Key Points

Most narcissists, despite their arrogance and sense of entitlement, have been deeply insecure since childhood.

Narcissists and their victims are less ambivalent than complimentary.

Once their relationship becomes committed, the major personal issues, once hidden, become acutely apparent.

“Man’s desire is for woman, but woman’s desire is for man’s desire.”

This classic quote from Madame de Staël (1766-1817) is certainly interesting. But it requires some clarification—the most notable exception is highly narcissistic men or abusive males in general.

However, we should add that narcissistic women can be love bombs too, although to my knowledge there are no statistical comparisons of their relative prominence between the sexes. But, at least indirectly, the literature I’ve explored suggests that it’s more common among men than women. 1

Consistent with my previous experience as a psychologist, I’ve probably seen that men are twice as likely as women to be slingshots—even though in many ways they betray their latent narcissism equally.

For example, they may share the same tendency to shamelessly cross each other’s boundaries (such as reading each other’s diaries uninvited) and to blame their partner’s selfishness or insensitivity for their relationship problems. Even as they blatantly victimize their victims, they may also declare themselves to be the real victims.

So, given that any gender can be a failure at love, to avoid the awkwardness of constantly writing “he/she” or “she/him” in the descriptions below, I will use the male pronoun regularly. Also, be aware that not all love bombers are narcissists, and not all narcissists are love bombers. Furthermore, not all love bombers suffer from serious childhood psychological wounds.

TheReciprocalPursuitofUnconditionalLove

Many writers argue that narcissists, despite their bravado and inflated sense of entitlement, carry latent insecurities from childhood. As a result, the argument goes, they have developed powerful tactics to mask their insecurities and damaged self-image.

In desperate need of what professionals often call “narcissistic supply” to fill a void they rarely recognize, these people are drawn to others who will honor and validate their (defensive) superiority.

So what kind of person would be willing to ultimately humiliate themselves to accept—or at least tolerate—such compensatory behavior?

Any such dichotomy is paradoxical because the two individuals may be less divergent than complementary—the unexpressed drive of one fueling the other. For convenience, I will shorten the term “narcissist” to “N” and designate his target as “CV,” which stands for “cooperating victim.”

If CV plays into the exaggerated fantasies of narcissism, it is because these fantasies may reflect his own. Women often felt insecure in their families growing up. Like narcissists, many CV narcissists had parents who were so self-obsessed that they never felt adequately cared for, appreciated, or cared for.

What the C narcissist typically craves, albeit unconsciously, is a loving, intimate relationship that provides what was lacking when they were younger and may have culminated in the searing wound of mental and emotional abandonment.

As a result, the C narcissist’s over-the-top love bombardment seems to work in the CV narcissist’s favor, making her a pawn in the narcissist’s treacherous hands. Never before has the CV narcissist enjoyed such lavishness, such glorious honor, to be flattered, praised, admired—even worshiped.

She is forced or hasty to return these ornate displays of affection, figuratively on her knees, declaring her enthusiasm, begging the CV to return them—boiling her down with expensive gifts or hastily whisking her off to exotic islands.

With these gestures sweeping her off her feet, CV is thrown off her feet. Surrendering to the exacting demands of this unprecedented relationship (because, although she is not aware of it, she has decided that N is “the one”), she strives to rebalance herself according to N’s dictates.

It is important to add that the narcissistic man has also adjusted his balance to ensure that the relationship offers him the unconditional love and acceptance that he did not experience growing up.

Here we find the shared illusion – or collusion – of compatibility or spiritual kinship that is not based on any shared identity so much as on promises, promises, misleading words, and double-deeds.

The narcissistic man and the narcissistic man must behave in such a way as to maintain their sense of control over the relationship. In his case, the narcissistic man asserts (or rather demands) what must happen in the narcissistic man’s life to be certain that he is more important to her than anyone or anything else.

In the case of the narcissistic man, to reassure herself that she will remain his true, undying love, she willingly surrenders to these demands – and, ironically, “firmly” abandons her assertion. Unable to feel safe or secure within herself, she feels obliged to draw the security that is available only from outside.

Although she is likely to feel pressured, want to take things slow, and feel highly valued (after all, this has long been her deepest desire), she allows her boundaries to be violated—even violates them herself.

For example, she succumbs to N’s jealous nature and acquiesces to his efforts to isolate her from family and friends. As he explains to her, his insistence is (most likely) only to gain her recognition of the primacy and exclusivity of their very special relationship.

From Idealization to Devaluation: Rudely Dropping the Cooperative Victim Off Her Pedestal

Although there are hints of trouble ahead during N and CV’s surreal courtship, once their relationship enters its second, more damaging phase—especially for CV—the threats that have hitherto been disguised to their shared need for independence, autonomy, and self-esteem now take center stage.

The N man becomes increasingly suspicious and distrustful that he will have to give up his dominance and control if he is forced to acknowledge his “mark” as now his equal. In his quest to obtain the commitment of CV, which he had previously so earnestly sought, he experiences a growing (though vague) anxiety about merging with the attachment object who is no longer his subordinate.

Consequently, in need of distinguishing himself emotionally from his partner, he resorts to anger, contempt, and even hatred to maintain his basic sense of superiority.

Conversely, CV, feeling frustrated, abandoned, and desperate to regain the intimate attachment and euphoric feelings of specialness that she has now been actively denied, responds to N in a submissive manner that contrasts sharply with his behavioral distancing.

With her idealized vision of the relationship undermined by the man’s insults and condescension, she tries hard to please his preferences—in the process, putting her self-esteem and safety at risk.

But, no matter how much she admits it to herself, she also resents this gross betrayal of her love. After all, she has done nothing she can fathom that would explain his cruel treatment of her.

When she protests his sullen attitude, the man either persistently deceives her, making her doubt his eyes and ears, or offers her intermittent reinforcement to ensure that she is willing to stay—and remain first in the relationship.

While they demonstrate this in contrasting ways, they share the same fear of abandonment. As long as the man remains a narcissistic source, he fears losing her as an inferior, lesser emotional dependent. The woman who longs for the relationship to return to what it once was—or what it seemed like—is unwilling (and this is cognitive dissonance) to admit that the wonderful feelings she once experienced were all a sham.

She will minimize or justify her mistreatment, and blame herself (as the man has led her to do) for the painful withdrawal of his kindness, generosity, respect, and loyalty.

In short, the man and the woman are now deeply disappointed in each other and are reliving old, troubling feelings of insecurity. Their shared desire to feel secure in a therapeutic relationship—which explains their largely unconscious motivation for getting involved in the first place—has failed miserably. They have tried through codependency to achieve what can ultimately only be achieved within themselves.

Assuming that the man is at or near one pole of the male spectrum, the impasse between them is irresolvable. As many counselors have pointed out, CV would do well to escape the trap she could not help falling into.

She may need to renew supportive friendships she has abandoned. She may need to undergo mental health counseling to gain the confidence and courage to leave a relationship that has damaged her sense of self.

Here, I should reiterate that if it is the woman who has carried out the manipulative emotional bombardment, and her defenses are so strong that she is unable to empathize with her partner’s dilemma, it is the man who needs to free himself from this dysfunctional union. But, regardless of gender, both of them must free themselves from the relationship that imprisons them. Otherwise, they will lose the opportunity to live as fulfilling a life as possible—once they have freed themselves from abuse that may be worse than anything they may have endured growing up.