad memory and couldn't remember anything straight unless it was written down. They grew to understand things and accepted me for who I was anyhow. They grew to overlook my quirks and random thoughts. One friend, MB, knew my emotions were all over the place and she felt she had to constantly talk to me about it, all the while making me angrier because I couldn't even control it at all. Well, I told 2 docs about it and they didn't believe the DID/MPD, so we all let it slide, despite one doc said that my work, so far, in "third person" was great because it worked for me. (Talk about saying they can't say they believe. but that it was okay for me to continue, given disassociation is part of the diganosis they gave me, Borderline Personality Disorder.) I found out about my inner crew last year and a lot has come out and we're all in better management control. One friend, Ann, still refuses to believe, so I talk to her like a normal person, but I keep my true inner life to myself. She'll never know what goes on inside really. Another friend, Trippster wasn't sure about it, so I'm not sure how she really felt, but she's done well with it and I think over time she began to see how the inner crew DID is true for me. MB, found out about the inner crew and was mad because we didn't tell her, yet she doesn't accept it at all and sees it like it's attention or a cop out. I've told Shannon that where MB is concerned, fine, but I'm not gonna be held responsible anymore for my inner crew speaking up, if they get mad. All you can do is try to work with your friends. Tell them what is going on and the work you've done, but some friends you just have to let go, if they can't support you or stand by you... lest you can keep quiet, like I do with Ann.

Re: Well For Me?

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

So it's now a question of whether I can openly be who I am, or hide it just so we can be friends. It's sort of like asking me: which is more important to you, your state of being, or your friends?

Urgh.

Re: Well For Me?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

You'll find that being true to yourselves is more important in the long run.

Re: Well For Me?

[gia1977.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that, but if you wanna think or feel that way, it's your perogative and your choice. It's really a matter of who you want to be happy. Just remember you are the one who asked for the opinions and we gave them to you.

Re: Well For Me?

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of free speech rights and the flow of opinions. But doesn't it boil down to their happiness over my own? Of course, that is a somewhat narrow way of looking at it. If there was some sort of compromise, some sort of understanding that can be reached... ah well... I'll probably just end up talking like a "single" most of the time for them, hoping for tolerance on both sides when I don't.

Re: Well For Me?

[kiya]

I haven't had any experience with this over multiplicity stuff, but I've observed it in other things that I've had to come out of the closet about in the past. I suspect that I haven't had much issue with my friend-group about being plural in part becaquse it's already filtered for people who can put up with me being pagan, poly, and peculiar.

(Well, that was remarkably alliterative. I suspect that's Weaver entertaining herself, heh.)

My basic attitude is that I will live my life as myself. People who want me to fit preconceived notions of who I'm supposed to be aren't interested in me by my standards; they're interested in their image of me. I don't consider myself to have an obligation to preserve other people's damaging or dangerous illusions.

I'm median; I flow back and forth between singlet-language and plural-language somewhat erratically. I imagine language-conformity issues would be stronger for someone who had a stronger identity as plural. I tend to default to we-language only when discussing plural issues (and that only erratically) or when very tired/stressed; the rest of the time we're something of neither fish nor fowl anyway.

Re: Well For Me?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

"I'll probably just end up talking like a "single" most of the time for them, hoping for tolerance on both sides when I don't."

That only works for awhile. If you can't be completely honest with people it starts to wear on your relation with them.

[xerne.livejournal.com]

Some of us are active past lives, and some of us are walk-ins, and some of us qualify as otherkin. So your situation sounds perfectly plausible to me.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

As someone who is both non-human and a walk-in as well as being part of a multiple system, I am sure that it's certainly a plausible theory. I'm familiar with the book, it is *very* flaky and rather narrow in experience but the underlying principles seem consistant with our experience.

Yes we did lose friends when we came out, but only two out of many. I figure the ones who stood by us were the ones that were worth keeping in the first place. Being surrounded by other people who are multiple/'kin is good but I generally find that acceptance and validation alone are enough.

A good website that covers both the Otherkin and Multiple experience in tandem is www.kinhost.org

[shandra.livejournal.com]

We did lose some friends coming out. Many of them came back, particularly after seeing us not go suddenly nuts after the revelation. But a few did not.

Shandra

[qilora.livejournal.com]

Have any of you lost friends when you came out?

actually, i can state for certain that *we* have never lost a single friend due to our coming out to them as "multiple"..
reason being, is possibly that we were blessed with few 3D friends! hahahaha ;-)

in our case, every time we *did* come out to a possible-singlet, they would stand there and listen, and then possibly stare at us for a min or two, while it sunk in... maybe then a few questions... but without fail, most of them would say either "oh, okay, if that's how you see yourself, that's fine with me" or something to the extent of "you know... that makes a *lot* of sense" ;-)

nobody we told was really all that surprised to "find out"...


