Well, I got banned for being a MAP on twitter. I expected that to happen sooner honestly, but anyway, that’s why I’m correcting this here. I was a little bit stupid there one time. Yes, just one, I stand by the rest. At least my own understanding of the rest, I don’t know how others view the things I said. Everyone on there even thinks paraphile means “Actual child/dog fucker” Which, no, if you didn’t realize, it doesn’t mean that. Paraphillias are just attractions, not actual acts.
Anyway, here’s where I was a little dumb. I will explain this, because my thought process is very different from yours (people in general’s honestly) – I think most people don’t understand abuse the same way I do because not many people experience abuse from both angles and also recover as much as I have (I’m not trying to brag sorry 😭)
TLDR: I understand enabling differently than I think most people do, it’s not to direct blame to the victim because abusers are always responsible for their own actions – but I don’t think I’m wrong for seeing enabling the way I do either. I don’t see abuse as a black and white concept, but I also still recognize one person can be worse than another. Abuse is obviously bad and I’m not defending it. I also think more people need to be aware of enabling and how it works.
Long version: In the past before I knew much about abuse, I would’ve seen abuse a lot differently than how I do now. Back then, I would have perceived my post like others did. Thats not how I see enabling anymore, or abuse, at all. I don’t see it as a clear divide of abuser (who is the archetype of bad) and victim (who is totally innocent and harmless always). I see it more like the mutual cultivation of something awful. That’s not to say one person isn’t more at fault, but both people play an active role in creating the relationship. That’s just how relationships work, it’s always about both sides. Even if one is worse, it’s still about both. And change has to happen for both.
When I say “victims can be enablers” (Not all are) I don’t think it’s a shocking concept, because I don’t see that as making the abuse not harmful. I don’t see enabling as a moral failing. The person doing the harm is always going to be responsible for their own actions, and that seem’s obvious to me. But enabling still exists and victim’s play a part.
Here’s a well known example: An obese bed-ridden person will always have someone bringing them food, even though they don’t need as much as they get. The reason is because that person is also emotionally abusive and will lash out if the victim of the abuse (the enabler) doesn’t bring them what they want.
So what I meant when I wrote that was mainly about partnerships (particularly emotional abuse) since it was in reply to a similar scenario I think. With emotional abuse it’s generally relying too much on someone emotionally, or expressing your emotions at the expense of others – and the victim/enabler in this situation is allowing the relationship to continue the same, and likely feeding into the abuser’s twisted worldview. People who are abused will feel shut down and might not want to speak up, I’m not saying I don’t get that. But change can’t happen if someone isn’t holding their ground. If the victim doesn’t ever stand their ground, try to bring change, or leave if change isn’t happening – This enables the cycle to continue.
Part of the issue of enabling is a lot of abuse comes from unmanaged personality disorders. Sometimes people don’t even know they have a disorder. Enabling can be harmful in that it feeds into their worldview – If someone else thinks this is acceptable and normal, and that “I can’t change” then it will stay the same. It becomes normal. This doesn’t mean the victim isn’t still more harmed by the relationship.
Anyway, I didn’t expect what I said to be so controversial because I just see it as how abuse works. I think it’s something people avoid talking about because they don’t want to sound victim-blamey. But I don’t think it’s blaming victims for their mistreatment to say they play some role in sustaining the relationship. They have some responsibility to themselves to stand up for themselves, even if thats hard, even if it means the relationship doesn’t work. And if they can’t leave, they should be working towards a longterm escape plan. Nobody deserves to spend their life being mistreated, it’s a sad way to live.
Okay, thats the first part of this. The next part of that interaction was more embarrassing because I got triggered and misunderstood what was happening a bit…
So… First off, back at the last screenshot, I had a very different understanding of my own post than I think most other people did. So I didn’t realize the post was what people were calling out, I just assumed it was the same as always. When one of my other posts was brought in I assumed the reason I was “defending abuse” was by being a MAP/advocating for MAPs. Not the actual original post… Thanks brain. That reaction is embarrassing.
But that’s why I said it was just MAP stigma. I thought it was, and I was very triggered about it. Now I feel like maybe the stigma played a minor role but it was mostly just different understandings of abuse and enabling.
I feel like I’ll need to adapt my language for people in order to talk about this sort of thing easily, because people sure are quick to assume “defending.” I feel like this problem has roots in the whole dehumanization of abusers (and victims honestly), just implying the victim might have some self accountability is rude, and implying the abuser is more than an evil archetype means you defend them and their actions. It’s a bit polarizing, just a bit.
But I think thats just how people are, especially on Twitter. I think this mishap is sufficiently explained now. That’s all, thanks for reading.
They’re also not always enablers, I really didn’t word that well. There are definitely scenarios where the victim can’t do anything – I just had a specific setting in mind there, which I should have made clear lol