Total Pageviews

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Is Molyneux encouraging Open communication?

Someone sent me this post from Molyneux to someone considering a break. Of course it could be just for public consumption. But since I am always willing to consider all empirical data, let’s optimistically hope it is sincere. If it is, there is hope for FDR. Is the post from Moly himself:

I am so sorry that your family relations have deteriorated to the point where this has become a serious option, my deepest, deepest sympathies!
Assuming that you are not in any physical danger from your family, my strong suggestion is always to continue talking to them, being open and vulnerable, until you either achieve a breakthrough in intimacy, or you simply no longer have a desire to speak with them again. As long as there is any kind of strong ambivalence and uncertainty, my advice has always been to continue the conversation with them.
Even more importantly, however, is that I absolutely firmly believe that no one should take any kind of break from a family of origin without consulting with a professional therapist. It is so essential. If a therapist can help you to connect with your family, so much the better, if you end up deciding to take a trial separation, it is essential to have the guidance of a mental health professional to help you through this wrenching process...
I do think that it is very important not to think of separating from adult relationships as 'running away,' because that is an empty pejorative that does not deal with the complexities of these kinds of situations.
Does that help at all? Do you have any access to a therapist?

I hope Moly has seen the error of his ways, but it seems he is only doing this so he will finally have something to prove out his mendacious claims of encouraging open communications and therapy. Notice this comment:

I do think that it is very important not to think of separating from adult relationships as 'running away,' because that is an empty pejorative that does not deal with the complexities of these kinds of situations.

This is his out clause. It is typically squishy and intellectually vapid. A defoo without warning is 'running away.' Moly is responding to someone who has enough virtue to realize this. If the past is prologue, Moly will drive that virtue right out of this person. When Moly has a chance to engage more completely, he will give him the old teenager justification for NOT communicating. It will be some variation on 'why bother talking to your parents, you already know how it will turn out.'

So here is the test of sincerity for Moly. What about all those highly encouraged decisions by sons and daughters to forgo communications and openness and break from the family with an FDR formatted note. What about all the encouragement and praise you have offered to those who did that? If this is really a change of heart, and you truly believe this advice about communications, seeking intimacy, etc, then don't you need to engage all those you have advised to leave without warning. My son qualifies. I can name several others. Don't you have an obligation to reconnect with them and give them the same advice as above.

I sincerely hope Molyneux has the character to follow through on this one. It would put his donor revenue stream at risk. It would mean he would have to admit to his most loyal followers that his judgment on a pretty important matter has been seriously in error for a long period of time. I hope he is up to it, but I confess, that I have my doubts.


  1. I issue a challenge to Molyneux. Encourage ALL of your followers who have left their families and friends to reconnect and attempt healing dialogue with the help of a therapist. Encourage reconciliation for the mental healing of your followers.

  2. Is it possible that Molyneux is feeling pressured to change his public image? He appears to love his daughter. Does he not understand that parents will march into hell itself to rescue their children from danger? What does he expect will happen when he is harming kids?

  3. The mental stress so many young people have been put through to break from their family and friends is shocking and desperately sad. He should never have taken it upon himself to give advice about private family matters in the first place.
    I hope pressure has been put on him and possibly his wife to be more careful with their therapy and advice.

  4. Having this honest, open discussion he describes would have been would have been wonderful. Attempting family therapy would have also been wonderful. I have always felt we were robbed of that opportunity. When our child left, we had no idea what had just happened. Pushing these individuals to the edge of that cliff where they see no choice but to jump without an explanation is just not right. I know things would be different for many if he had encouraged family therapy--yes, "family" therapy where the family is involved. I see Stef encouraging therapy, but does this include the actual family? I suspect not.

  5. I really like David's comment on a few levels. First the good one. If indeed Moly has helped you find a way to reconcile the bad dynamics of your family situation, then this is a good thing. Doesn't seem like Moly corrupted your good relationship with your parents and has helped your girl friend avoid the guilt of what is her mother's problem. This is another good thing. You seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders, so I think you may have navigated things yourself, but if Moly helped, I am happy for you.

    I have mentioned a few times that the key to Moly's base line message is an axiom and a perversion. The axiom is that adult relationships are voluntary. Of course they are. The perversion is moly's warped definitions of corruption and abuse by the parents. It sounds like you have a situation that is more like what normal people would consider a real family relationship problem. It even seems like you are still attempting open communication. This is NOT a typical Moly experience. But he likely understands that you will not be a good prospect.

    I do have some questions for you.

    Are you a donator to FDR or just a visitor to the site?

    Do you have a personal relationship with Moly (e.g. talked to him by phone, skype), or is it just the forums and his podcasts?

    Now I would not want my kids hanging out with someone that abuses alcohol and brings home violent boy friends. My son lived in a safe, secure and loving home. As did my daughter.

    Here is another question for you. If the environment was a safe and loving two parent home and there was a great love and freindship between the young adult and the parents prior to the son engaging Moly, do you think it is reasonable for a son or daughter to follow Moly's advice and abruptly leave with no warning and insist on zero contact in the manner recommended by Moly (i.e. the Defoo)?

    That is the complaint about Moly. It is not a free will argument. My son is free. He has always been free. His decision to defoo is his own. Moly is a different matter. While true it is the kid that decides to defoo, it is Moly that is righ there recommending and cheer leading family break ups for profit. He is constantly on the prowl for the right kind of person who is susceptible to his messaging. The fact that he did not succeed with you is certainly fortunate. This does not change that truth here. Moly recommends, promotes, encourages family break ups whenever he sees the chance. I have no doubt that my son and my wife and I would have worked through the normal transient growing pains or relationship issues in the usual way.