#A Culture of Abuse

[lgbtlunaverse]

The world exists in such a baffling state of simultaneous sex-aversion and sex-hegemony. Every social platform on the internet is trying to banish sex workers to the shadow realm but I can't post a tweet without at least two bots replying P U S S Y I N B I O. People are self-censoring sex to seggs and $3× but every other ad you see is still filled with half-naked women. Rightwingers want queer people arrested for so much as existing in the same postal code as a child and are also drumming up a moral panic about how teenage boys aren't getting laid enough. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

[emotionaleating]

pls don’t flirt with me i want to be nonchalant so bad but i unfortunately crave connection so intensely that i will give you my entire soul and forgive you over and over until i’ve lost myself completely and feel like i’m drowning

[teaboot]

When I was a kid, I regularly lost reading privileges for "having an attitude" and "acting out".

It wasn't as simple as being told not to read during other activities- one of the first times it happened, I remember being six years old, watching my stepfather pull fistfuls of books off my bookshelf and throw them to the floor in a heaping mess while I cried and asked him to stop.

It was weird. Every other adult I knew described me as exceptionally well-behaved, but at home, it was the opposite, and it was blamed on "learning bad habits from that shit you're reading".

Because I couldn't read at home, I spent all my free time at school in the library, reading with my friends.

When I grew up and moved away, I realized that my family life was toxic and abusive, and the "attitudes" I was being punished for were standing up for myself, standing up for my younger siblings, and resisting actual, real-life psychological abuse. Because I'd learned from what I'd read that my family wasn't normal, not like my parents said it was, and in my stories, the heroes were the people who spoke out when it was hard to.

It is insane to me that there are students right now who can't access books. It is insane that books are being outlawed. It is perverse that we are stealing away an entire generation's ability to contextualize their lives, to learn about the world around them, to develop critical thinking skills and express themselves and feel connected to the world or escape from it, whatever and whenever and however they need.

That is not how you raise a compassionate, thoughtful, powerful society.

That's how you process cattle.

It's fucking disgusting.

[msclaritea]

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677669822388219904.html

"Since 1970, Rupert Murdoch's toxic Sun had published images of topless 'glamour models' on Page 3.

In 1983, Sam Fox became the youngest Page 3 model in The Sun, when aged just 16 she first featured topless with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'.

It wasn't until 2003, with the passing of the Sexual Offences Act, that the minimum age for women posing on Page 3 was raised to 18.

The Sun ceased publishing topless Page 3 images in Ireland edition in 2013, in the UK in 2015, & on its website in 2017. https://t.co/r27ZiZWrd3Page3.com

Katie Price - Latest news and gossip - The SunKatie Price has been known on the celebrity circuit for many years, starting out her career as a glamour model…http://Page3.com

Although feminists had for many years criticized the feature, The Sun had always vigorously defended Page 3.

The Sun introduced the feature in 1970, which boosted its readership & prompted the Mirror, Sunday People, & Star to begin featuring topless models on their own Page 3.

Page 3's mainly male defenders portrayed it as 'a harmless British cultural tradition', but it drew criticism both from conservatives, who tended to view it as soft porn inappropriate for inclusion in newspapers, & feminists, who argued it objectified women & perpetuated sexism.

Some politicians—notably Labour's Clare Short, Harriet Harman, & Stella Creasy, LibDem Lynne Featherstone, & Caroline Lucas—made efforts to have Page 3 removed, although other politicians eg Nick Clegg & Ed Vaizey, expressed concern that such a ban would compromise press freedom.

The Sun vigorously defended the feature. Typically representing Page 3's critics as prudes, spoilsports, or ideologues, it also routinely portrayed female critics as physically unattractive and jealous of its Page 3 girls.

When Clare Short in 1986 tried to introduce a bill banning topless models from British newspapers, The Sun ran a "Stop Crazy Clare" campaign, distributing free car stickers, calling Short a "killjoy", printing unflattering images of her.

The grotesque must-read of the yearNick Davies' book about media bosses making MPs and celebrities pander to them is essential reading for the politically informed.

The Sun polled readers on whether they preferred to see Short's face or the back of a bus. Murdoch's News of the World ran bogus stories suggesting Short was involved with porn, tried to buy old photos of her as a 20-year-old in a nightdress, & published other smear stories.

"Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne."

