anonniemouse (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
anonniemouse) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
tf_talk2015-04-16 10:55 am
anonniemouse) wrote in tf_talk2015-04-16 10:55 am
Entry tags:
Gloves Off
Please use this post for discussion of those contentious, murky, triggering issues too complex to discuss/moderate on the main post.
Note that this post is NOT a free-for-all and will still be modded for slurs, namecalling, doxxing and trolling. But fair warning that it will not be moderated for discussion of issues some find triggering (trans issues, mental illness, etc.) and that if you choose to participate here, you do so at your own risk.
Note that this post is NOT a free-for-all and will still be modded for slurs, namecalling, doxxing and trolling. But fair warning that it will not be moderated for discussion of issues some find triggering (trans issues, mental illness, etc.) and that if you choose to participate here, you do so at your own risk.
Re: ravenjeep & ptsd
(Anonymous) 2018-07-09 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)Comparing Chris to Abbey is disingenuous. Chris is not in a romantic relationship with Andy. Chris is not living with Andy. Chris has not made lifestyle changes or financial sacrifices because of Andy.
I've never said being male protects Chris from being abused. When I call him a "big boy", I'm not referring to his physical size. I'm referring to the fact that's an adult in his 30's or 40's, which is an age at which people bear responsibility for their actions. No, I'm not saying you can't be abused in 30's or 40's, but remember that no one has yet presented any evidence that Chris is an abuse victim. People here seem to have trouble distinguishing between scenarios that are possible and scenarios that are supported by evidence.
The narrative being pushed here - that Chris is "putty in Andy's hands", that he's being "fucked with psychologically in some really ugly ways that are explicitly designed to play into his trauma" has not been demonstrated. Let me underline that: HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. Chris is being deceived by Andy. Abused? Defending Andy in and of itself does not indicate Chris is being abused, only that Andy has fooled him into thinking he's a decent human being.
The result of this is that we a person who actively attacking victims being posited as a victim, complete with concerns with his "vulnerability", when his victimhood has not even been established. This is something that I've seen before, again, during the Catholic abuse scandal. Catholic lay people would attack victims in defends of abusers until the evidence against them became overwhelming, and which point the narrative became, "Well, those who attacked the victims were ALSO the victims of pedophile priests by virtue of being deceived by them!", as though being deceived by an abuser (and attacking victims as a result) puts one on par with those who were actually abused by predators.
I'll sum it up this way: "Won't someone think of the enablers? They're victims, too!"
This is salt in the wounds of actual victims, who now must endure hand-wringing over the "victimhood" (by a virtue of deception, not by virtue of actual abuse) of the very people who attacked them for coming forward. This is precisely the situation being created on this forum now.
And then this: "Well, perhaps the enablers that attacked victims are in fact TRUE victims in some way, shape, or form! Couldn't that be possible? Might that not account for their horrible behaviour?" Well, yes, it could be, and it might, but the intense focus on the enabler's theoretical, potential victimhood is very suspect indeed when there are confirmed victims suffering at their hands, and no evidence has been presented that the enablers have actually been abused The end result is that the focus shifts from real, confirmed suffering to the completely theoretical suffering of people who have engaged in/are currently engaging in campaigns of harassment against victims. This is not where compassion and energy should be directed in such a situation (at least, until evidence arises that that the enablers have ACTUALLY been victimized), and the currently unsupported narrative that Chris must be "putty in Andy's hands" as a result of being "fucked with in psychologically in ugly ways involving his trauma" leaves a bad taste in my mouth for that reason.
Re: ravenjeep & ptsd
(Anonymous) 2018-07-09 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)Re: ravenjeep & ptsd
(Anonymous) 2018-07-10 01:17 am (UTC)(link)You're combining my words with those of another poster. I didn't say Chris was putty in Andy's hands as a result of being fucked with psychologically in ways involving his trauma. I do think the latter suggestion is possible (and even likely) but when I said "putty in his hands" I was only referring to Chris's gullibility regarding Andy's "I'm scared and need your help" routine.
I don't think that speculating that Chris might also be a victim takes away from the known victims. Compasssion isn't a finite resource. I think the posters discussing the possibility of Chris being victimised have all stated that even if it's true it would not excuse his behaviour.
My comparison between Chris and Abbey was Only meant in regards to the perception of outsiders at the time that Abbey was not a victim. Of course there are many many differences between the two of them and their respective relationships with Andy. But I feel like what you're saying could have been said about Andy's victims back then - "Turimel is Andy's victim. Sympathy for Andy's enablers shifts focus from Turimel's suffering." Abbey, if you read this, I'm sorry if my comparison is bad and hurtful. Again, I'm not trying to compare You to Chris, I'm trying to compare the perception of you both by outsiders. If doing that (or the way I've done it) is shitty, I'm truly sorry.
Re: ravenjeep & ptsd
(Anonymous) 2018-07-10 03:19 am (UTC)(link)Re: ravenjeep & ptsd
(Anonymous) 2018-07-10 01:59 am (UTC)(link)