About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Web Designing Offer 2014

We Design Good Looking and Professional Website in HTML / WORDPRESS / JOOMLA with 15-20 pages only in 4200 INR or 50$ . We will provide free web hosting for one year. 

More details email me at ceo@speakmeme.com or call us at +91-8586875020.Skype id speakmeme visit http://ibibo.pw for demo site.


The Outcast of Society's Stigma, Society's Utilization Of Outcast Children


The Outcast of Society's Stigma
How The Society created a use for the outcast child

Adopted children are punished for the fornication that resulted in unintended pregnancy by unmarried individuals. The individuals are punished by ostracism and become stereotypical scapegoats. The father is without rights to his offspring, and the mother will bear the societal burden of shame forever, Especially if she is cooperative.
The illegitimate child's Ostracism by society, Is a second generation punishment. The swift removal and sale in the processing of the illegitimate child's life of servitude to the adopted parents is a legally binding relationship of master and servant. The child whom has no agreement in the choice of his life is a pawn of society's wrath. The materialistic society is driven by supply and demand based on the wealthy desires of "I Want". The temporary dissatisfaction of adoptive parents is no measure of the all around successful "filing" of children into the society recognized institution of marriage. The population is bound by the discrimination of citizen rights to the inhumane damage to the treatment of mothers and their lost child. A multi-billion dollar industry has erupted through the demands of wealthy childless couples for to consume the influx of sub-standard children who will make great companions to wealthy couples, With the child trafficking adoption trade in the U.S..

An outcast is a person with social stigma (and untouchable) who is rejected or 'cast out', as from home or society, or in some way excluded, looked down upon, or ignored. The adopted child is illegitimate (without married parents) in nature and considered flawed by society as the illegitimate child's existence is a challenge to the values of the society that forbids fornication. 

Civilization and Its Discontents

In Civilization and it's discontents psychologist Sigmund Freud propounds the fundamental tensions that exist for the individual and for the civilization that the individual lives within. Friction producing discontent, primarily stemming from the individual prioritizing his/her instinctual freedom (individuals quest for individual freedom) and civilization's needs for conformity and instinctual repression. Considered a text without unconsolation (focusing on the prevalence of human guilt and the impossibility of achieving unalloyed happiness) Freud contended that no social solution of the discontents of mankind is possible, all civilizations, no matter how well planned, can provide only partial relief. Even Eros, is not fully in harmony with civilization. The realities of the human condition are to develop and focus upon a balance between the repressive burdens of civilization and the realization of instinctual gratification and the sublimated love for mankind. The reconciliation of nature and culture was considered impossible, for civilized existences produce guilt by the necessary suppression and control (thwarting) of persons' instinctual drives. Although elsewhere Freud had postulated mature, hetrosexual genitality and the capacity to work productively as the hallmarks of health and urged that where id is, there shall ego be, it is clear that he held out no hope for any collective relief from the discontents of civilization. He only offered an ethic of resigned authenticity, which taught the wisdom of living without the possibility of redemption, either religious or secular.


To be exiled is to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return. It can be a form of punishment. Exile can also be a self-imposed departure from one's homeland. Self-exile is often seen to be in some way a protest by the person that claims it, to avoid persecution or legal matters ( tax,criminal allegations, or otherwise),through shame or repentance, or perhaps to isolate oneself in order to devote time to a particular thing. Article 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Social health

Social health of a society is defined as how well the society does at offering every citizen the equal opportunity to obtain access to the goods and services critical to being able to function as a contributing member of society.  The existence of outcasts can be seen as a sign of a society's declining or inadequate social health.

Description of experiences of being outcast

On the Indian sub continent the word pariah comes from the Tamil word parai, literally meaning "to say or tell something". In the olden days, paraiyar announced public messages. They would draw the attention of people around them by beating their animal skin drums and then make public announcements. They were mostly drawn from the lowest strata of society or caste. Hence the word pariah has become a general word for a low cast person. A cognate word exists in  Malayalam Language which is used to say something without any pejorative connotation. People will often avoid contact or communication with an outcast, and sometimes even restrain themselves from going near them. Generally, in these extreme cases, any individual who has sympathy for an outcast, and tries to befriend or socialize with them, may cause themselves to lose popularity, or even become an outcast themselves. Usually, a person is an outcast because they are unpopular, that is, they are generally disliked, or even hated by other people and have a low social status because of it. However, sometimes a person is an outcast because they are shy or feared by other people, and therefore rejected (as other people may try to avoid them). In severe cases, a social outcast may become depressed, as they may endure much persecution and discrimination from other people - a homeless wanderer; vagabond.

