Truly, what compels a person to do such a thing? I too have struggled heavily with depression in the past, but I've never once felt the urge to repeatedly vandalize anyone's property.
Like, I just don't understand what's to gain.
Like, I just don't understand what's to gain.
In the past I have been obsessive. Had I not got help I could have ended up like the stalker in the story.
It starts out innocent enough. Dating involves lots of subtle signals and cues. I remember calling someone many many times in one day, thinking "There's a possibility I'm being strange, but there's also a chance that she's just not home. If I don't call and call again I could miss my chance. And this is my only chance, if I don't make sure she knows I want to date her I'm going to end up alone forever". I'm sure you can see the cognitive distortions at play here. I certainly acknowledged that my behavior was unusual, but I was so fixated on the person that I couldn't stop myself.
I suspect this is what happened with the person in the story. They noticed the sister and became obsessed. First trying to do things "the right way" with super-likes etc within the dating app. After that, finding the instagram and so on. It slowly ramps up. The damage to the car etc I have less insight on, but perhaps it relates to the fact that being ignored by the target of your obsession feels so bad that any kind of reaction, good or bad, would feel better. Or perhaps it's revenge for "making me feel bad". I think the stalker probably doesn't have much insight to their own behavior. I only gained insight years after the fact.
In general, I think dating apps don't help with this kind of behavior. They perpetuate the idea that there are "perfect matches" and that once you find your perfect partner everything will click into place. It's just like Hollywood movies, the couple gets together and then the credits roll. In reality, that's the very beginning. We should be talking about the work and effort that goes into building a relationship, as well as giving people the tools to notice when their behavior is not acceptable.
Though I think the username annie_muss is a play on anonymous
in these kinds of threads, everyone is already primed to the worst case toxic scenario, or some other uncollaborative toxic scenario, specifically from the idea of the lowest denominator man harassing women
the reality is never so rigid
many dating profiles advertise their instagram, many times that is just a vanity project to gain followers, many times sending a message on Instagram or some other way to get noticed on Instagram can lead to agreed upon in person interaction such as dates and hookups, many times sending a message is fruitless because that person gets so much attention and their inbox is not useful, or because that person just hasn't checked their messages yet
I have absolutely had one night stands with someone I saw on a dating app, never attempted to match with, messaged them on Instagram and told them I saw them on the dating app, and went out the same day.
I've done that with women that I never even mentioned that I saw them on a dating app first. Beautiful people. The proverbial "thirst traps".
Sometimes we never even follow each other on the social media site. Just all DMs.
I've had flings and relationships with people that only reply sporadically. Or who give one word responses but are completely talkative in person. Or who apologize about not responding often because they are actually busy people who aren't trying to send a hint at all.
and the most important part of this? I have dozens of these low effort threads out there. For every one where its supposed to be interpreted as "a woman changing her behavior to be offstandish because they can't tell which man is a creep" there is "a woman thats not trying to send a hint at all collaboratively communicating like everyone else, good thing you tried again"
I would wager that most people do not keep track of whether they sent one girl 4+ unreplied messages in a row over any time period and its freaking her out, versus the conversation that will be replied to eventually. I try to be cognizant of "how it looks" no different than trying to be cognizant of how walking past a playground on the walking trail on the way to the grocery store looks. But changing my behavior because people can't tell which guys are going to go full stalker mode and assault people? Unlikely.
I’ve also messaged “thirst traps” from one of my meme/popular accounts to great effect. They don’t show me at all and nothing links it to my personal one. People would be surprised what various women respond to, a popular account is very similar effect to shiny material things that suggest currency/external validation/attention.
I would say that when messages get read at all, things go well for me. Instagram DMs are basically broken for hot or in-demand people (I know from how my own meme accounts works) so if I just tried to send DMs to every profile I saw from a dating app, most would go unread and likely never seen. Some targeting works.
