Dale Does DARVO

Disclaimer: Reality TV is not real. I am using what was said as an example, but not passing any judgement on the people on the show.

Kat: "Did you guys kiss outside of the kissing booth?"

Dale: "One time."

Kat: "I would have preferred if that was communicated to me."

Dale: "It wasn't in the cards. So, I deaded it. The next day, I deaded it. I just deaded it."

Kat and Dale are a new couple on Bachelor in Paradise. Dale kissed another contestant before offering Kat his rose, sending the other woman home. But he didn't offer that information to Kat, who felt like he should have.

And don't worry, if you don't understand the phrase "deaded it," Kat and I didn't either.

Disagreements are common in romantic couples. Healthy couples move through them by being curious, avoiding defensiveness, taking responsibility, and listening with the intent to understand.

However, an unhealthy person might not be able to access those healthy communication strategies. A common communication strategy used by unhealthy people to manipulate and control the other person in an argument is DARVO. This is an acronym that stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

DARVO was developed to label an insidious and manipulative communication strategy used by people accused of sexual assault, like Justin Rutherford, who I will use in examples below. However, I believe there is a yellow flag version of DARVO that comes up more frequently in common couple disagreements. This will be exemplified by Dale on Bachelor in Paradise.

It's very important to clarify that just because someone is using yellow-flag DARVO communication strategies, like Dale, doesn't mean they're the same as someone using it as a strategy for avoiding responsibility for heinous crimes, like Justin Rutherford. The reason I pair the examples together is to show a "mild" verses "extremely spicy" version of this communication pattern.

Step 1: Deny the accusation

"And I stood there, and he turned around, and he said, oh, great, great. And I said, what are you doing? And he said, listen, you know, if we've got somebody coming after us and this and that, I'm encrypting my computer, Stacey. And I know what you think, you know? He kept saying, I know what you think. And I'm like, you're damn right I know what I think. From that moment on, I knew something was wrong."

Stacy Rutherford, from the Betrayal Podcast

Stacy is talking about the moment she walked in on her husband, Justin Rutherford, encrypting his computer, after he was accused of filming underage kids in their home shower. Her husband repeatedly says, "I know what you think," which is a covert denial. Manipulative communication holds a lot of it's power in tone and implications. Saying "I know what you're thinking" in a condescending tone can be an extremely effective way to deny something that's obvious. The implication is this isn't what it looks like and you'd be dumb to think that.

Kat: To me, it's a way to show that "Ok, I'm gunna actually be open with everything I do."

Dale: But I have been. It wasn't even that deep. I understand where you're coming from, but, move past it.

Kat accused Dale of not being open. Dale's response is, "But I have been." This is a simple, obvious denial. He continues with, "It wasn't even that deep," and then demands she "move past it." Dale's comments are textbook when we look at examples of DARVO denial. A common tactic when someone is denying an accusation is to say the victim is "blowing things out of proportion" or "being too sensitive."

Step 2: Attack the victim

Dale: What are you talking about? (incredulous tone)

...

Dale: If I was in your position, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

The second DARVO tactic is to paint the victim's accusations as "ridiculous," and go on the offensive. Dale gives us a couple examples of this as Kat tries to explain her feelings. His tone is harsh and incredulous, heavily implying that the whole conversation isn't worth his time.

Dale: This sounds a lot like my ex.

Using the word "ex" is attack language because the implication is, "keep going, and you'll be my ex." Another reason it qualifies as an attack is because it's completely unrelated to the topic of disagreement. Pulling in unrelated, emotionally-loaded topics to imply something negative about the accuser is an attack.

Kat: Because I had more connection of dots of how things went down, and I've created more hesitation in me. And this is why I'm giving you the opportunity-

Dale: Is that normal?

Asking "Is that normal?" when someone is explaining their feelings is gaslighting with the intent to create doubt about someone's reality. Dale's attack also gains strength from a stereotype about women being irrational and emotional. DARVO attack strategies often rely on commonly held stereotypes for their effectiveness.

Step 3: Reverse Victim and Offender

Dale reverses victim and offender when he seeks validation from friends.

Dale: She’ll never understand why I’m frustrated. I’m not happy with the timing. I just would never handle it in that – that manner. That was my trigger.