Social Stigma of Adopted Children

Social stigma is the extreme disapproval of (or discontent with) a person or group on socially characteristic grounds that are perceived, and serve to distinguish them, from other members of a society. Stigma may then be affixed to such a person, by the greater society, who differs from their cultural norms.
Social stigma can result from the perception (rightly or wrongly) of mental illness, physical disabilities, diseases, (such as Aids, Leprosy) Illegitimacy, Sexual orientation, gender identity, skin tone, education, ethnicity, ideology, religion, (or lack of) criminality, not assimilating and being different than the main populace. 
 Attributes associated with social stigma often vary depending on the geopolitical and corresponding sociopolitical contexts employed by society, in different parts of the world.
According to Goffman there are three forms of social stigma:
  1. Overt or external deformations, such as scars, physical manifestations of anorexia, leprosy, physical disability, social disability such as obesity.
  2. Deviations in personal traits, including mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, criminal behavior, adopted and foster childhood are stigmatized in this way.
  3. "Tribal stigmas" are traits, imagined or real, of ethnic group, nationality or of religion that is deemed to be a deviation from the prevailing normative ethnicity, nationality or religion, Or failure to assimilate in mainstream.


Stigma is a Greek word that in its origins referred to a type of marking or tattoo that was cut or burned into the skin of criminals, slaves, or traitors in order to visibly identify them as blemished or morally polluted persons. These individuals were to be avoided or shunned, particularly in public places.
Social stigmas can occur in many different forms. The most common deals with culture,obesity, gender, race, disease and in regard to adoption a child's lack of genetic link to the family or the child's parent's marital status. 
Many people who have been stigmatized feel as though they are transforming from a whole person to a tainted one. In the case of the adopted child has lived his entire life of being stigmatized. They are different than the children around them, they feel different and are devalued by others especially adoptive family relations. Stigma can happen in the workplace, educational settings, health care, the criminal justice system, and especially in the family of the stigmatized.
 For example, the parents of overweight women are less likely to pay for their daughters' college education than are the parents of average-weight women.
Stigma may also be described as a label that associates a person to a set of unwanted characteristics that form a stereotype. It is also affixed. Once people identify and label your differences others will assume that is just how things are and the person will remain stigmatized until the stigmatizing attribute is undetected. A considerable amount of generalization is required to create groups, meaning that you put someone in a general group regardless of how well they actually fit into that group. However, the attributes that society selects differs according to time and place. What is considered out of place in one society could be the norm in another. When society categorizes individuals into certain groups the labeled person is subjected to status loss and discrimination. Society will start to form expectations about those groups once the cultural stereotype is secured.
Stigma may affect the behavior of those who are stigmatized. Those who are stereotyped often start to act in ways that their stigmatizers expect of them. It not only changes their behavior, but it also shapes their emotions and beliefs. Members of stigmatized social groups often face prejudice that causes depression (i.e. deprejudice). These stigmas put a person's social identity in threatening situations, like low self esteem. Because of this, identity theories have become highly researched. Identity threat theories can go hand-in-hand with labeling theory.
Members of stigmatized groups start to become aware that they aren't being treated the same way and know they are probably being discriminated against. Studies have shown that "by 10 years of age, most children are aware of cultural stereotypes of different groups in society, and children who are members of stigmatized groups are aware of cultural types at an even younger age.

Émile Durkheim

A French sociologist, was the first to explore Stigma as a social phenomenon in 1895. He wrote:
Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes or deviance, properly so-called, will there be unknown; but faults, which appear venial to the layman, will there create the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousnesses. If then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal (or deviant) and will treat them as such.

Erving Goffman

 was one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century. He defined Stigma as:
The phenomenon whereby an individual with an attribute which is deeply discredited by his/her society is rejected as a result of the attribute. Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.

Gerhard Falk

German born sociologist and historian Gerhard Falk wrote:
All societies will always stigmatize some conditions and some behaviors because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating "outsiders" from "insiders".
Falk describes stigma based on two categories, Existential Stigma and Achieved Stigma. Falk defines Existential Stigma"as stigma deriving from a condition which the target of the stigma either did not cause or over which he has little control." He defines Achieved Stigma as "stigma that is earned because of conduct and/or because they contributed heavily to attaining the stigma in question.
Falk concludes that "we and all societies will always stigmatize some condition and some behavior because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating 'outsiders' from 'insiders'". Stigmatization, at its essence is a challenge to one's humanity- for both the stigmatized person and the stigmatizer. The majority of stigma researchers have found the process of stigmatization has a long history and is cross-culturally ubiquitous.

Émile Durkheim

French sociologist  Emile Durkheim was the first to explore Stigma as a social phenomenon in 1895. He wrote:
Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes or deviance, properly so-called, will there be unknown; but faults, which appear venial to the layman, will there create the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousnesses. If then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal (or deviant) and will treat them as such.

