[ SECRET POST #2005 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2005 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06. [nf]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. http://i.imgur.com/H1X1Z.gif
[linked because uh not sure if this is porn or not; live action]


__________________________________________________



09. http://i.imgur.com/pNcu1.jpg
[porn of the drawn variety - Tintin]


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________












[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]











11. [SPOILER WARNING for Hourou Musuko]



__________________________________________________



12. [SPOILER WARNING for Prometheus]



__________________________________________________



13. [SPOILER WARNING for Homestuck]



__________________________________________________



14. [SPOILER WARNING for Avengers]



__________________________________________________



15. [SPOILER WARNING for Merlin]



__________________________________________________



16. [SPOILER WARNING for Tangled]



__________________________________________________













[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












17. [WARNING for ... pretty sure this has something to do with rape]



__________________________________________________



18. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #286.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[visp.livejournal.com]

Or OP could be in denial about a Gothel-like character in her own life.

[(Anonymous)]

This was my first thought as well.

[(Anonymous)]

This isn't the first time we get a secret like this, and this is always the first thought that crosses my mind every time I read one of them.

I think it's the desperate undertone of trying to justify Gothel's actions, which sounds like someone trying to excuse a loved one's actions.

She's a character and a relationship that hit home with many viewers, and it must hurt a fuckton to admit that someone you love, someone who probably really does love you (unlike Gothel with Rapunzel, because life is sometimes messy like that), could hurt you like that.

It's to admit that people that you respected (or feared), who you looked up to can be imperfect, and that they might have been guiding you wrong all along. I've never been in that situation, but I try to imagine it and it's terrifying. It's like realizing that a big part of your life was a lie, so what could you do? Where could you go next?

[world_eater]

Please tell me more about how you guys majored in armchair psychology.


Some people are being really stupid (including the commenter who said that the OP should never have kids, wtf). Everyone seems to agree that this is what abusers do, they give you just enough reason to say "But they do X, Y and Z! They're not that bad!"... so why would anyone spot that behaviour who's not familiar with the topic? Why can't people fall for a "fictional abuser" without being in super denial about their real life?

[hiyami]

Because usually it's easier to detect that a relationship is abusive when you're not part of it, when, like it's the case with watching the movie, you see *all* of the relationship. And not just the nice front that the abuser will put up when they're outside.

[world_eater]

Which doesn't answer my question.

[hiyami]

If it's easy to pinpoint an abusive relationship from the outside, the odds are that someone who is unable to see the abusive part in the one portrayed in this movie (hello, locking up someone for life?) is probably in a similar relationship.

Not 100% odds, but more likely than someone having been 'blessed with a non-manipulative, non-abusive mother.'

See the secret a few posts ago by someone who only realized their mother was abusive after reading all the comments about Gothel being so.

(also apologies for my icon, but I only have 2 at the moment and none is appropriate. That reminds me that I have to upload at least one another, a neutral one).

[world_eater]

Isn't what you're saying the very definition of armchair psychology?

[hiyami]

Not more than the comment people were replying to, getting all defensive and claiming that OP must having been blessed with a loving mother to say that.

Tbh, reading the secret I was more sorry for OP if they believe that rather than angry at them for not seeing the abuse.

[world_eater]

Yeah but I was not defending that person either, was I?

[pengychan]

Honestly: which part of kidnapping a child, lying to them, keeping them locked up and away from the world, constantly putting them down and undermining their confidence so that they would never try to leave - and doing so solely for one's own benefit - and then putting them in chains when they try to take their life in their own hands - makes her "not that bad of a mother"?

I think Gothel is a very interesting character - they really were on to something when they came up with her as the villain - but I find it honestly worrying that anyone may think she was anywhere near an even vaguely decent parent.

[world_eater]

Huh, that is weird, I could've sworn I never said such a thing ;)

[pengychan]

I know you didn't. I was replying about this part:
"the commenter who said that the OP should never have kids, wtf"
since it was me to say that; basically, that was an explanation on why I really hope that anyone who thinks that is decent parenting thinks long and hard about it before ever raising kids themselves.

[visp.livejournal.com]

*shrug* It was just an option, not a diagnosis. But for your information, I didn't major in armchair psychology. I majored in Internet Psychological Diagnosis - so I'm far more qualified to have opinions on this matter. (it was a liberal school)

While i usually think the whole "never have kids" comment is out of line.... if you can't see that Gothel's behaviour is very wrong, then that doesn't speak well for personal parenting skills.

and really? She's a Disney villain. They aren't exactly the most subtle antagonists out there - not that hard to notice.

[world_eater]

Personally I found she was one of the more subtle villains, really, even if she was obviously played as one.
I remember one thing that bugs me to this day in the movie is her "the world is dark and cruel" line which made me want to know more because it sounded like there was something behind her nature besides vanity, like maybe she was abused herself or something. I blame the voice acting for that, it's really good.

[(Anonymous)]

As visp said, none of us was diagnosing the OP of this secret with anything. We were just pointing out an alternative interpretation to a commenter who basically said, "Wow, you must have had a really cushy childhood with ideal parents, since you don't recognize abuse when you see it."

"Why would anyone spot that behavior who's not familiar with the topic?" I think a person who had a happy childhood with a basically healthy, loving relationship with their parents, or a person who has experienced emotional abuse but got away from the abuser, are almost equally likely to see Gothel's behavior as unhealthy, creepily possessive, selfish and abusive. If you've experienced abuse and you have gained perspective about it by getting away from it, you'll recognize it. If you had a healthy, non-abusive, non-manipulative relationship with your parents, you'll recognize its opposite. But if you had an emotionally abusive parent and don't realize it, then your only model for a good parent-child relationship is the one you were told was good. You lack a perspective from which to judge.

[world_eater]

Eh, that's basically what I was calling armchair psychology though, I might not have used the proper word? What you're saying seems such a simplistic look at it.
See, what's bugging me so much about that logic is that I don't have an abusive mother and I never would've classified Gothel as abusive (or noticed the whole nickname, hair-touching, undermining confidence thing. I thought she was just wacky, because Disney villains usually are) and I would guess that it is simply because I'm bad at picking up such things. I refuse to believe I'm the only one who was totally blown away when people commented on that.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, you thought Gothel was "just wacky" and you're calling anybody's analysis simplistic? Does not compute.

[world_eater]

Not the analysis of Gothel, the analysis of the people who do not perceive her as abusive.

[Edit]
And before that's up for misinterpretation too: I meant the analyising that people here do of those that do not...and so on.