This is a soft but effective reversal. Kat was initially the one hurt by Dale not disclosing he had kissed someone else. But hearing Dale say he's triggered, unhappy, frustrated, and misunderstood centers him as the one who's hurt. Kat's role is then moved from victim to offender for handling the situation the way she did.

Another much more extreme example can be seen in Justin Rutherford's letters:

I know it's not your fault I'm in here, but I thought you would do everything you could to prevent this injustice. I don't know how you sit there idly by and watch as he takes everything, not just for me, but you and the kids. I lost my wife, house, car, job. If I took this [plea] deal, I would not only lose my kids since I would not be out until they were adults, but I would lose my career. I would never practice medicine again.

...

I am backed into a corner with nowhere to go. I just can't take the pain of not being there for you and the kids. The pain of being labeled a you-know-what. The pain of losing my reputation, career, and the pain of being a failure. A bad father.

Letter from Justin Rutherford, convicted child rapist.

Everything in this letter makes it seem like Justin Rutherford is suffering a deep injustice. It's only when you know the whole picture that it becomes sickeningly obvious that Justin is not a victim

Reading this letter, you'd never imagine that the "he who takes everything" was his 16 year old step-son who he had raped repeatedly for six years. His step-son had him "backed into a corner with nowhere to go" by disclosing the horrific abuse he had endured to family and the police. Justin's reversal of victim and offender in this letter places him as the victim, instead of the child he sexually abused.

Special Mention: Being Vague

Kat: You guys know why I can’t tell you how he feels? Because he doesn’t know how to speak in full sentences.

Dale repeatedly used vague communication when talking with Kat. Ambiguous and confusing communication is an effective conversation manipulation tactic. It prevents the conversation from moving forward to a place of mutual understanding, while also unnerving your conversation partner. It's a soft form of gaslighting because the manipulator is responding as if they are engaged in the conversation, but the content is so vague that it only serves to obfuscate what's being discussed.

Dale: So I’m just like, its cooling down more. I’m not mad about it. I just felt the timing was like … I don’t want to go into it. It’s just a difference of upbringings and beliefs. It’s not about like timing as much…

Dale says "it's" cooling down, and he's not mad about "it." Dale repeatedly uses "it" during the whole conversation without clarifying what it is. Then he says it's a difference of "upbringings and beliefs" - words that mean everything and nothing. Finally, it's about the timing, but it's also not about the timing.

Dale: It just didn't mean anything.

Kat: But that's not fair to me. Just because it didn't mean something to you doesn't mean it didn't mean something to me.

Dale: Yea. And I deaded it. It will not happen again.

Again, Dale uses "it." It's very hard for Kat to feel comforted by the promise of "it" never happening again when we're not sure what he means. He could mean the kiss, the exploration of another romantic connection, the argument with Kat, or the omission of information.

The Opposite of DARVO

DARVO is all about what not to do when confronted with an accusation. What are healthy communication strategies you can use when accused of hurting someone? The following strategies assume the accusation is coming from a genuine place, and in a relationship that you want to maintain and protect.

"I know it was just a joke, but it hurt my feelings. Especially saying it in front of everyone."

Be curious, not defensive:

When someone accuses you of doing something wrong, it's important to ask questions and get the full picture of their perspective. Take the position of an empathetic detective and create a safe space for them to explain their side. Don't build your response or defense in your head as they are talking: try to listen to understand, and not to respond.

"Which comment? How did it hurt your feelings?"

Accept responsibility:

Like Dale, it's very common to feel misunderstood when accused of doing something wrong. Most people are genuinely trying their best, and are making decisions that align with their values based on the information that they have. It can be easy to see that your accuser has blind spots and doesn't understand your intentions. However, it will be really difficult for them to empathize with you while they're in a high-cortisol state. Accepting responsibility for your actions lowers the stress of your accuser, which makes them more likely to be receptive to your point of view.

"I made a joke that hurt your feelings and was inappropriate for the setting. I was nervous meeting your friends and trying to be funny. It backfired, and I regret it."

Apologize genuinely:

Research has shown that tone of voice is more trusted than the content of what's being said. Think of someone who's rolled their eyes, huffed, and said "I'm sorry!" in an impatient tone - this is not a healing apology because the tone and body language doesn't match the content. A healing apology involves an empathetic understanding of what you did and how it made the other person feel.

"I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I'll be more careful with jokes in the future."