Erving Goffman

was one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century. He defined Stigma as:
The phenomenon whereby an individual with an attribute which is deeply discredited by his/her society is rejected as a result of the attribute. 
Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.

Gerhard Falk

German born sociologist and historian Gerhard Falk wrote:
All societies will always stigmatize some conditions and some behaviors because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating "outsiders" from "insiders".
Falk describes stigma based on two categories, Existential Stigma and Achieved Stigma. Falk defines Existential Stigma"as stigma deriving from a condition which the target of the stigma either did not cause or over which he has little control." He defines Achieved Stigma as "stigma that is earned because of conduct and/or because they contributed heavily to attaining the stigma in question."
Falk concludes that "we and all societies will always stigmatize some condition and some behavior because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating 'outsiders' from 'insiders'". Stigmatization, at its essence is a challenge to one's humanity- for both the stigmatized person and the stigmatizer. The majority of stigma researchers have found the process of stigmatization has a long history and is cross-culturally ubiquitous.

Goffman's theory

In  Erving Goffman's theory of social stigma, a stigma is an attribute, behavior, or reputation which is socially discrediting in a particular way: it causes an individual to be mentally classified by others in an undesirable, rejected stereotype rather than in an accepted, normal one. Goffman, a noted sociologist, defined stigma as a special kind of gap between virtual social identity and actual social identity:
Society establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories. [...] When a stranger comes into our presence, then, first appearances are likely to enable us to anticipate his category and attributes, his "social identity" [...] We lean on these anticipations that we have, transforming them into normative expectations, into righteously presented demands. [...] It is [when an active question arises as to whether these demands will be filled] that we are likely to realize that all along we had been making certain assumptions as to what the individual before us ought to be. [These assumed demands and the character we impute to the individual will be called] virtual social identity. The category and attributes he could in fact be proved to possess will be called his actual social identity. (Goffman 1963:2).
While a stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind--in the extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma, especially when its discrediting effect is very extensive [...] It constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity. Note that there are other types of [such] discrepancy [...] for example the kind that causes us to reclassify an individual from one socially anticipated category to a different but equally well-anticipated one, and the kind that causes us to alter our estimation of the individual upward. (Goffman 1963:3).

The stigmatized, the normal, and the wise

Goffman divides the individual's relation to a stigma into three categories:
  1. the stigmatized are those who bear the stigma;
  2. the normals are those who do not bear the stigma; and
  3. the wise are those among the normals who are accepted by the stigmatized as "wise" to their condition (borrowing the term from the homosexual community).
The wise normals are not merely those who are in some sense accepting of the stigma; they are, rather, "those whose special situation has made them intimately privy to the secret life of the stigmatized individual and sympathetic with it, and who find themselves accorded a measure of acceptance, a measure of courtesy membership in the clan." That is, they are accepted by the stigmatized as "honorary members" of the stigmatized group. "Wise persons are the marginal men before whom the individual with a fault need feel no shame nor exert self-control, knowing that in spite of his failing he will be seen as an ordinary other." Goffman notes that the wise may in certain social situations also bear the stigma with respect to other normals: that is, they may also be stigmatized for being wise. An example is a parent of a homosexual; another is a white woman who is seen socializing with a black man. (Limiting ourselves, of course, to social milieus in which homosexuals and blacks are stigmatized).
Until recently, this typology has been used without being empirically tested. A recent study showed empirical support for the existence of the own, the wise, and normals as separate groups; but, the wise appeared in two forms: active wise and passive wise. Active wise encouraged challenging stigmatization and educating stigmatizers, but passive wise did not.

Ethical considerations

Goffman emphasizes that the stigma relationship is one between an individual and a social setting with a given set of expectations; thus, everyone at different times will play both roles of stigmatized and stigmatizer (or, as he puts it, "normal"). Goffman gives the example that "some jobs in America cause holders without the expected college education to conceal this fact; other jobs, however, can lead to the few of their holders who have a higher education to keep this a secret, lest they be marked as failures and outsiders. Similarly, a middle class boy may feel no compunction in being seen going to the library; a professional criminal, however, writes [about keeping his library visits secret]." He also gives the example of blacks being stigmatized among whites, and whites being stigmatized among blacks (note that this work was written during racial segregation).
Individuals actively cope with stigma in ways that vary across stigmatized groups, across individuals within stigmatized groups, and within individuals across time and situations.