Have you guys found that other multiples tend to ease the alienation, or is it enough just being surrounded by acceptance and validation?

in our case, having our plural friends online (we don't have any regular 3D contact with other folks who identify as multiple), this has definitely helped our coming out a LOT... mostly, i think, because it helps us feel less nervous and tongue-tied when we do sit our friends down and have "the talk".... we feel less desperate, and less like we are risking one of our very few friendships....

and lets face it, if someone sits down with you and says casually "well, there is something about me that i sort of want to tell you... its nothing new... i've always been this way, but i've never really known how to tell you.." and if that person is saying these things in a nervous, but still casual manner, the person who is listening to them will feel more at ease with what they are hearing.....

Julie & Co.

[kiya]

Then there's the experience of talking about plural stuff in the vicinity of a new acquaintance and having them come out plural in response. (That happened to me several times, and left me going, ". . . okay . . ." I bet I'd never have known these people were multiple if I hadn't been out.)

I started thinking of myself as plural in part because of meeting other plurals online; it was netdancer talking about 'singtuples' on alt.callahans that got me started. Eventually I dropped them a line asking about some resources, and there we were.

The best advice I've ever seen about coming about is to remember that the reasons for coming out about whatever are yours, but the actual coming out is 'about' whoever you're talking to. They'll want to know why they're being told, what they're expected to do, and all that, and possibly get reassurances that their lives aren't going to be changing or disrupted or whatever. I try to treat things about me as normal, and most people pick up on it and treat me as normal in return.

[qilora.livejournal.com]

They'll want to know why they're being told, what they're expected to do, and all that, and possibly get reassurances that their lives aren't going to be changing or disrupted or whatever.

we have this one system that we are friends with who had a *horrible* experience when they came out to their sister...

she just kept going on and on about how the system was changing everything for her, and no matter how much the system told her "this is the way it has always been, call us whatever you want! we're not changing suddenly today... nothing is changing except that you have found out that we are plural"

the sister just couldn't swallow it... she got really freaked out and told them to not tell her children and to never tell their parents....

so the system decided, oh well, and turned around and talked to their parents, who just listened to what they had to say and figured "well, you're still you to me, and i still love you no matter how many of you there are"....

we don't know if the sister has recovered from the revelation... i really feel kind of bad for the sister, but my sympathy for her sort of got a bit less when she started pulling out the "i know a therapist who says blah blah blah" bullshit....

Juju & Co.

[perse.livejournal.com]

I am just generally not "out", much at all. Probably because, as my therapist says, we are pretty functional. But then again, my therapist doesn't make a huge deal out of it, she says that in her opinion nearly everyone (and particularly those in the bdsm community) is multiple to some degree. Every time they put on a role as parent, an employee, a shopper, a daughter, you get the idea.

I am in therapy for depression, which has nothing to do with being multiple. But my therapist is helping me work on developing more internal care for each other - we get everything done, nearly always (other than housework) but there isn't a lot of internal compassion, usually.

My mother is the only one in my family who knows about me being multiple. I suspect that she is multiple as well. (it's not something we discuss)

It's not something I'm prone to discussing with others, at all. There are some who know in RL, but not because I've told them directly, because they read about it in my journal. It hasn't come up in conversation. It is something that I bring up in intimate relationships*, but that has always caused some degree of even internal chaos, because suddenly someone wants to know "who's out", and what's going on inside, what the motivation is.

It's too much for most singletons to keep track of. They do, as someone said above, feel like they're being manipulated to some degree, particularly since some of us are prone to being really in touch with "feelings" and some of us are not. (& some of those are only in touch with their *own* feelings, as opposed to the general feeling within the system, which gets confusing even for us.)

Particularly for those who fall in love with us, they want to know which one(s) they are in love with. There generally are certain ones, but it is also usually some sort of conglomeration as well.

*intimate relationships being defined as those that last two, three or more consecutive months. lol.

I had a very close friend who I came out to when I first discovered this about myself. He said that I was too strong, too together, for that to be true. We had been very close and it hurt, too much. We've broken off contact. At the time, I had two friends who were multiple, I am still very close to one of them.

I have an ex (as of two months ago) and she is the only one I talk to about my internal stuff on a regular basis, and then mostly because she asks.

I don't know if I "pass" as single or not, I don't really bother thinking about it. My friends & coworkers find me charming when I'm little, they tend to dote on me because of it, and they all trust my loving heart.

