Category: Uncategorized

Women are socialized to make men feel good. We’re socialized to “let you down easy.” We’re not socialized to say a clear and direct “no.” We’re socialized to speak in hints and boost egos and let people save face.

People who don’t respect the social contract (rapists, predators, assholes, pickup artists) are good at taking advantage of this. “No” is something we have to learn. “No” is something we have to earn.

In fact, I’d argue that the ability to just say “no” to something, without further comment, apology, explanation, guilt, or thinking about it is one of the great rites of passage in growing up, and when you start saying it and saying it regularly the world often pushes back. And calls you names.

–Jennifer Peepas (Captain Awkward), excerpted from The art of “no”

.
.
.

Adapted to identify the underlying pattern, one of status/power:

People are who lower status are socialized to make people who have higher status feel good. They’re socialized to ‘let them down easy’. Lower status people are not socialized to say a clear and direct “no”. They’re socialized to speak in hints and boost egos and let people save face.

People who don’t respect social contracts (rapists, predators, assholes, boundary pushers) are good at taking advantage of this. “No” is something people with lower status have to learn. “No” is something they have to earn.

The ability to just say “no” to something, without further comment, apology, explanation, guilt, or thinking about it is one of the assertions of power/status. When you start saying it and saying it regularly, the world often pushes back if they don’t believe you have that status or power, or if they don’t believe you should have that status or power.

.
.
.

Invah Note: I wanted to preserve Jennifer Peepas’ fantastic comment, while also analyzing it for the underlying pattern. Because it is important to recognize that low or lower status men or non-binary individuals will also be dealing with this dynamic. When you frame it in context of gender, it misses the essential pattern, alienates people who are also victims of it, as well as doesn’t appropriately contextualize why women are often the focus of this behavior. If someone is vulnerable because they aren’t as physically strong, because they don’t have as much social power or clout, or because they don’t have allies, then they will be the recipient of this kind of behavior or response to asserting their power instead of opting for appeasement behaviors.

See also:

• Abusers all use the same playbook. They rely on breaking the rules of the social contract that everyone else agrees is reasonable.
• The benefit of the doubt is part of the social contract that keeps things better for everyone, overall. People like this? They live their entire lives skating by in everyone else’s margin of error. They’re basically parasites living on the social contract that exists to benefit everyone.
• People who abuse social niceties are shocked when others stop being nice
• Some abusers hate when you try to defend yourself or argue with them
• Abusers and manipulators use the social contract and your empathy/kindness/good heart against you
• “Anger is part of the ‘checks and balances’ system inherent to our social contracts. …the feeling and show of anger acts as a deterrent for another person or group, reminding the other party that their own aggression will be met with consequences.” – Mark Sisson
• Enforcing boundaries is incredibly important for upholding the social contract
• Once a person shows that they don’t give a shit about the social contract and have no shame about throwing adult temper tantrums in public, it kind of frees you from giving a shit about what they think of you
• Narcissistic Trespass: many toxic people enjoy getting away with violating rules and social norms
• ‘What they’re doing is called “narcissistic trespass”. Basically, this person gets off on violating social norms because it makes them feel powerful. They are also showing you he or she doesn’t have empathy for others, and that they are deeply entitled. You aren’t currently the target of these but date them long enough and you will. This person enjoys powering over others. One day that will be you.’ – u/invah adapted from a comment I made under an alt 3 years ago
• Society relies on the idea that we can trust each other, more or less—and we can, more or less
• The benefit of the doubt, and our internal models of reality
• What is a functional system?

They mirror the conditions that make complex trauma ‘complex’: it was inescapable, it unfolded over time, and it permeated our most important relationships.

–Glenn Doyle, Instagram

You should put yourself in debt and misery to facilitate their half baked dreams because you’re just chill like that.

Which is all to say that this is an object lesson in why being the Cool Partner is a mistake for anyone.

–u/Proof-Cryptographer4, excerpted and adapted from comment

If procedure, law and facts are against you settle. If you can’t settle, go to the kitchen because you are about to be cooked.

–Thuranira, Twitter

.

.

.

I normally never link to Twitter/X, but I made an exception in this case for the sake of attribution.

Additionally, this is the Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. He isn’t offering a way to abuse the system, but explaining good strategy for working within it.

However, it always blows my mind how legalistic a certain kind of abuser is. Which is absurd since relationships are not a court of law. A relationship conflict has a different goal than a legal one: deeper understanding between both people, aligning on values, and repair. A legal conflict is for the purpose of determining fault so that the at-fault party is either sentenced and ‘brought to justice’ or has to ‘make the plaintiff whole’.

Abusers argue like they’re in a court of law, while victims of are often trying to use relationship repair strategies that leave them further vulnerable. The abuser judges them, prosecutes them, levies the sentence, and then punishes them. Usually in that order.

So if the ‘law’ (or reasonable relationship expectations) are ‘against’ the abuser, they will argue the facts.

If the facts are against them, they will argue that the relationship expectations aren’t ‘reasonable’ and therefore the victim is in fact being unfair.

If both the facts that the relationship norms are against them, they will argue that the victim didn’t approach the issue correctly.

If procedure, relationship norms, and the facts are against them, they will ‘settle’ for ‘both of us admitting that we’re wrong’.

Recognize these assholes for what they are doing. It’s about blame-orientation, and turning the blame on you and therefore being in the position of ‘executing’ you.

…they believe the abuser is who they say they are, they think the abuser believes what they say they believe, and they believe the abuser is who they pretend to be.

In fact, it’s often because victims are so smart (and therefore able to understand another person’s perspective and experience, and point of view on the world) that they are vulnerable to abusers. If the abuser seems sincere, then the victim sincerely believes them.