The stigmatized

The stigmatized are ostracized, devalued, rejected, scorned and shunned. They experience discrimination, insults, attacks and are even murdered. Those who perceive themselves to be members of a stigmatized group, whether it is obvious to those around them or not, often experience psychological distress and many view themselves contemptuously.
Although the experience of being stigmatized may take a toll on self-esteem, academic achievement, and other outcomes, many people with stigmatized attributes have high self-esteem, perform at high levels, are happy and appear to be quite resilient to their negative experiences.
There are also "positive stigma": you may indeed be too thin, too rich, or too smart. This is noted by Goffman (1963:141) in his discussion of leaders, who are subsequently given license to deviate from some behavioral norms, because they have difference.
Gerhard Falk expounds upon Goffman's work by redefining deviant as "others who deviate from the expectations of a group"and by categorizing deviance into two types:
  • Societal Deviance refers to a condition widely perceived, in advance and in general, as being deviant and hence stigma and stigmatized. "Homosexuality is therefore an example of societal deviance because there is such a high degree of consensus to the effect that homosexuality is different, and a violation of norms or social expectation".
  • Situational Deviance refers to a deviant act that is labeled as deviant in a specific situation, and may not be labeled deviant by society. Similarly, a socially deviant action might not be considered deviant in specific situations. "A robber or other street criminal is an excellent example. It is the crime which leads to the stigma and stigmatization of the person so affected."
The physically disabled, mentally ill, homosexuals, and a host of others who are labeled deviant because they deviate from the expectations of a group, are subject to stigmatization- the social rejection of numerous individuals, and often entire groups of people who have been labeled deviant.

Stigma communication

Communication is involved in creating, maintaining, and diffusing stigmas, and enacting stigmatization.  The model of stigma communication explains how and why particular content choices (marks, labels, peril, and responsibility) can create stigmas and encourage their diffusion. A recent experiment using health alerts tested the model of stigma communication, finding that content choices indeed predicted stigma beliefs, intentions to further diffuse these messages, and agreement with regulating infected persons' behaviors.

Challenging stigma

Stigma, though powerful and enduring, is not inevitable, and can be challenged. There are two important aspects to challenging stigma: challenging the stigmatisation on the part of stigmatizers, and challenging the internalized stigma of the stigmatized. To challenge stigmatization, Campbell et al. 2005 summarise three main approaches.
  1. There are efforts to educate individuals about the non-stigmatising facts and why they should not stigmatise.
  2. There are efforts to legislate against discrimination.
  3. There are efforts to mobilize the participation of community members in anti-stigma efforts, to maximize the likelihood that the anti-stigma messages have relevance and effectiveness, according to local contexts.
In relation to challenging the internalized stigma of the stigmatized, Palo Freire's theory of critical consciousness is particularly suitable. Cornish provides an example of how sex workers in Sonagachi, a red light district in India, have effectively challenged internalized stigma by establishing that they are respectable women, who admirably take care of their families, and who deserve rights like any other worker. This study argues that it is not only the force of rational argument that makes the challenge to the stigma successful, but concrete evidence that sex workers can achieve valued aims, and are respected by others.

Current research

Research undertaken to determine effects of social stigma primarily focuses on disease-associated stigmas. Disabilities, psychiatric disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases are among the diseases currently scrutinized by researchers. In studies involving such diseases, both positive and negative effects of social stigma have been discovered..

Research on self-esteem

Members of stigmatized groups may have lower self-esteem than those of nonstigmatized groups. A test could not be taken on the overall self-esteem of different races. Researchers would have to take into account whether these people are optimistic or pessimistic, whether they are male or female and what kind of place they grew up in. Over the last two decades, many studies have reported that American Adoptees show lower self-esteem than biological children even though, as a group, American adoptees tend to receive poorer outcomes in many areas of life and experience significant legal discrimination in regard to the right to obtain their original birth certificates to identify themselves and repair the adoption paradox damages. Step and adopted children are the number one target population of child abuse in the united states.
and childhood maltreatment.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

The Suicide Risk In Adopted Children Swedish Study


The Suicide Risk In Adopted Children Swedish Study

One problem with this study is that it is solely based Swedish Adoption, The country is excessively progressed multiple decades beyond the infantile United States. In countries such as Sweden, programs are in place to provide assistance to families, dignified regard for the general welfare of all of it's citizens and the general mentality of Swedish citizens are far superior in terms of equality, education, social welfare of families and the obvious lack of poverty, crime and lack of child abuse in general. Far above the low standards of American materialism, greed and the selfish nature of the average American citizen. When we compare apples to oranges Sweden's lack of disparity and the United States plethora of poverty, crime and child abuse the two countries are not comparable in the least. Maybe the data could be used for a future study as the control group.  

