Crossposted from my personal Tumblr. This is how one does cross posts, right?


This is going to be a pretty serious article.

I very recently listened to a long video on youtube, discussing a case of emotional abuse in close detail, through chat logs and publicly available info on the behaviour of each member of the couple.

I won’t link directly to the video-it’s tangentially about a fantastically controversial affair, and I’d prefer not to catch the attention of a segment of the internet which could and would gleefully ruin my life-but the observation raised during it feel to me very valid. If you hold a different opinion, please let me know, being exposed to different ways of interpreting the same facts is something I value very much.

Anyway, the video brought up several times the fact that in the relationship in question, between person A and person Z, where person Z is the abuser and person A is the victim, Z acted as if A’s action were responsible for Z’s feelings, state of mind and emotions.

Things like “I cheated on you because you made me feel unloved” “You’re devoting more resources to caring about your friend than me, which makes me feel shitty, so stop seeing them entirely”.

And in the moment, I was confused.

Why was the video saying that Z had responsibility over their emotions? One thing I’ve learned throughout my life, although I can’t point to when or where, is that people have no immediate control over their emotions, that they can’t help how they feel about a particular thing when it happens.

This is a very important concept; with it, people can still have their emotions validated, even if the immediate cause for it is trivial or subjective, and it blocks others from shaming them and using their vulnerability to hurt them (in theory).

Think of how a pregnant woman might have heavy mood swings, crying like a fountain because their taco doesn’t have onions, or a football fan might fly in a rage at seeing someone dispute a referee’s decision.

It’s also a concept very important in relationship; to give a hypothetical example, someone can say to their lover: “I’m sorry, I don’t love you. I’m breaking up with you” “But I bought you flowers, gave you chocolates, complimented you, spent all my free time with can’t not love me!” “The things that you did do not make me love you” and the conversation can end there.

(This is a concept that a depressing number of people don’t grasp. And yet, on the side of the unloved person, this feels horribly unfair and unjust).

At least, that’s the theory. The practice is different, of course...but from what I’ve seen and done personally, in a healthy relationship your partner is not going to hold your emotions against you.

And yet, the behaviour outlined in the video felt to me obviously abusive.

How can I square these two things?

After pondering this for a while, I came to a conclusion.

What the video was probably talking about, and not communicating clearly, is that someone feeling an emotion is responsible for any and all actions taken because of that emotion, but that the causa of the emotion itself is not under anyone’s responsibility.

What an abuser does is present their action as being the same thing as themselves feeling the emotion-so for example “I’m angry, so of course I smashed the vase you gave to me as a gift! You shouldn’t have criticized my driving!” or, more insidiously “You know that whenever we go out it makes me happy, so why aren’t you taking me out anymore?”

This way, if the victim protests, the abuser can (of course) get angry and defensive about what they see in their eyes as something they can’t help doing, shifting blame on the victim’s shoulder and making out the victim as the bad guy, the one who is morally in the wrong and deserves any and all punishments.

Incidentally, this is why some shades of selfishness can be a virtue, not that common culture is ever going to say it outright.

The video itself did have a strong emphasis on blame shifting, guilt tripping and gaslighting-all things that for people who don’t expect them can be hard to detect.

Perhaps a way to prevent this is to keep in mind one’s own boundaries within a relationship-to keep a separate identity from one’s partner, and not act as if a strong bond between people means that they are one and the same in some respects.

This because an abusive person, not having the self control (or using motivated thinking to falsely believe on purpose that they don’t) to stop themselves from committing certain acts in response to feeling certain emotions, safeguard their ego from depletion by putting the onus of self control on the people around, so that they themselves don’t have to go through the tiring, pain in the ass process that is monitoring themselves.

Aside from that though, this raises a very interesting question!

Those who know me know that I care a lot about self control, and self discipline; I do not know how much I possess myself, but it is an argument I am heavily invested in, and of which I have read a lot (like, a lot. And a lot of that is dross, but that’s a different topic :-P ).

But what about people who don’t know or don’t care about self control? Do they have to go through life from one bad relationship to the next, hurting people by accident?

Or perhaps, are people with low self control implicitly obligated to change their immediate reactions to some emotions from hurtful ones to positive ones?

In all cases though, my conclusions from these considerations is that if a person who insists that actions on your part lead to actions on their part automatically, as if one triggers a law of physics, that’s a gigantic red flag*, and one should be very cautious in dealing with them.

*you added too much Chloride of Nagging to the solution, which turned it supercritical and had as reaction crystallized Slap-In-The-Face Chlorate Salt!

New Comment
8 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:29 PM

This reminds me of the way that sometimes people we cast into abuser roles based on their behavior are not acting with abusive intent but rather lack what we might call the emotional maturity to be able to choose not to behave in ways that will be abusive towards others. For example, a person with low emotional maturity might get mad when things don't go their way and, lacking the ability to separate their emotions from the cause of their emotions, will attempt to regulate their emotions by controlling other people. In contrast a person with high emotional maturity might get mad but then treat that as a signal about the actions of others and see that, although they are related, they can deal with the emotion in part separately from the person whose actions triggered the emotion. This gives the high emotional maturity person choices over how to respond that the low emotional maturity person doesn't have access to!

This is by no means a complete model (shoving it into a single-dimension measure loses a lot of the nuance of how decisions get made), but I think it gives us a little more insight into what's going on in these situations and helps address some of the confusion you're seeing between acknowledging the validity of emotions, including the abusers emotions, and the abusive quality of some behaviors.

Thank you!

Your comment really shone light into things that were cloudy, it's a great help :-)

Nvc proposes that you want to separate the feelings, the needs, and the actions/strategies to meet the needs.

"you make me feel..." is wrong thinking.

"I need you to take me to dinner so that I can be happy" is wrong thinking too.

Identifying "I am sad". Then identify "I want to be happy". Then propose "I want you to take me to dinner because I think that will make me happy". In theory there are a lot of causes of happiness or anger or various emotions.

Keep in mind also that we have our emotions they don't have us. It's a choice how to act on emotions.. A choice where options open up and gets easier with practice.

What is Nvc? Google fails me :-\

Why was the video saying that Z had responsibility over their emotions? One thing I’ve learned throughout my life, although I can’t point to when or where, is that people have no immediate control over their emotions, that they can’t help how they feel about a particular thing when it happens.

Are you sure? This is a topic I'd like to know more about.

My current thoughts on the matter:

We might have no control over the original input, we have control over how we process it.

A negative thought can be suppressed, analyzed to see if it matches truth, or fed back constantly in a crazy echo. And that, we can control.

So while it would be impossible to prevent a pang of jealousy, anger, etc... It's possible to quell it or reinforce it. And of course, one can always choose how to act upon it. Voicing a concern, having a conversation, making demands, cheating, ...

Incidentally, this is why some shades of selfishness can be a virtue, not that common culture is ever going to say it outright.

I actually think this is a very very common meme, although it's usually not phrased as bluntly as "a little selfishness can be a virtue". Things about taking care of yourself first. On saying no. etc etc

Emphasis on slowing down the reaction. I don't know how to give better instruction than that. But slow down. (if you have better instructions I'd like to hear it)

Give you more time to process before reacting.