Remember, abuse hijacks normal relationship dynamics (like giving someone you love and trust the benefit of the doubt). The whole point is that it seems normal and loving..until it isn’t.

They do always drop the act eventually, however. They can’t sustain the facade it takes to ‘get someone’ in the first place.

Once you’re back and emotionally invested, the lovebombing stops. It’s work for them to do, it’s not who they are, so they can’t maintain it.

The definition of love

My favorite definition of love comes from John Steinbeck (yes, “Of Mice and Men” John Steinbeck) from a letter to his son:

‘[Love] is an outpouring of everything good in you — of kindness and consideration and respect — not only the social respect of manners but the greater respect which is recognition of another person as unique and valuable.’

Iris Murdoch says, “Love is the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real.”

And St. Thomas Aquinas defines love as “willing the good for the other”.

THE ELEMENTS OF LOVE REQUIRE

Two separate individuals

• full awareness of someone else as a separate human being (meaning each person has ‘theory of mind’ and doesn’t see other people as basically NPCs)
• belief that this person is a valuable human being, as they are

who respect each other

• respect for this person (treating them like they matter) and respect for them as their own person (autonomy)

who have good intentions toward each other

• empathy for this person (“empathy” – the ability to understand and share the feelings of another – is, by proxy, a measurement of someone’s ability to perspective-take for another person when that person has good intentions towards the other)
• being able to perspective-take for this person and see the world at least nominally from their perspective (versus main character syndrome)
• have the ability to recognize and discern the good intentions (or not) of the other person

and who pour out their goodness on each other

• mutual relationship, not one way
• you are your best self in the relationship, and even inspired to be better

so that you can pour more of your goodness out into the world

• you and your partner want each other to be more of who you are, so that there is more of ‘you’ in the world

Ultimately, your partner sees you as precious and unique, and strives to preserve that and encourage it.

Therefore someone who loves you will not try to erase you or who you are.

Someone who loves you respects your autonomy; your voice, your beliefs, your approach to life, your feelings and your opinions.

You are not only a gift in the eyes of this person but your beingness – your you-ness – is a gift to the world.

The Bible has a concept that ‘you know a tree by its fruit’, and therefore you know a person or relationship by the things that are produced by that person or in that relationship. There’s even a checklist in 1st Corinthians!

When I was trying to figure out what healthy love looked like, I found myself often going to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

…a passage a lot of victims of abuse use to talk themselves into staying in abuse dynamics because they are too focused on whether they, the victim, are being loving enough…instead of applying the rubric to their partner.

Are they patient?
Are they kind?
Do they envy?
Do they boast?
Are they proud?
Do they dishonor others?
Are they self-seeking?
Easily angered?
Keeps a record of wrongs?
Do they rejoice with the truth?
Do they protect, trust, hope, persevere?

The very reason this works is because all of these attributes are the outward evidence of a person who is hoping for the good for you

…who includes your well-being with their own, and who is not in competition with you for happiness or success or resources but is coming from a construct of sharing. Sharing is often a result of caring because it means the other person is perspective-taking for us to the best of their ability.

So you can define love as that which occurs when two separate people – who respect each other and have good intentions toward each other, and who can recognize their partner’s good intentions toward themselves – mutually live in relation to each other in a way where they pour out their goodness on each other, and the world.

And you can back-check whether someone actually loves you (or is even capable of love) by using 1st Corinthians diagnostically. (Seeing the ‘fruit’ of their inner being.)

It’s important to recognize that someone who is selfish cannot love you.

It’s important to recognize that someone abusive cannot love you.
It’s important to recognize that someone with low or no self-awareness cannot love you.
It’s important to recognize that someone who enjoys hurting others (a sadist or troll) cannot love you.

You can absolutely use a similar framework for friendships.

The love-feeling we associate with “love” is actually connection which we do need in healthy relationships, but which becomes attachment in unhealthy relationships.

We know that this feeling itself is not love because you cannot have actual love in an unhealthy relationship but you can have romantic connection/attachment.

“Love is not binding, it’s linking; there’s a difference.” – Hans Wilhem

I have been a support to some of the homeless in my area, and one woman I had been helping showed up on my doorstep sobbing after her boyfriend attacked her the night before. She had to tell him she was going to the bathroom so she could get away and get to help.

One thing that jumped out at me, especially since she was covered in bruises, was that she said she ‘can’t keep doing this’ because ‘her body can’t take it anymore’. Experiencing abuse when you’re older means you don’t bounce back as fast (especially if you’re drinking or using drugs).

We experience the opposite as children – as our bodies heal so quickly, the ‘evidence’ of physical abuse almost seems to evaporate – the nail marks my infant son had on the back of his neck from a ‘carer’ who was trying to force him to eat disappeared in 3 hours.

Or if you are a person of color, your bruises may not show as starkly; or medical professionals/law enforcement may not recognize them for what they are.

When people think they need to endure physical abuse because they ‘love’ the abuser, I don’t think they realize that this ‘endurance’ is often based on having a younger body that can heal and recover.

…or a mind that isn’t struggling to remember, and connect with the world.

• From a domestic violence advocate, here are the most common ‘excuses’ abusers give their victims for strangulation (choking)
• Choking is the highest predictor of murder
• “Strangulation is an ultimate form of power and control, where the batterer can demonstrate control over the victim’s next breath…” – Victim Fact Sheet for Documenting Strangulation
• When a victim is strangled, they’re on the edge of homicide <—– “most abusers do not strangle to kill, they strangle to show they CAN kill”
• Strangulation in Intimate Partner Violence
• Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women (abstract)
• The dangers of strangulation/choking
• There is no risk-free way to engage in choking or strangulation
• At some point your body physically cannot handle abuse