Genetics and childhood environment together contribute to risk for suicide attempts

  • Wilcox, H. C., Kuramoto, S., Brent, D., & Runeson, B. (2012). The interaction of parental history of suicidal behavior and exposure to adoptive parents' psychiatric disorders on adoptee suicide attempt hospitalizations. Am J Psychiatry, 169(3), 309-315.
Abstract: This pilot study is designed to compare the relative impact of genetic vulnerability versus aspects of family environment (adoptive parent psychiatric disorder, suicidal behaviors and criminal convictions). The study will do this by using a Swedish database that consists of all births in Sweden since 1931. The database has all offspring linked with their biological and adoptive parents by a unique personal identification number each Swede is assigned at birth. The study is focused on identifying which aspects of the family environment enhance or reduce risk to offspring of birth parents who took their lives to suicide or attempted suicide; and whether this risk is conferred by genetic or environmental factors or an interaction between the two. The grant will allow the investigators to begin to disentangle the effects of genetic risk from the impact of the environment on vulnerability and resilience among offspring at high genetic risk for suicidal behaviors.
Using her Pilot Research Grant and 30 years of data from the national Swedish registry, Dr. Wilcox’s innovative study set out to study the relative impact of genetic and environmental risk factors on suicidal behaviors in adopted children.  She looked at adoptees’ risk for suicidal behavior based on the suicidal behavior in biological parents as well as psychiatric hospitalizations in adoptive mothers. The study showed that parental history of suicidal behaviors and adoptive mother’s psychiatric hospitalizations, in combination, contributed to adoptee’s risk for suicidal behavior. The relative risk of suicide attempts in the study’s adoptees whose biological parents had suicidal behavior, as compared to offspring of parents with psychiatric hospitalizations but no suicidal behaviors, was four times higher only if their adoptive mother had been psychiatrically hospitalized.  There was no difference based solely on family history or adoptive mother’s psychiatric hospitalizations.
Dr. Holly Wilcox is an Assistant Professor in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Mental Health.   In addition to her Pilot grant, she currently holds a Young Investigator Grant from AFSP that studies early trauma, biological stress response, and suicide attempts among individuals at high risk for depression. Click here to read more about Dr. Wilcox's Pilot Research Grant.

Dr. Holly Wilcox is an Assistant Professor in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Mental Health.   In addition to her Pilot grant, she currently holds a Young Investigator Grant from AFSP that studies early trauma, biological stress response, and suicide attempts among individuals at high risk for depression. Click here to read more about Dr. Wilcox's Pilot Research Grant.

Exploring "Psychological Pain" In Adult Adoptees and Adopted Children


Exploring "Psychological Pain"In Adult and Child Adoptees

Psychological pain is an unpleasant feeling (a suffering) of a psychological, non-physical, origin. A pioneer in the field of suicidology, 
Edwin S. Shneidman, described it as "how much you hurt as a human being. It is mental suffering; mental torment.  There is no shortage in the many ways psychological pain is referred to, and using a different word usually reflects an emphasis on a particular aspect of mind life. It may be called mental pain, emotional pain, psychic pain, social pain, spiritual or soul pain, or suffering.  It is sometimes also called psychalgia. While these clearly are not equivalent terms, one systematic comparison of theories and models of psychological pain, psychic pain, emotional pain, and suffering concluded that each describe the same profoundly unpleasant feeling. Psychological pain is believed to be an inescapable aspect of human existence.

Other descriptions of psychological pain are "a wide range of subjective experiences characterized as an awareness of negative changes in the self      and in its functions, accompanied by negative feelings", "a diffuse subjective experience ... differentiated from physical pain which is often localized and associated with noxious physical stimuli", and "a lasting, unsustainable, and unpleasant feeling resulting from negative appraisal of an inability or deficiency of the self."


The adjective ‘psychological’ is thought to encompass the functions of beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, which may be seen as an indication for the many sources of psychological pain. One way of grouping these different sources of pain was offered by Shneidman, who stated that psychological pain is caused by frustrated psychological needs. For example, the need for love, autonomy, affiliation, and achievement, or the need to avoid harm, shame, and embarrassment. Psychological needs were originally described by Henry Murray in 1938 as needs that motivate human behavior. Shneidman maintained that people rate the importance of each need differently, which explains why people's level of psychological pain differs when confronted with the same frustrated need. This needs perspective coincides with Patrick David Wall's description of physical pain that says that physical pain indicates a need state much more than a sensory experience.
In the fields of social psychology and personality psychology, the term social pain is used to denote psychological pain caused by harm or threat to social connection; bereavement, embarrassment, shame and hurt feelings are sub-types of social pain. 
Just like physical pain, social pain is thought to serve a function of adaptation and avoidance from what caused the pain.  From an evolutionary perspective, psychological pain forces the assessment of actual or potential social problems that might reduce the individual’s fitness for survival. 
The way we display our psychological pain socially (for example, crying, shouting, moaning) serves the purpose of indicating that we are in need.