Rebekah Brooks was reported to be against Page 3, & was expected to terminate it when she became editor in 2003. Upon assuming her editorship, she defended it, calling its models "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear in The Sun out of choice & because they enjoy the job".

When Clare Short stated in a 2004 interview that she wanted to "take the pornography out of our press", saying "I'd love to ban [Page 3 because it] degrades women and our country", Brooks targeted Short with a "Hands Off Page 3" campaign.

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.

The Sun's campaign included printing an image of Short's face superimposed on a topless woman's body, calling Short "fat and jealous", and parking a double-decker bus with a delegation of Page 3 models outside Short's home.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 rowThe Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/14/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia

The Sun also called Harriet Harman a "feminist fanatic" and Featherstone a "battleaxe" for their opposition to Page 3.

In February 2012, the #Leveson Inquiry heard arguments for and against Page 3.

Women's advocacy groups argued that Page 3 demeaned women and promoted sexist attitudes, but Sun editor Dominic Mohan called the feature an "innocuous British institution" that had become "part of British society".

Sun editor defends Page ThreeThe editor of The Sun newspaper, Dominic Mohan, has defended the continued use of topless pictures on page three.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/16927925

Lucy-Anne Holmes began campaigning against Page 3 after noticing during the 2012 Summer Olympics that the largest photograph of a woman in the nation's best-selling newspaper was not of an Olympic athlete but of "a young woman in her knickers".

No More Page 3 campaigner Lucy-Anne Holmes on her battle with the SunKira Cochrane: First offended by the newspaper's topless models at the age of 11, she wants Rupert Murdoch to remove the featurehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

The campaign got 240K signatures & support from trade unions, universities, charities, women's advocacy groups & 140+ MPs.

It sponsored two women's football teams, Nottingham Forest WFC & Cheltenham Town LFC, who played with the "No More Page 3" logos.

No More Page 3 campaigners sponsor another women's football teamNotts Forest Ladies support call for Sun to end topless photoshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/page-3-sun

In 2012, Lynne Featherstone called for a ban claiming it contributed to domestic violence against women. Then–deputy PM Nick Clegg said "If you don't like it, don't buy it, you don't want to have a moral policeman or woman in Whitehall telling people what they can & can't see".

Then–prime minister David Cameron also declined to support a ban on Page 3, stating during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators".

Cameron refuses to back ban on Sun's Page 3 topless imagesPM says it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy the Sun, as he sets out plans for greater regulation of online pornographyhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

After becoming The Sun's editor in 2013, David Dinsmore confirmed he would continue printing photographs of topless models, calling it "a good way of selling newspapers".

On 20th January, 2015, Murdoch's Times reported that the tabloid was "quietly dropping" Page 3.

But on 22 January, The Sun appeared to change course, publishing a Page 3 image of a winking model with her breasts fully exposed and a caption mocking those who had commented on the end of the feature. The Sun did not feature Page 3 thereafter.

In a TV debate with Harman & Germaine Greer, Harman said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country, & you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women's role in society?"

No More Page 3 campaigner Jo Cheetham: Sexism in the media is less in your face, but it’s still thereA decade after taking on The Sun’s topless models tradition, Jo Cheetham talks to Imy Brighty-Potts about her new book, and why she quit social media.https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-sun-sexism-laura-bates-page-jessica-ennishill-b2295544.html

The #NoMorePage3 campaign was widely acclaimed, described by one MP as a “seismic victory”. Activist Katherine Sladden wrote, “No other campaign has done as much to inspire a new generation of young feminists.” It is still actively campaigning

No More Page 3: how a feminist collective took on a media behemoth to challenge everyday sexismThe campaign to stop newspapers publishing topless photos of women relied on a special brand of emotional energy.https://theconversation.com/no-more-page-3-how-a-feminist-collective-took-on-a-media-behemoth-to-challenge-everyday-sexism-156478

The British government never enacted legislation against Page 3.

In the mid-90s, The Sun began printing Page 3 photos in colour as standard. Captions, previously containing suggestive double entendre, were replaced by a listing of models' first names, ages, and hometowns.

After polling readers, The Sun in 1997 ceased featuring models who had undergone breast augmentation. In 1999, it launched the Page3 .com website, featuring additional photos of current Page 3 models, archival images of former Page 3 models, & other related content.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

This legal change meant that all topless images of 16- and 17-year-old models that had previously been published on Page 3 became potentially illegal content.

In 2020, Channel 4 produced an hour-long documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth, to mark 50 years since The Sun first introduced Page 3.

