#/ abuse

[support]

Everything ok?

If you or someone you know is a victim of abuse, please contact:

The National Domestic Violence Hotline or 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

Rape Abuse & Incest National Network or 1-800-656-HOPE (4673)

Trained advocates are available 24/7 to take your call.

For international resources, please try IASP.

For more resources, please visit our Counseling & Prevention Resources page for a list of services that may be able to help.

[bitchesgetriches]

As a teenager, life gave me lemons.

I ate the lemons—skins, seeds, and stickers.

Many years later, I wrote a guide to help others eat lemons.

This is a guide to leaving home before 18. It ranks among the most important and most personal things I've ever written. It's also one of our most popular guides of all time. So I updated and expanded it. To make it as accessible as possible, we recorded audio and video versions too. My lemon-flavored heart would swell with joy and citric acid to know it reached people who need it.

But it's a fight share it. Heavy topics like this get muted and buried on most social platforms. Even worse, this administration is deleting surveys and data about it; my .gov sources transmogrified into 404s before my very eyes. Gonna post this, and pray that Tumblr does what Tumblr does best.

How To Leave Home Before 18

Video Version 🍋 Audio Version 🍋 Text Version

[furiousgoldfish]

Abusers are always going on about how the kids 'need to toughen up' and FOR WHAT? FOR WHAT DO YOU NEED TOUGHER KIDS?

Do you think a tough child will bend to your ever whim and obediently do what you say? Do you think a tougher kid will be easier to control, easier to guilt and shame and manipulate and blackmail? No you don't, you don't want your kid to be tough, you want them to be malluable and dependant and scared and submissive and compassionate.

And then when your gentle compassionate child is devastated by your abuse and you find this inconvenient, THEN you're saying TOUGHEN UP, for the explicit fucking purpose of you being able to abuse them with zero consequences because they're willing to play 'tough' for your convenience.

You claim it's for them to be able to 'live in the evil world out there' but why did you bring children into the world you claim to be be unsurvivable by normal children? Why did you have children, teach them zero skills, shame them into isolation and helplessness only to show them that they can't survive the way they are?

You don't want tougher kids, you want kids who adapt to whatever is convenient to you every second of every fucking day. You broke the toughness out of your kids by not allowing them to matter, not allowing them attention or care for their basic needs, neglecting and hurting them to show them they're worth nothing. Kids are tough when they have support, the care and love they get is what gives them resilience. You gave them nothing and you want them to act resilient while breaking down inside while also giving you everything you could possibly want out of parenthood. Fuck you.

[librarycards]

Eli Clare, The Marrow's Telling: Words in Motion.

[maxdibert]

Many people still don’t understand that this is not about whether James was a better or worse person than Severus. This is about the fact that James was Severus’ abuser. The fact that a victim grows up and does questionable things does not invalidate the fact that they were a victim at the time, nor does it justify the actions of their abuser.

Fifteen-year-old James was a bully, he was an abuser. He was someone who hexed people in the hallways, who used illegal spells against his classmates, and who even stripped one of them in front of half the school while choking him. Whatever that classmate did with his life afterward is irrelevant to this, because his future actions do not invalidate the crime that James committed against him.

Everyone who tries to justify James Potter is simply perpetuating narratives that blame victims and whitewash abusive behavior. You’re just like the people who justify rape by focusing on what the victim was wearing, where they were, what they had done, or whether they had been drinking. It’s the same kind of bullshit deflection that only serves to shift attention away from what actually matters: the facts.

And the facts are not about what the victim was like or what they might have done in the future—the facts are that a criminal act was committed. Period.

James Potter was an aggressor, an abuser, and a bully, and no matter how much you try to excuse him, the facts are so clear in the books that even his own son compared his behavior to that of his personal bully, horrified to see how his own father treated Snape just like Dudley treated him.

And that is irrefutable—because it is part of the fucking plot.

[the-mpreg-guy]

Your John Winchester post was SO REAL!!!!! It's just,,, it feels like ppls no-nuance approach to abusive parents (IN FICTION!!!!!!) kind of fails to grasp why abuse experienced at their hands is so complicated and life altering. Hey, the dude who tucked me into bed and washed my hair and taught me to drive is also the dude who back handed me in the face and screamed at me to stop crying and left me at a motel for three weeks. Hey, I'm terrified of this man and I love this man and I hate this man and I need this man and he shaped me irrevocably as a person and I'm grateful and I'm disgusted by that fact. And CRUCIALLY???? I KNOW HE LOVES ME BACK!!!! HES ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE HE LOVES ME BACK!!!! SURELY THAT KNOWLEDGE IS ENOUGH??? IN MOVIES AND BOOKS AND TV THE LOVE IS ALWAYS ENOUGH!!! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME IF ITS NOT ENOUGH!!!!