Neural mechanisms

Research suggests that physical pain and psychological pain may share some underlying neurological mechanisms. Brain regions that were consistently found to be implicated in both types of pain are the anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex (some subregions more than others), and may extend to other regions as well. Brain regions that were also found to be involved in psychological pain include the insular cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, thalamus, parahippocampal gyrus, basil ganglia, and cerebellum.
 Some advocate that, because similar brain regions are involved in both physical pain and psychological pain, we should see pain as a continuum that ranges from purely physical to purely psychological. Moreover, many sources mention the fact that we use metaphors of physical pain to refer to psychological pain experiences.


The common medical practice in the United States is the prescribing of drugs for depression and unhappiness, and the ignoring of the cause or the problem itself.
The plethora of pharmaceuticals available including psychotropic and antidepressant drugs to numb the patient's reactions to easily cooperate or ignore what is wrong or what has happened, what is happening. 
The principle of using medications to quickly fix the problem, As an medical based Answer to deal with a situation, or life style Yet the drug does not fix the problem or deal with the problem at all. In fact allows the problem to continue, perpetuates the problem and renders the problem unobstructed to continue as the victim no longer protests the problem and now allows the problem.
This unfortunate state of acceptance and perpetuation of problems by the use of psychological drugs to ignore problems does not help people gain perspective on the root cause of the issue, but makes them more compliant to tolerate the problem.  The pharmaceutical Industry thrives on the diversion principle being one of the largest controlling industries in the U.S..    


Six Types Of Emotional & Psychological Abuse


Six Types Of Emotional Abuse

1. Rejecting
Parents or caregivers who display rejecting behavior toward a child will often [purposefully or unconsciously] let a child know, in a variety of ways, that he or she is unwanted. Putting down a child's worth or belittling their needs are some ways this type of emotional abuse may manifest. Other examples can include telling a child to leave, or worse, to get out of your face, calling him names or telling the child that he is worthless, making a child the family scapegoat or blaming him for family/sibling problems. Refusing to talk to or hold a young child as he grows can also be considered abusive behavior.
  • harsh criticism, belittling, labeling

  • name-calling

  • yelling, screaming or swearing at children

  • humiliation or demeaning jokes

  • teasing about child's mental capabilities or physical appearance

  • refusing love, attention and touch
  • physical or emotional abandonment

  • shunning the child from the family altogether
  • kicking teens out of the home
  • locking kids out of the home to discipline or punish
2. Ignoring
Adults who have had few of their emotional needs met are often unable to respond to the needs of their children. They may not show attachment to the child or provide positive nurturing. They may show no interest in the child, or withhold affection or even fail to recognize the child's presence. Many times the parent is physically there but emotionally unavailable. Failing to respond to or consistently interact with your child constitutes emotional and psychological abuse.
  • inconsistent or no response to a child's invitations to connect
  • failure to attend to an infants physical, social or emotional needs
  • refusing to acknowledge a child's interests, activities, schooling, peers, etc.

  • abandonment or refusing to acknowledge child as your own

  • denying medical or health care, and safe, clean environments

  • inability or failure to engage a child emotionally or protect a child from harm 
3. Terrorizing
Parents who use threats, yelling and cursing are doing serious psychological damage to their children. Singling out one child to criticize and punish or ridiculing her for displaying normal emotions is abusive. Threatening a child with harsh words, physical harm, abandonment or in extreme cases death is unacceptable. Even in jest, causing a child to be terrified by the use of threats and/or intimidating behavior is some of the worst emotional abuse. This includes witnessing, hearing or knowing that violence is taking place in the home.
  • excessive teasing, screaming, cursing, raging at a child
  • threatening or intimidating behaviors - scaring a child or others in front of a other children.

  • unpredictable, unreasonable or extreme reactions

  • verbal threats to harm the child, self or others

  • hostility among family members 

  • inconsistent or unreasonable demands placed on a child

  • ridiculing or humiliating a child in front of others

  • threatening to reveal personal or embarrassing information
FACT: Children and youth who witness family violence experience all six types of emotional abuse. 
4. Isolating
A parent who abuses a child through isolation may not allow the child to engage in appropriate activities with his or her peers; may keep a baby in his or her room, unexposed to stimulation or may prevent teenagers from participating in extracurricular activities. Requiring a child to stay in his or her room from the time school lets out until the next morning, restricting eating, or forcing a child to isolation or seclusion by keeping her away from family and friends can be destructive and considered emotional abuse depending on the circumstances and severity.
  • leaving a child alone or unattended for long periods of time