(outside of dating apps and social media, I do many other things to meet women different ways, I’m not really preoccupied with the aforementioned methods but they are also there and romance has happened the way I described)
I would say that I too spend more energy than I would prefer in reaching these intimate outcomes with new women.
One important myth is, "He can't control himself". E.g., he's not good at managing anger, so he needs classes. But it turns out a lot of abusive people are perfectly good at managing their anger except when the target is, say, a vulnerable woman. A person who is equally shitty to their boss and their coworkers? Mental illness could be an explanation. But one who's terrible only to the intern? That's just an abuser.
I think the thing that would shock many people is that abusers have often adopted methods of harm and subjugation that they internalized and came to consider normal, justified, and correct. They're executing from a place of intent and necessity, not chaos. They witness themselves doing it from a wildly different perspective than those around them would, and they may think the worst thing they do is get "a little heavy handed" or something. They might say that perhaps they got too loud or angry, but whatever they did was close enough to in line with what was necessitated by their target's bad behaviour.
It could range from keeping a partner "in line" with passive aggressive ridicule, physical violence, abject control (denying access to car keys, no going out past 7pm, can't eat x amount of food, etc), to being so relentlessly discouraging and belittling that the partner feels helpless and trapped. No matter what it is they're doing, they whole-heartedly believe it's deserved and they're operating with as much control as anyone typically has.
When we witness their behaviour we see a monster. And yet they're going about their work as though they are the one being inconvenienced by their incompetent/immoral/stupid/whatever partner.
Many of these people would never dream of kicking their dog or something but they've completely normalized verbally and/or physically abusing people they have intimate relationships with. What would leave you absolutely mortified with yourself is simply necessary to these people.
This is often why it's best to end these relationships. Someone who has normalized abuse could change, but there is a very good chance that you shouldn't wait to find out.
One of the wild things to me, though, is the doublethink. It's true that if you ask them, they'll often say it was justified. But on the other hand, they generally know to save the worst of it until they can't be observed by outsiders. They're usually quite canny about presenting a non-abusive face to the world. So there's an important sense in which they know what they're doing is wrong.
Adding to this from my own experience.
People tend to need reasons to change, and an abuser has no such reason, as their behavior gets them exactly what they want from their victims and relationships. They could change if they wanted to, but why would they do that when they're already getting what they want?
Plenty of abusers like to paint "real abuse" as the expectations of treating their partners with respect and as equals, they are fundamentally opposed to the behaviors and beliefs needed to maintain healthy relationships. It is nearly impossible to change those deeply held beliefs, let alone address the behaviors that stem from those beliefs.
I agree with your premise, but I'd replace "very good chance" with "utter certainty" that you shouldn't stick around hoping that an abuser is willing to change.
> The most common rant goes something like this: “The way Lundy describes abuse in Why Does He Do That?, any man can be labeled an abuser. He takes normal reactions to frustration and anger and throws them in with violence and threats, as if they’re all the same. If men say anything other than ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ to women, he paints them as evil. Because of ideas like Lundy’s, women in droves are labeling their partners ‘abusers’ and dumping the relationship, instead of responsibly working out issues and honoring the vows they made. And because of this children are growing up in broken homes.” (Etc., etc.)
> This tirade is super revealing, primarily for one reason: the dozens of examples of male behavior that I give in Why Does He Do That? are all severe. They illustrate men being over-the-top complete assholes. There is nothing subtle about the stories I use. I’m not discussing little nuances that, say, someone might take the wrong way; that would be a different book altogether. Mine was about severe control, degradation, destroying the woman’s relationships, making her feel like everything is her fault, and on and on and on.
> So what does it mean when a man reads those stories and considers them to be normal behaviors, ones that I’m unfairly labeling abusive? It means he considers those behaviors normal. It means he believes a woman has the responsibility to stick around for more of that kind of treatment, that she owes it to him. And it means he thinks he has the right to behave that way.
> In other words, abusiveness is driven almost entirely by a man’s belief that controlling and punishing a woman is justifiable, and that his behavior is normal and can be excused.