I had three paragraphs typed out and then my entire laptop crashed and burned it which feels like a sign but won't stop me from saying it all again.

Dean and John have one of THEE most interesting relationships in the entire show, which is an insane feat given that they star in maybe 4 episodes together tops (number is definitely off, but I know it ain't more than 5. Probably.) It's so delightfully nuanced, even from season one. Especially in season one. Dean "John Winchester defense attorney" Winchester spends pretty much the entire season arguing with Sam about how John did his best and that they should make up. He also can't maintain eye contact with Sam when Sam starts talking about how John never physically abused either of them, and the shapeshifter that takes on his memories implies that Dean had dreams beyond what John put on him.

Dean loves John so much. Whenever he's talking about wanting to be a family again, it includes John!! AND JOHN LOVES DEAN. People talk a lot about the first demon deal Dean makes to save Sam, but it was John who did that first!! For Dean!!! He gave up his life and his mission for his son and it was because he loved him. And he decides to spend the last ten minutes of his life telling Dean that he was sorry (WITH TEARS IN HIS EYES) that he put too much on him (before ofc putting more on him, also with tears in his eyes).

Season two is THEE Dean and John Winchester show, change my fucking mind. The fallout of John's deal sends him into the first of many suicidal dips that he experiences in the show, and he's so sad and angry all the time. I'm obsessed with Dean being furious with John for the entire season, while being devastated when he finds out his Dad went to hell for him. BUT EVEN THOUGH HE MISSES JOHN SO MUCH IT'S HIS MOM THAT HE WISHES FOR IN THE DJINN DREAM!! John isn't even there. BUT!! BUT!!! DEAN GOES TO DREAM JOHN'S GRAVE AND HE CRIES THERE IN THE DREAM. WHEN HE KNOWS HE HAS TO GO BACK HE GOES TO THE GRAVE OF HIS DAD FOR COMFORT.

Later seasons also do a phenomenal job of continuing to show how nuanced their relationship was. Dean will repeatedly say that he and Sam weren't raised right, he'll make a toast to "crappy childhoods," etc. One of his favorite dreams is also John teaching him to drive, he tells about a story where John rescued him, and he looks so fucking dead behind the eyes when another hunter asks him what John would think of him.

They both loved each other and they both knew it!! There was never a question in Dean's head whether his Dad loved him, and John never once thought that Dean didn't love him back. THEY BOTH KNEW IT WASN'T ENOUGH THOUGH. WHEN JOHN SAID GOODBYE TO DEAN AND TOLD HIM TO KILL SAM HE KNEW IT WASN'T ENOUGH. WHICH IS WHY HE CRIED. THE LOVE WAS THERE BUT IT WASN'T ENOUGH.

[cometconmain]

Well fuck indeed, damn...

this post hasn't left my mind since i've first saw it

[thepeacefulgarden]

And remember, they don't have to hit you in order to qualify as an abuser. Do they...

Say mean and/or creepy things and then try to walk it back as "just a joke?"

Tell you that you're "too sensitive" when you call out their words or behavior?

Use the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Vedas, or any other religious text to justify mistreating you?

Treat you badly, apologize, promise never to do it again, and proceed to do it again?

Try to control where you go, how you dress, who you see and talk to, what and how much you eat, etc.?

Snoop through your phone, emails, belongings, or other private stuff without your OK? Or manipulate you into "letting" them do so?

Track your menstrual cycle (if you have one) without your OK? Or manipulate you into "letting" them do so?

Try to make you keep a pregnancy you don't want (or terminate one you do)? Or try to dictate what (if any) birth control you use?

Threaten to hurt themselves or other people if you leave, or "step out of line?"

Break or throw things when they're upset?

Punch holes in walls, doors, etc.?

Make you (or try to make you) engage in sexual acts you don't enjoy, don't feel ready for, don't feel comfortable with, or just plain aren't in the mood for?

Try to make you feel like a bad person for saying "no" to sex?

Try to distance you from your friends and family?

Actively try to turn your friends and family against you? Or you against them?

Get mad when you say no or try to set a boundary?

Call you degrading names?

Use your insecurities against you?

"Neg" or "should" you into conforming to their preferences?

Try to get you to quit your job, or get you fired?

Use drugs, alcohol, a bad day at work, or whatever their deal is as an excuse for their behavior? If so, you need to get out. Now. Make a plan. I promise, it doesn't get better as long as you are in this relationship. You cannot love the red flags out of people. Even if they don't hit you now, there's a good chance they'll start sooner or later; abuse has a nasty tendency to escalate.

[smitethestate]

Talking about no contact and estrangement is becoming a serious thing online, so I want to put this out there. You do not have to try to fix things with your parents before you're allowed to cut off or reduce contact. You do not have to try and convince them to treat you right before you take care of yourself and do what you have to for your safety and wellbeing.

