Do you know anything about sociopaths? They do not have the normal emotions that people feel. It isn't a generalisation, it's just how they process things.
The common mistake of people who do not recognise it is actually giving them attention that they crave and putting emotions on them that they are not going through, but others would presume them to.

Angie herself displays a lot less empathy towards people she actually knows and one she gave birth to.

I do not see why people need sympathize with Angie, she has lost someone she utterly despised for most of her life, her son could have died any day of his life for thirty years and she wouldn't have a clue. That says a lot about what type of person she is.
The people at this time who deserve it are his true friends and family, his son and daughter and wife Iman.

As I have already pointed out, you clearly know nothing about personality disorders, are are certainly not in a position to judge whether or not anyone has one, given that and your own astounding lack of empathy.

To whom are you addressing this post? I didn't mention mental illness or treatment of mental illness or personality disorders.

Just to correct you, however, on yet another of your incorrect statements: there are treatments which can be helpful for managing sociopathy.

there is no cure and the treatments are mostly unfounded.

It was someone who said it was the same/they wouldn't be allowed in the house. I just grouped it in.

I have endless empathy for most, not ones who have none themselves.

Someone who has treated their own son so badly, no I have no empathy for her.

The trouble with potted versions of large life events are that inevitably things get omitted, which means that you could hear ten different version of the same story and all could be truthful.

Angie has said that she initially wanted joint custody of the child, but David wanted full custody, so she didn't fight for custody because she didn't want the child to be dragged through a bitter court case, or to deprive him of contact with a father with whom he had a very strong bond, and a good relationship. According to her, one way she tried to square with the guilt and the grief was to tell herself repeatedly that she could have another child - it was not a mark of callousness, but her own way of trying to keep her head together. She never abandoned her son, however. She continued to have him with her in his holidays for as long as wanted to visit her.

Joint custody was not a common arrangement in those days, and it isn't always the best thing for a child - particularly one whose parents are residing in different countries. Just because someone agrees to allow a partner to have custody of a child doesn't mean they are sociopathic.

Equally, many women give children up for adoption, and many parents leave the care of their children to others. That doesn't mean they are sociopathic either.

Lot of assumptions and 1+1=3 here..

Despite those assumptions I see your point when you present it like that. But that's the trouble. The presentation and therefore the conclusions. I'm sure there are other elements that you do know know of or haven't been privy to that just maybe makes the presentation of your argument a little precarious. So yeah. Presented like that Angie seems cold hearted.

Why are you so awful towards Angie ?

Wow, just wow !

The castigation of a woman for the sole "crime" of allowing her spouse custody of a child is horribly sexist and misogynistic. Not to mention an attitude from the dark ages.

Bowie was at the time extremely involved in narcotics too
so you have no argument

but he had the network and resources around him and at his disposal to provide a loving environment for his son , and that was Angie's choice to leave the son with his father while she had her own problems,

that decision won't have been taken lightly and without heartfelt consideration

don't judge, you weren't and won't ever be in that position
I don't comprehend your comment that you think she didn't have empathy for herself ? this doesn't make sense

It is because she put her son FIRST that she didn't fight , and thought the best place for her son was being with his father because of their close bond ,

she put her son first at the time, and is still by honoring his request that he wants nothing to do with her, the choice made this time by her son, not anyone else. She respects this. Which is what we've heard countless times from Angie.

How is any of that treating her son badly ? You won't be able to answer because you're so ill informed and bias , it's more of a witchhunt for sake of it.

so you've decided Angie is a sociopath have you ? Then you don't know what one is. Your inability to show one iota of 'empathy' to Angie's situation either now or at the time she left her son with his father, puts everything you say into question amelia.

and as for your comment about 'if Angie's son had died' ------ >Angie's son didn't die did he , and had he have done so you can't seriously believe that she'd never have known . A hypothetical situation you've created that has no relevance to anything , ridiculous argument. (and he's in his 40s by the way)

Angie and Bowie went separate ways many years ago, marriage and relationships are complicated at the best of times, this is no different . Their link to eachother being only that they have a son together . The fact that she is estranged from that son and his father doesn't mean that she doesn't have a level of sadness at hearing of her ex husband's death or that she doesn't have a level of sadness for not having a relationship with her son all these years. You don't know what you're talking about.

Noone has said that Angie shares the same level of sorrow as his close immediate family have they,

Not one single one of us can judge Angie or David or their son . Not one of us know the facts and therefore cannot stand in judgment

but it can be discussed and is.

Did I say it couldnt ? I too have a voice

You said she couldn't be judged
all of the HMs can be
With Angie suffering a bereavement and unusually being estranged from her son (but she won't be first to be in this position) , the complication of her association is bit more sensitive than the usual judging of HMs

but even so none of us are deluded enough to think we KNOW what's going on there
(well there may be one or two)

After reading some of these threads, that is exactly the conclusion I've just come to and had to log on to agree.

It's a really sad state of affairs that women are still so vilified and mostly by other women! I know the reasoning behind it but by f,uck, it's so disheartening.

We cannot judge how Angie should or should not have dealt with custody of her son . Because we dont know the facts You can discuss all you like I am not stopping you
Me saying we cannot judge is part of a discussion and my opinion . Discussions are for opinions and thats mine

it is being discusssed
and i said noone was in her position to judge her decision but at the time it was right one for her
so

Last edited by jack_blair : 14-01-2016 at 18:32

true > at all those years ago even more unusual and frowned up
she had guts
Hard to believe she's being vilified for it now though

Equally confused here ?! Why are you nit picking my posts when I am saying the same thing ?

true >
& all those years ago even more unusual and frowned upon
she had guts
Hard to believe she's being vilified for it now though

i'm not
you've agreed with me but say it's not for anyone to judge
but we all are
it's what forum's for
anyway moving on

With that I am out . You are making no sense to me .