It Takes "Two to Tango"?

Not with an abusive pathological, it doesn't!

Simple Case of Bad Guy Attacking Good Guy
by Kathy Krajco

Did you ever hear the saying "It takes two to Tango"? That's a common saying here in the United States, at least some parts of it. But I'll bet every language has a figure of speech that means the same thing.

It takes two to Tango: That's what you're supposed to say when gossipping about interpersonal problems between two other people. The only interest is in coming to agreement with your gossips on who is to blame for it. Because then you are bestowing judgement on people, and that feels good.

The doctrine firmly to be believed is that, no matter what the bad guy did, the good guy is partly to blame. I think this is construed as (of all things) "fairness" = unfairly (arbitrarily) placing blame on a person without one bit of evidence - just this almost religiously held slogan "It takes two to Tango."

As in the ballroom dance called the Tango.

End of discussion. Case closed. Victim is (at least partly) to blame.

Ah, wisdom!

A word to the "wise" - Yes, it takes two to Tango. And it takes two to have sex. But haven't you ever heard of rape, you empty-headed ventriloquist's dummies!

I hate cliches like It takes two to Tango. Many are as wrong and stupid as that one. Yet people eagerly gobble them up and swallow them hook, line, and sinker.

These stupid platitudes are just SLOGANS. Catchy catch phrases. They SOUND clever. That's all.

Whenever you hear slogans instead of reason and evidence brought forth in VALID arguments, look out. Because intellectually honest people don't have to fake thinking by parroting empty slogans.

Narcissists are predators. Predators do not attack in self defense. They attack to eat others. They target easy prey, not anyone they have anything against. The CAUSE of their attack is a vulnerable target of opportunity.

Therefore, the only "blame" you can give the victim is for just being there as a vulnerable target of opportunity. Which is absurd. As someone noted yesterday, it's like blaming a bank teller for getting shot by a robber because she was on the wrong side of the counter. I don't care if that teller is a drug addict, an embezzler, or just plain obnoxious - he or she is wholly innocent in this matter.

The victim doesn't have to be a saint to be blameless when it is a PREDATOR that attacks. The victim is wholly blameless, and the narcissist or psychopath is wholly in the wrong.

Of course narcissists try to conceal what they really are by claiming that they were striking back at some perceived offense. They don't want you to know that they are predators.

That's the Big Chill, man. If people knew that they just attack any defenseless prey caught in their sights, they'd soon find themselves in the Desert of Humankind.

So, of course narcs try to bullshit bystanders and therapists into thinking they were just striking back at some perceived offense. But you have to be a complete idiot to fall for that lie. Duh, just look at who and when they attack.

Then notice how obsequiously they bend over for insult from anyone they fear.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add that up.

What's more, narcissists are pathological liars you can't trust to tell you the time of day. So it's irrational to believe them about this, especially since there's an obvious potential motive for them to be lying.

Therefore, for this lie to work, it DOES take two to Tango. The believer of the lie is partly to blame, because he or she is being irrational to believe a known pathological liar on a matter in which he has powerful motive to lie. No victim there. Just a liar and a glutton for being lied to.

SOURCE