I didn't sit my parents down and explain to them that they'd been abusing me and try to convince them to stop. The likelihood that they would have received this well felt minuscule. Once I got the courage to do what I needed to do, I sent an email telling them that I was ending all contact between us.

Because ultimately it wasn't about them. It was about me, and the fact that I was unable to break out of old survival modes and stop putting on a false self to please them. I needed the space to grow. I needed to be away from them to heal. Period.

If you want to try setting boundaries with your parents before going no contact, go for it. But you're not bad or undeserving of peace because you didn't run that gauntlet. It's optional. There are no rules, no hoops you must jump through before you deserve what you need.

[uncanny-tranny]

Honestly, there is a certain type of fetishizing of violence that occurs when you are the victim of abuse - wherein people talk directly to you about how much they fantasize about your abuser/s dying and being killed - "all abusers must be killed!" they say.

As a victim of prolonged abuse, I never felt cared for when people indulged that information to me. It often feels like my abuse is being exploited for others to enact their own violent fantasies and secret desires - my abuse means nothing to them in the same way that I didn't matter to my abusers. It's not support - it's just another cycle of violence.

I'm begging people to care more about victims and survivors than they do about retribution of abusers. Nowhere along the way should your focus on the abuser outweigh the people affected by their abuse. If you truly want to support abuse victims and survivors, start with us

[selfidentifiednerdyprude]

We (the aro/ace, poly, and relationship anarchist communities) need to talk about backdooring

For all the dirty minded people reading this, no, that's not a buttsex joke. Please take this seriously.

Backdooring is a phenomenon I've observed where someone with more proximity to traditional relationship modalities gets into a nontraditional relationship (for instance, a nonsexual romantic relationship, a nonromantic sexual relationship, a committed relationship that is neither romantic nor sexual, or a polyamorous relationship) with someone who does not share that proximity, and attempts to move the relationship in a more traditional direction— stated simply, it's the use of a nontraditional relationship as a backdoor to a traditional one, specifically one with which the victim is not comfortable and does not consent to.

It often stems from an attitude of "Maybe this person will forget about being ace/aro/poly/RA now that they've met me."

As someone who has experienced backdooring in relationships where I thought I was safe (my ex-girlfriend successfully used our queerplatonic relationship as a backdoor into a romantic relationship that had me doubting my own orientation and personal boundaries for years after the fact, and more than one ex-friend of mine has tried to use the bonds I form with my friends as backdoors into a sexually predatory dynamic) I can say with 100% certainty that backdooring is a form of abuse, and that anyone with a preference for anything besides a monogamous, sexually involved romantic relationship is vulnerable to it.

What backdooring is and isn't

Backdooring isn't two people's feelings or attractions mutually changing after getting into a certain kind of relationship.

If you and your partner originally got into a sexless romance but began to feel a mutual sexual attraction to one another, that's fine. People's feelings about each other are fluid.

But if you're in a sexless romance and you have no interest in sex, but your partner keeps trying to pressure you to fuck them, please, just once, they haven't had any for so long and it would be really nice of you to just do this for them one time, they're probably trying to backdoor you and you need to do something about it because that's not a healthy situation.

If you're in a sexless relationship of any kind and you decide to mutually engage in a kink or fetish that doesn't require direct sexual contact, and you're both receiving an equal amount of enjoyment from participation in that kink/fetish, that isn't backdooring.

However, if someone you do not have a sexual relationship with engages in kink/fetish activities with you without telling you what they're doing or what they're getting out of it, that is backdooring and honestly, it's disgusting.

If you and your partner are in a polycule with some other people but you talk about it together and decide you want to go exclusive, that isn't backdooring.

But if your partner is trying to separate you from the rest of your polycule and get you to narrow your focus to only them, they're trying to backdoor you and you should let them know you won't stand for it.

If you're in a nonromantic relationship of any kind and you and your partner both enjoy playing with symbols and gestures associated with romance, but have no romantic intent behind the use of those symbols, that isn't backdooring.

But if you're in a nonromantic relationship and your partner uses those symbols and gestures with romantic intent, especially if they haven't cleared the use of those symbols or gestures with you ahead of time, that is backdooring and you should shut that door before it opens any further.

You can see clearly how backdooring intersects with and puts the victim at risk of other forms of intimate abuse, such as sexual/romantic coercion, social isolation, fetish mining, and, in extreme cases, corrective rape. It's honestly something that should be common sense not to do to another person, but for some reason, people with more traditional preferences like to see our relationships as less valuable and our boundaries as more freely transgressible.

If you've been a victim of this and want to share your story, I encourage you to add to this, or just reblog to spread awareness.

[kaijuposting]

"Saw traps for people with moral OCD" is a phrase that has embedded myself into my brain because, well, Saw traps for people with moral OCD are everywhere.

Stuff that basically amounts to...