  • not permitting a child to interact with other children or maintain friendships

  • keeping a child from appropriate social and emotional stimulation
  • requiring a child stay indoors/in their room or away from peers
  • keeping a child from playing with friends and activities s/he enjoys
  • not permitting a child to participate in social activities, parties or group/family events
  • excessive or extreme punishment for typical childhood behaviors
  • encouraging a child to reject friends or social contact/invitations
5. Corrupting
Parents who corrupt may permit children to use drugs or alcohol, watch cruel behavior toward animals, watch or look at inappropriate sexual content or to witness or participate in criminal activities such as stealing, assault, prostitution, gambling, etc. Encouraging an underage child to do things that are illegal or harmful is abusive and should be reported.
  • encouraging or rewarding unethical or illegal behavior (drugs, stealing, cheating, lying, bullying)
  • promoting or rewarding promiscuity
  • giving a child or using in the presence of a child: drugs, alcohol and other illegal substances
  • allowing or encouraging children to engage in behavior that is harmful to the self or others.
6. Exploiting
Exploitation can be considered manipulation or forced activity without regard for a child's need for development. For instance, repeatedly asking an eight-year-old to be responsible for the family's dinner is inappropriate. Giving a child responsibilities that are greater than a child of that age can handle or using a child for profit is abusive.
  • having expectations beyond the developmental stage of the child
  • forcing a child to participate in unwanted activities without just cause
  • requiring a child to care for a parent or siblings without regard for the child's age or ability

  • using blame, shame, judgment or guilt to condemn child for behavior of others (parents/peers/siblings)

  • unreasonable expectations to perform chores or household duties

  • exposing a child to sexually abusive or inappropriate content 

Risk Factors For Child Abuse In Adopted Children


Risk Factors For Child Abuse In Adopted Children

Risk factors for abuse
Although we don’t know exactly how much abuse there is, only that most of it is unreported, there are things we know about abuse. We know that one risk factor is diferentness. If mom, dad and two of their children are stocky blonds while one of the children is a slender redhead, the redhead is at greater risk of abuse. This is true of personality differences as well. A child who does not seem to fit in, who seems alien in looks or disposition, is more likely to be abused.
Another risk factor is separation. . . .
Lack of blood ties is another risk factor. . . .
The adoption connection

I used to think none of this had anything to do with adoption. 
When I first heard from abused adoptees, I responded much the same as social workers have responded to searching, unhappy birthparents: 
I thought they were the rare exceptions. But over the years, I’ve had a lot of letters from adoptees who report they were abused. I’ve talked to a lot of adoptees who were abused. The sheer number of them made me take a closer look. . . .
Many adoptees seem, even as adults, to express the same kinds of feelings as abused children. 
This cannot all be coincidence. Granting that there may be substantial numbers of adoptees who are physically or sexually abused, and even larger numbers who are psychologically abused, 
it seems we see abused child attitudes in a majority of adoptees.
Adoption’s inherent abuse of children and families

Adoption itself inflicts psychological harm on adoptees. 
Adoption means the near-impossibility of either adoptee or adoptive parent being able to take their relationship for granted. 
Because the parent-child relationship is established by law and not by nature, the relationship cannot be regarded as a simple fact of life as it is in natural families.
We often read of adoptive parents being the “psychological parents” of adoptees. 
Yet what does being a “psychological parent” mean? It means that the relationship is not natural, not clear cut. 
It means that in adoptive families, the parent-child relationship may be something that must be continually proved because it cannot be assumed. 
One way adoptive parents may seek to “prove” that they are “the” parents and are necessary to adoptees is to make themselves essential, which may mean being more controlling than the typical parent. 
One way adoptees may “prove” they are their adoptive parents’ children is by being more childlike, more immature, more dependent than typical sons and daughters, even when they are chronologically adults. . . .
Some adoptees may be less harmed by the disruption of the natural bond with their birthmothers than others. 
Some adoptive parents are better at empathizing than are others. Some are able to love and accept the children they adopt for who they really are, 
while others will never stop trying to mold adoptees into the natural children they could not have. 
But still adoption itself, I think, harms children. . . . Inside every adoptee lurks an abandoned child, and that child hurts. . . .
Yes, I know that some non-adopted children are damaged by abuse, poverty or other ills. I know many single parents have one or more risk factors in their families. Yet most, maybe all, of the problems that face vulnerable natural parents can be eliminated by societal and familial support, 
while the problems that occur in adoption, particularly when the parents are infertile and the adoption is closed, are inherent in adoption and cannot be prevented or eliminated.

