So, a couple of comments on your article:

I think it is generally well written. I particularly like the paragraphing.

The description of a person with NPD has value, particularly to the extent that some people are not familiar with the DSM diagnostic criteria or the ancillary traits that seem to attend those diagnosed with the disorder (and which are not criteria themselves).

But I have some concerns:.

First, it is always a problem if a professional diagnoses someone with whom they have had a romantic relationship, of a recognized mental illness / disorder that manifests itself, particularly, in actions relative to the relationship - way too much potential for bias.

Second, per your article, you have had multiple relationships with persons with NPD. What does that say about you and what does it mean to be "healed" from that kind of love - what about the "Equus" effect?

Third, and this is the disclaimer that might appear in your article: An NPD diagnosis pursuant to the DSM requires the observations of 5 out of 9 traits in the patient: one less and you don't have NPD (a problem that the APA and the psychological community struggled with and still does).

NPD does not equate to JLS (Jilted Lover Syndrome (not a recognized malady)) nor should it. It is tempting to hang a scarlet "N" around the necks of our former lovers but, as interested parties, we should resist diagnosing them with a disease (sometimes an "A__hole" is just an "A__hole", and it sounds like you have run into a few).

If malignant narcissists are often the black holes, heads of cults, then those who would like to malign their Exs by tagging them with a disease, while not the heads of a cult themselves, at least, may suborn a cultlike movement of sexism and hatred directed at an entire gender (a so-called Jerry Maguire club of haters). This is more than a passing concern in self diagnosing narcissism and equating it with relationships that have failed.

Relationships that work can sometimes be very strange. They involve the satisfaction of needs of those involved that may appear very unhealthy to those on the outside. Relationships of that ilk probably have to remain especially in equipoise, lest they disintegrate with extreme consequences. Nature creates such dances in many forms. The balance in our own bodies of microbes and cells exhibit this: if an imbalance occurs, disastrous consequences can happen. We hew to an ideal of a "healthy relationship" but it likely does not occur in nature.

The takeaway?

1. People should be careful in diagnosing those close to them. Take stock of what you are getting out of a relationship (what does it say about your needs, your attractions?)

2. Resist the temptation to generalize about and vilify a whole group of people (or a whole gender) as a result of things that happened to you (lovers often become reacquainted, sometimes after many years - doesn't mean they are all sick).

3. Resist ascribing the label of "disease" to someone who may have only some traits of the recognized description of the same.

4. Resist the temptation of joining a sisterhood or brotherhood of traveling….whatever, that devolves into a mutual hate society. We are too liberal in characterizing groups of people with pejorative labels, even if it may make us feel better for the nonce.

It is very possible that a person who would be a narcissist but for the lack of the sufficient number of diagnostic traits, (whether through his/her own work to improve or otherwise), might be exactly what floats your boat !!!

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.