"You have to listen to my opinions on [issue], or else you don't care about [issue]. (Constantly talks about how people like you are the absolute worst.)"

Anything that's functionally like, "you have to let me tear you down over things you can't control or you're a bad person."

Anything that's functionally like, "you have to let me vent to you whenever and however I want or else you're a bad person."

"If you enjoy X media/trope, you just hate Y people."

"Everyone knows that X thing is harmful/hateful; if you engaged in it, it's just because you were fine with perpetuating hate/harm."

"You should have just known better/should know this already!"

This thread over here talks about the inherent issues of putting this kind of stuff out there. The TL;DR is that it really only works on people who are mentally unwell and have poor boundaries, while just pissing off everyone else. It really doesn't matter if you're technically correct; you're still attacking people, and that means they're not wrong to block you.

I think that many of these Saw traps are created when people effectively write posts directed toward people who don't want to help, rather than the ones who do. Like, if you catch yourself writing an angry, shame-laden post, ask yourself: who are you writing it for and what are the odds you're going to change their minds? If your mental image is some smug fuck or angry reactionary, you're writing for the wrong person. Write for the person who's curious, who's willing to learn.

Also? Work on figuring out how to transmute negative feelings into positive, encouraging rhetoric. EG:

"Why is there no X positivity?" -> "Let's hear it for X!"

"No one cares about Y problem!" -> "Hey, we need more recognition of Y problem" or "I haven't seen many people talking about Y problem, so here's some info on what's up."

"If you don't reblog this, you don't care about [group]" -> "Please reblog this, it would mean a lot for us [group]."

And if you're really super duper frustrated and want to vent with a lot of nasty words and sentiments? Consider taking it to a private vent channel or a journal or somewhere that a stranger with moral OCD/scrupulosity isn't likely to run across it.

Remember, most people don't want to hurt anyone. More people are ignorant than malicious. People naturally want to do the right thing, so if you feel like you have to guilt them or shame them into it, there's probably a fundamental communication issue somewhere, or they simply lack the context to understand why what you're saying is so important.

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

No one is doomed to abuse people. There isn't an "abuser gene" or "evil chromosome". There aren't "cursed bloodlines".

There's a culture that frequently enables, romanticizes and eroticizes abuse, and individual human beings who choose to take advantage of that, or not.

Even someone who has abused others in the past has a decision about whether or not to continue that harm. Further abuse isn't inevitable, it's a choice.

The idea that abusers can't help it just further enables abuse culture. If someone is abusive, they are making a choice.

[solarbiomechanist]

This is also a tactic that can be used to coerce consent in unhealthy relationships. I genuinely cannot remember a scenario well enough right now to anonymize it and describe how it plays out, but... if the person who would be constrained by the boundary is also deciding what the boundary is, chances are something is unfair.

Something to watch for, which I learned from stage magic but which is extremely relevant to detecting scams as well:

The magician or scammer will *tell you* how he is going to prove his honesty.

The magician rifles through the deck until you say "stop", then he says, "Are you sure? I'll keep going if you want." and asks "Now, you agree that you could have stopped anywhere you wanted, so there's absolutely no way I could know which card you got" and because it's a magic show and you aren't paying close attention you didn't notice he didn't deal a card from where you stopped, he dealt the bottom card of the deck.

The magician doesn't ask you, "What would it take for you to believe this" because you might say, "I'd need you to use a sealed deck" or "I'd have to personally shuffle the deck" or some other proof that would make the trick impossible.

Magicians say "You agree that if I did *this*, it would mean *that*, right?" and you say yes, and it feels like you are the one who got to verify things, but of course the magician is lying and the proof is nothing of the kind.

Scammers do the same thing. A really concrete example is phone scammers pretending to be working for the government will say, "Look, I see you're skeptical if I'm who I say I am, I'm going to hang up and call back, and you'll see on the caller ID it says, 'FBI' and that tells you that I'm really working for the government."

Now, caller ID can be spoofed pretty easily, so it doesn't prove anything at all.

But it *feels* to you like you demanded proof and the scammer was willing to give you the proof.

But you didn't tell the scammer what out would take to prove it to you, the scammer told you what the proof would be.

This is actually like a really basic thing to look for if you want to start decoding magic tricks and scams.

[akajustmerry]

studios and production houses stopping Neil Gaiman's works honestly has me floored. Not because I think it shouldn't happen, but because I can't remember the last time someone was accused of abuse and the industry they were part of actively cut ties with them and their work. I'm honestly so glad that Dark Horse comics will no longer publish Gaiman's works and that Amazon and Disney cancelled all it's current projects with Gaiman. That's what should happen. Abusers should reap the consequences of their actions not to be allowed to continue as normal. I just can't help but wonder why this doesn't happen with every abuser or is it just ones that are disposable and faceless enough?