Carole J. Anderson, “Child Abuse & Adoption,” 1991 



Narcissistic Adoption Abuse Recovery, What Is Peculiar In Me The Ungrateful Bastard Adopted Child


Narcissistic Adoption Abuse Recovery

What Is Peculiar In Me, The Ungrateful Bastard Adoptee

I am plagued by Fear of Living. I am one of those that wasn't supposed to survive childhood, by their own hands as suicide has been the one-step-beyond answer. Unfortunately I began seeing spirits and ghosts at the time that I was nearing suicide's capability. The suffering spirits of death began to impress upon me the ultimate payment of my future evolution would stop and I would languish for lifetimes in the suicidal depression state in between lives. I have been in the presence of their misery telling me not to do it. The gift of seeing others and hearing their messages of stick it out, don't mess with the hierarchy of life of those past naturally before me has given my soul hope in this lifetime, but dealing with the living is a much more difficult than the whispers of the dead asking you to understand their memories, who they were in life and why they are now stuck communicating with not so stable individuals like me. I hold a world of hyperventilate awareness of suffering, in that I feel more pain for the suffering of any other form but my fellow human existence. I would give away my vehicle to a homeless dog or ca if he could use it. However I can't give love that I do not know myself, so I weep in my absence of their suffering.
Why I am this way is scientifically attributed to my owners treatment of me. Everything in life has been what my masters choose and when they throw me out of their lives I don't know how to live. So I attach temporarily to a surrogate (friend, sex interest or more and better abuser) to support my existence. I only know the abuse cycle and try to create it in all of my motivations. When the realities of life begin to normalize, I find it unsatisfactory and make a move to find the drama that sustains my dysfunction. Shockingly I have been married for fifteen years, the only reason it has continued is that I am too broken to change and my current keeper handler is too busy to deal. On occasion bones are thrown in to my cell to use as temporary satisfaction buying tools.
In critical situations I find comfort and purpose. But one such as I is not reliable and can't pass a medical exam to be insurable.
In the last 24 months I have received the gift of clinical death for 4 minutes, 30 seconds I was able to look and see in to what the other side of death is made of all that the spirits say is true.
The 20-40 seconds after my heart stopped was the most suffering and base of fear I have ever experienced in my life.
I realized I was going to die so I thanked god for the experience of raising two mentally normal children, then begged god's great mercy to stop my consciousness and I was dead. I made no cowardly deals, I did not beg god to fix me, I embraced death because I did not have to take my own life. Floating above my body in the ambulance and seeing the light and hearing the sound of singing of beautiful music was interrupted as I was slammed back in to my lifeless dead body. I emerged in consciousness when my eyes opened and I looked around the ambulance noticing the convulsing flailing arms and legs strapped into the gurney. I was in awe of my experience and decided no longer to live in acceptance of behaviors I had adapted from my handlers of gossip, lying, to act as if concerned and trash talk those whom I did and did not know. I became different as to not mentally perpetuate psychological manipulation on others. I lost all of my friends that did not have anything to say if not to engage in gossip and materialism. The epiphany occurred without warning in an unsuspecting way as
I saw my adoptive mother using me as a pawn between my siblings after out father's death, it was business as usual and stepped up a few notches. At that moment all my life has flashed revealing every hateful word, jealous paradoxes of lies, and greed based actions force on me in hopes of my ultimate failure, obscurity and my mother's favorite "Humiliating me" in public.
The 2 am calls from her telling me to do the exact opposite of my mapped out carefully considered plan, in hopes of my financial ruin. Of course I ignored her expert advice and succeeded in my plans but these emotional tortures always discount my own ability to act logically by planning and insight.
Any successes by my adoptive family was measured in dollars
which is against my own unique personality so I was always psychologically abused for relying on my true self and began to question who I am. I am not her although her tendrils are dug deep in to my psychological control, the only way to escape her narcissistic rage and deception is to escape her hatred of me once and for all.  My Identity is not owned by her forever, isn't 18 years enough? She will never be satisfied until I am dead, then she can mourn the memory of her good 6 year old adopted child whom she saved me from my own life. The opposite day she will say good riddance to the ungrateful adopted child who never lived up to the dead baby she replaced. The mother's anger and bitterness make up most of her narcissistic personality to anyone that dare escape her web of deceit.
As I was her only a bad choice, she was forced to utilized          in her best interest to be the award winning adoptive parent.
These are the persistent child abuse memories that plague me.
 The more I learn about psychological, sociological behavior the
larger dynamics. I can identify in my quest for who I am, that who I was as a child was a personality made up of psychological defense mechanisms. I am at a crossroad of who I was forced to act as the grateful adopted child and the illegitimate bastard child that brought dishonor and humiliation on a family that did not accept me as their own, although they owned me and were stuck with the legal responsibility. If this adoption had taken place in the 1990's, I would have been drugged and labeled ADHD and would not be alive today to defend the plight of adopted children and to share my day to day existence in the attempted recovery from Narcissistic Adoption Abuse.