Ok. I completely misunderstood about the non-hypothetical part, because of the phrase “A typical pattern can be described like this”. I would absolutely not have claimed to be able to evaluate your own situation better than you can. I had no basis for knowing that this was a real thing that happened.
I wrote my reblog from the perspective of someone who has been on both sides of a situation that looked superficially like the one outlined in your post, but was not abusive or manipulative. Hence, I felt the need to respond. But, given this new information about context and audience, the correct and appropriate response to a post like the OP is not “but basically all of these numbered items can happen without any psychological manipulation taking place!” None of what I said about honest discussion etc. works in a situation in which one partner is engaging in deliberate manipulation.
You cannot compare simple nonconsent to the deliberate revocation of affection in order to create dependency in a partner.
No, you can’t. I agree. My original reblog was trying to make the point that you can’t tell just from someone’s behavior which of these they are doing. A nonspecific multitude of people, not a single concrete one. Again, it was assuming that the situation outlined was general/hypothetical, which was mistaken, and that the post was intended for a general audience (of “people in relationships”) as opposed to a specific audience (of “people who have also experienced this inside an abusive relationship”), which was also mistaken.
But, given that, I also wasn’t making presumptions about you or personally attacking you, because I had no idea that you were talking about one particular situation which was also your own.
Instead, I will reblog some of the relevant information from the end of the OP that ties up the post nicely.
The abusive partner will exploit BDSM rhetoric that normalizes abrupt withdrawal of affection, pushing “limits”, and creating a dependent submissive partner whose primary interest is not fully realized physical pleasure, but mental and/or emotional gratification that will only be offered to them if they obey the abuser’s ostensibly consensual rules. The fact remains that, in any relationship where sex is the primary if not sole vehicle for demonstrating affection towards and validating one’s partner, the potential for abuse to occur is extremely high, and very few observers will notice anything is amiss, since the victim appears so very invested in sexual contact (in some cases even more invested than the abuser).
A “TYPICAL PATTERN” OF ABUSE, WHICH WAS MADE EXPLICITLY CLEAR BY THE REST OF MY POST, WHICH SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT REVOCATION OF AFFECTION TO MANIPULATE ONE’S PARTNER AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DEVASTATING EMOTIONAL EFFECTS THAT CAN HAVE
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU FOCUSED ON ONE FUCKING SENTENCE THAT IS CLARIFIED BY THE ENTIRE POST THAT FOLLOWS
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF BOLDING A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE MADE YOU PAUSE AND THINK “WOW, LOOKS LIKE SHE ALREADY COVERED THE ISSUE OF RELATIONSHIPS LOOKING DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTSIDE”
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF IMPLYING THAT YES, THIS MAY BE ABUSE SOMETIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS SO MAYBE WE SHOULDN’T TALK ABOUT IT ON TUMBLR BECAUSE AMBIGUITY
why can’t we talk about these things with specifying “by victims, for victims”? Why can’t it be assumed that they are already part of the audience, because they are, and they deserve that dialogue.
We have a right to speak without laying our hearts out on the table.
Finally, I will say this: any relationship where you can’t behave like a decent human being outside a sexual context is inherently unhealthy and has a high potential for abuse. It took me ages to come to terms with that, and I am not qualifying it, because I believe it’s true. If you first reaction is to worry that someone might look at your relationships and wonder if abuse is a factor, something is deeply wrong, and it’s not the fact that victims are talking about it, that’s for damn sure.