> And he proves it by his reactions to the stories in my books. I’m not calling him abusive because he disagrees with me; I’m doing so because of the values he reveals when he complains that my (very serious) examples are too mild to be considered abuse. [0]
0 - https://lundybancroft.com/mens-angry-messages-to-me/
1 - https://lundybancroft.com/mens-angry-messages-to-me-part-2/
It was very helpful to know what I was caught up in; otherwise I could have easily blamed myself or just felt at sea.
Fundamentally, I believe we need to do more for people like this. Safety nets and mental health and, if needed, in patient care. Would this have happened if the person had access to excellent therapy, medication, and support? Maybe, maybe not, but I would like to think that it would happen a whole lot less.
Basically, the plot of every '80s and '90s Romantic Comedy. Entertainment of that decade left entire generations with warped views of courting and consent!
I feel like a lot of these situations can be avoided with some simple, hard rules: primarily a) no means no when it comes to anything flirting, and b) don’t become obsessed with any one person at least until you’re dating*.
There’s a lot of nuance in social communication, but I really don’t see a case when you should break any of these hard rules. So many instances of serious harassment come down to breaking one or all of them. Idk how but the world would be much better if we could somehow just convince people to never, ever break them, and even if they are already broken, to just stop.
* There’s also c) stop doing something “romantic” or “social” if you notice it makes others uncomfortable. But I suspect some people just can’t notice discomfort. The key words are “romantic” or “social” (and for a it is “flirting”) because sometimes you have to boss people around and say things which make them uncomfortable, like that they need to get out of the way or their job performance needs to improve, but you should never be making people awkward or uncomfortable if you are “just chatting”; and you will never get a girlfriend or boyfriend by scaring or pressuring them. Well, maybe you will if they’re not very smart, but that’s morally wrong, or if you’re high-profile or in Iraq, but you’re not and that’s also morally wrong. Like I said, nuance
Many of them would learn how to better conceal their behaviors and get away with what they're doing.
It's the same reason that traditional therapy is detrimental when it comes to people with NPD, abusers, anti-social disorders, etc: they just learn how to weaponize earnest therapists along with what they learn in therapy against their victims.
Depends on the kind of stalker. I think you get these delusional obsessive people, but you also get abusive exes who stalk their ex to keep them from moving on or try to scare and intimidate and sometimes assault or kill their new partners.
The killers were more sympathetic. I can understand killing your kidnapper and rapist to escape, even if it is technically unlawful killing, I cannot understand stalking people who want nothing to do with you for years.
At the end of the day, stalkers truly believe they are entitled to stalk and hurt their victims. They 100% believe they have the right to terrorize their "love" interests, for example. They think their victims deserve it. The incredulous sentiment from stalkers always seems to be "what would you do in this situation", as if the only logical solution they faced was stalking their victims.
When it comes to stalkers, it's a matter of entitlement and seriously fucked up beliefs.
The brain is the thing that tells you what is and isn't right. It provides motivation, impulses, everything. And it can break in any number of ways- depression is merely one of them.
This person is ill. That doesn't excuse them, but it does help explain them.
However, I do not think the vast majority of stalkers are impaired in that way. If you're so impaired that you're stalking others, the rest of your life will also be a shitshow because of your impairment. Holding down a job, maintaining friendly and familial relationships, securing housing, staying out of prison, etc are going to be out of reach for people who are genuinely that impaired.
The vast majority of people who abuse and stalk their love interests are not that impaired. They're able to have real careers and relationships that would otherwise be prevented from real impairment. These people don't stalk or abuse other people in their lives, just the people they believe they're entitled to stalk and abuse. They are not impaired, they are selective about their actions and successfully compartmentalize those behaviors in ways that prevent them from negatively affecting the rest of their lives. That shows planning, intent and control, not impairment from illness.
Would be great to see more focus on mental helth care, I guess this is the way to prevent situations like this one.