So. Shrugs. Don't know if that's much help or not, but as I generally act with people as "just me", they accept that the me has very different sides and it seems to work.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I'm not "out" in my RT life except to a couple of people (including my kid) who figured it out on their own and asked me directly. I really don't need to deal with either "you're crazy and should go be professionally drugged and interrogated" or "you're just making it up to get attention". Not that I think my friends would necessarily react that way, since they are pretty weird themselves, but I haven't seen a good reason to take the chance.

There might actually be a good reason, because my one 'brother' is increasingly lonely... but... he's very shy, barely talks, and is not able to "pass for human". He hasn't ever had any acceptance and validation except from me and his twin; our concern has been protecting him from outright rejection and possible worse repercussions. If I introduced him to one or two of my friends, could they deal? could he deal? No way to know without trying, and we're not ready to try it yet.

Walk-ins, or incarnations of previous lives, or otherwise "not from 'round here"... yeah, maybe. There's no way we can verify anything though, and anyhow it's all moot: whatever the time-before was, it's gone - we live here now. Anyway, we don't match the trauma-split model, and have always had fully-shared access to corporeal memory - though, naturally, our interpretation of memories may differ considerably.

If you go to a therapist to ask if being multiple is considered a severe and debilitating psychiatric disorder by the APA, the answer you'll get is "yes". Not only that - the Official Viewpoint is that multiple people aren't really multiple; that it's all just a coping-mechanism brought on by extreme abuse in early childhood... when it's not just faked as an attention-getting device. I don't see what possible benefit there could be in telling someone with that viewpoint that you're multiple.

Re:

[jinxtigr.livejournal.com]

Mm- to my mind, somebody's gotta tell them they are wrong :)
I don't think it's anybody's SPECIFIC responsibility. Self-care comes first.
Me and tir_nan_og (most likely me and Cecily, or me and Mag Mell, or some combination) may be trying to straighten out a local shrink-type who shows a lot of signs of being 'reachable'. It's interesting to contemplate. Basically in order to really be able to carry off something like that you have to be very sharp and very tough- and to have a pretty wide experiential background and a philosophical background! David Hume made a very strong philosophical case for the idea that NOBODY is a person, we're just reactions to stimulus, a succession of moments. Identity itself is nothing like a simple question. It happens to be one of the most fascinating philosophical ideas you could hope to think about.
If I remember correctly, Hume incited Kant to 'wake from my dogmatic slumbers' and write Critique of Pure Reason (which I have not read). Waking some of these people from their dogmatic slumbers sounds like a damn good idea. Scientific truth is a function of time- the Official Viewpoint is subject to argument, but it's gotta be intellectual argument, as emotional argument won't work.

Re:

[duathir.livejournal.com]

Had their view not been shown to be in error a long time ago? Or at least shown to be in question, and with no way to test any premise? They are not scientists, nor philosophers - what they are is guardians of the status quo.

I would caution you to be very wary of this one you think 'reachable'. Perhaps he is, but his kind are widely known for their subtle treacherousness. He may affect to debate the merits of your heresy with you as long as he thinks he has a chance of swaying you from it, but all your words will be to him only the words of a heretic. If he comes to believe he has no chance of swaying you from it, he will at best cease conversation with you; at worst, do what he can to harm you. Watch your back.

Re:

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

We're with duathir on this one. Educating the shrink is tempting, and in some cases worthwhile, but it can also be dangerous.

We've just heard from someone who came out to her therapist on her four-person cooperative system and was told that her multiplicity was "out of control" and that she was "psychotic". We've also heard of people coming out plural to their doctors and getting "schizophrenia" put on their records as a result. The Wilburian model is a step up from that -- at least it says you're only neurotic! It takes a lot of effort to clean "psychotic" or "schizophrenic" off your record, your insurance company will see it, possibly future employers.. Yicch.

We do understand how you want to though. For one thing, what will he do with the next multiple who comes in his office? There must be a way.

[toride.livejournal.com]

we came out to some friends, but .. well, since mostly we have this unified image (not to mention most people already know the body have.. quirks :D) most of them don't have problems with that, as far as we know~ people fear what they don't understand, and switching (noticeably) when being with them doesn't help ^^;

though, a few went to that highlander thing~ where we must/should/will kill each other because 'there could be only one' *lol* but naw, they can keep their stupidity to themselves ^__^ just make sure we don't mention about our multiplicity to them anymore~

in another note.. well, yes, we seek out other multiples because in some cases/matters, only another mult can understand~ ^^ and the experience sharing is priceless~

- Oz