#dontbuythesun #FuckRupertMurdoch #Leveson2

Just two weeks ago, Rupert Murdoch's Fox paid $12MILLION to settle two lawsuits alleging “systematic chauvinism” & a “misogynistic environment that permeates Fox News”, where “female workers are verbally violated on almost a daily basis by a poisonous & entrenched patriarchy”.

[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.

[sparklecryptid]

Look, I think we can all agree with the fact that abuse thrives in darkness. So explain to me why a 21 year old used the word pdfile and pronounce it exactly like that when we were talking about child abuse. Censoring the word does nothing. It literally took me several seconds to understand what she was saying. Clear communication is vital when someone comes or tries to come forward. It can be the difference between them feeling seen and heard and refusing to divulge anything. When you censor words like that in real life there can be consequences because you are obscuring information and hurting communication. Use the proper words. And if they make you so uncomfortable you can’t use them then maybe you shouldn’t be having a conversation that requires use of those words.

[narcitism]

my abuser had brown hair im a victim of brunette abuse :(

[de8dly]

substance abuse? i think youll find that i am quite nice to those substances, officer.

[cruelbrutality]

I have no empathy, remorse, guilt or compassion.

That is how I experience things, as a result of my personality disorders.

If you are going to support personality disorders then you also must include people with these symptoms as well and not just the glorified version the media attempts to convey.

[icedsodapop]

[autopsyfreak]

‘how do you expect people who have been abused by someone with NPD to refer to their abuse then?’

by calling it what it is: emotional abuse.

it’s not difficult.

slapping the word ‘narcissistic’ on the front of abuse is blindly assigning blame and associating the abusive behaviours with NPD, despite the fact that nowhere in the criteria does it state any abusive behaviours as a symptom.

i understand that people who are severely mentally unwell are more prone to abusing others, however to point the blame at a disorder (and therefore at everyone with the disorder) is ableist, irresponsible and grossly misinformed.

to put it into perspective as to how bad the stigma surrounding NPD is, i have been diagnosed with NPD and have been told i should be killed because of it, that i will inevitably abuse my partners i have had, i’ve had partners in the past be harassed by people saying that it’s ‘just a matter of time’ before i abuse them without any of these people ever even knowing me. i see endless amounts of things online calling all narcissists evil, as well as having my own experiences with abuse disregarded because they do not believe someone with NPD could be anything other than a perpetrator, despite the fact NPD is induced by trauma. the list goes on.

your choice of wording does matter and it does damage people with NPD.

[emotionaleating]

[mirroringshards]

you have any fucking word in the dictionary to describe your abuse. please stop using the one that describes a personality disorder

[trans-androgyne]

I don't know how to handle getting treated like a monster for my gender identity. When I was thought I was a cis queer woman I was considered harmless, but now that I openly prefer masculinity I'm treated like an inherent danger to others, especially women. "Trans guys without mood stabilizers should be illegal." "Kill all men including trans men because one of them hurt me." "You really are the men of the trans community--just as dangerous and misogynistic as cis men." "Trans guys need to accept that women won't feel safe around them." "Testosterone makes you aggressive and violent." Why do I have to prove I'm One Of The Good Ones or be held responsible for every awful thing any guy has done ever. Though to many people it seems like there are no good transmascs period no matter what we do.

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

I really think we need to be having conversations more often about how to figure out if you're being abusive, and how to address it if you are.

Abuse isn't just done by one demographic, or in one specific way. Most abusers justify their actions to themselves and do not think of what is happening as abuse.

It's dangerous to just assume that you don't have the ability to abuse someone due to your Pureness of Heart, oppressed status, or status as an abuse survivor. Thinking this way can make you more likely to harm someone.

I have known people who know a lot about abuse, have read a lot about it, and have been abused themselves, who become abusers and don't notice because it doesn't occur to them that they could ever be an abuser. They assume that if abuse is happening, they must always be the victim, because they were in the past.

This perception can make reasonable boundaries feel "controlling" and respectful conversations about harm feel like attacks. In trying to avoid painful feelings, it's possible to become controlling without even realizing that's what's happening.

You can abuse people. I can abuse people. Abusers are human beings who choose to harm and/or exert control over others. Not storybook monsters you have nothing in common with.

Let's talk about how to make sure we keep our friends, loved ones, and other community members safe from harmful behavior, not just from Total Irredeemable Obvious Monsters.

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.