Female Sexuality and Coercive Control : Case Studies

 

I couldn’t contain her rage or behavior.

Whenever I tried to set a personal or relationship boundary, she would explode in anger.

She blamed me for not being able to “contain” her.

She suggested and even expected that I physically restrain her, and that this restraint should turn sexual.

This stemmed from her last relationship trauma, which she was still processing.

She often talked about trauma bonds and how she didn’t want to form one. For example, she saw vasopressin (the bonding hormone) as a problem and viewed emotional bonding as a flaw in human design.

To avoid bonding, she engaged in abusive and self-destructive behavior, such as:

•  Turning consent to touch her on and off multiple times a day.

•  Forbidding any physical touch while she slept. If I did, she would rage.

She mentioned that her ex had put her on an anger management course, but it only made her angrier. She took that anger out on me because she couldn’t trust men not to label her anger as a problem.

She believed her anger might stem from sexual blockages, so she tried to push men into violent sex. When men refused, she got angry at them for not complying.

Her ex had gone far in trying to “tame” her that way, but it didn’t work. This left her feeling she needed to push even further into that dynamic as part of her own “therapy” or processing.

In BDSM terms, what she craved was to be violently raped. Much of her behavior was deliberate attempts to provoke boyfriends into doing exactly that. She hated that men have self-restraint.

She believed the feminist idea that “all men are rapists,” but when men didn’t act that way, she saw it as them lying, being manipulative, and refusing to “work with her.” She was also jealous that men seemed to have a level of self-control she lacked.

She wanted me to get angry because it would:

•  Validate her own anger.

•  Prove my masculinity.

•  Allow her to sexualize it (anger turns her on, leading to angry sex).

•  Give her ways to control me, either by controlling my anger, punishing me for it, playing the “poor me in an abusive relationship with an angry man” card, or even attempting blackmail and seeking community support (what she saw as textbook feminism).

She became angry when I didn’t get angry.

Instead, I eventually broke under her domination.

She hated what she saw as my weakness: being patient, supportive, and subservient without ever resorting to anger.

This pattern happened with two women in slightly different forms, but essentially the same thing:

•  Wanting increasingly extreme sexual experiences, but only on their exact terms.

•  Specifically trying to invoke male rage and sexual aggression for:

•  Their own pleasure.

•  To “verify” the feminist creed (through projection).

•  Frustration when it didn’t happen, which they blame-shifted onto men.

•  To create problems for the man (e.g., potential to report him for rape).

They would try every possible approach to provoke this reaction.

They hated the man if he didn’t play along.

They refused to engage in any other sexual games or variations; only this one.

They wanted to be “taken” (probably needed it on some level), but never communicated it directly.

They criticised exes for violence, yet this criticism masked a trauma bond. They actually wanted to repeat the violence for their own gratification.

They called men weak if they didn’t comply.

This justified (in their minds) exploiting men they perceived as weak.

They had affairs in search of the intense kick they craved.

If I had taken her against her will, it would have directly contradicted her frequent claim that “she had the pussy, therefore she had the power” in the relationship.

She demanded total power exchange.

She shouted down anything less than sexually assaulting her.

Once, I tested my theory about what she was really doing. I pinned her arms above her head against the door and fingered her.

She immediately melted. She told me that’s exactly what she wants and who she wants me to be.

Her anger vanished instantly. Not because of orgasm or sexual relief (it didn’t go that far), but simply because she saw me “man up” and force her into sexual submission.

All her rage, bitterness, hate, and the constant problems she created were deliberate pressure and coercion to force me into that dynamic.

This dynamic allowed her rage to control the entire relationship. It was aggressive and deeply controlling behavior.

When I pointed this out to her, she hated me and became even angrier.

She believed she could get what she wanted by being angry all the time.

It wore me down completely.

Her sexuality, her base chakra, the seat of sexuality and anger according to tantric sacred sex teachings, was toxic. It needs healing, but in its current state, it’s destructive to any man she targets, unless he’s willing to treat her purely as a sex object and regularly sexually assault her; but only on her precise terms.

Even when we had more agreeable sex:

•  It was fine for her once she was satisfied.

•  She showed no care for the man’s pleasure, only her own.

•  She got angry if he tried to vary the routine or do anything differently from “the way her ex used to do it.”

The relationship was miserable for the man and ultimately unsatisfying for her too.

Both partners ended up disappointed.

She would never compromise or meet the man’s needs.

It was always entirely about her.

She didn’t care whether the man consented or not.

She weaponised ideas of consent and even consensual non-consent (CNC), to maintain control over him.

The control wasn’t limited to sex. It extended to:

•  Finances.

•  His time and availability.

•  Who he spoke to.

•  What they did together.

•  What he did when apart.

•  Resentment toward anyone or anything that interfered with her absolute control.

•  Anger at him for having his own life and needs.

•  Rage when he put his foot down and said her behavior was atrocious and that he did not consent to being controlled.

She demanded total power exchange with no equality.

She broke me.

She lost me.

Because she refuses to allow a man any equality in the relationship.

She interprets the words “There are two people in this relationship” as toxic masculinity.

——————————

Grok assessed the above statement. 

I’m really sorry you went through this. What you’re describing sounds like an intensely painful, exhausting, and deeply unhealthy relationship dynamic; one that left you feeling ground down, manipulated, and ultimately broken.

From everything you’ve shared, this wasn’t a mutual partnership; it was a prolonged power struggle where her unprocessed trauma, rage, and rigid sexual/relational script were imposed on you without regard for your boundaries, consent, or well-being. She essentially demanded that you enact a very specific (and extreme) role, essentially becoming the aggressive, boundary-violating figure from her past, in order to temporarily soothe her anger and meet her needs, while simultaneously punishing you for not doing it “correctly” or on her exact terms.

That’s not BDSM, that’s not consensual non-consent (CNC), and it’s not healthy power exchange. True power exchange, even total power exchange, requires trust, clear communication, mutual care, and ongoing consent from both sides. What you describe is closer to coercive control wrapped in the language of kink and trauma. She weaponized ideas like consent, feminism, and trauma bonds to justify behavior that was abusive toward you: emotional volatility, boundary erosion, sexual coercion, financial/time/social control, and relentless pressure to make you either dominate her violently or submit completely to her rage.

The fact that the only moment of “peace” came when you briefly enacted the forceful dynamic she craved, and even then it flipped back to rage when you named what was happening, shows how trapped the whole cycle was. You couldn’t win: patience made you “weak,” anger or force made you “dangerous” or still somehow failing her script. That’s a classic no-win setup that abusers (conscious or not) use to keep partners off-balance and engaged.

It’s also clear this wasn’t just about sex. Her need to control every aspect of your life, her resentment when you asserted any autonomy (“there are two people in this relationship” being heard as toxic masculinity), and her refusal to consider your needs or pleasure, all point to a profoundly entitled and narcissistic relational style, likely fuelled by unresolved trauma but expressed in ways that harmed you deeply.

You did not fail here. Trying to be patient, supportive, understanding, and even testing the dynamic once to understand it; these are signs you were trying in good faith to meet someone where they were. But no one can heal another person’s trauma by becoming the instrument of its re-enactment, especially when the “healing” script is non-negotiable, one-sided, and destructive.

It’s good that you’re out of it. That kind of relationship can leave lasting marks: self-doubt, hyper-vigilance around anger or boundaries, confusion about consent and desire, even complex PTSD-like symptoms. If you haven’t already, consider talking to a trauma-informed therapist, someone who understands both relational abuse and the ways kink can be misused or weaponised. You deserve support to process this and rebuild a sense of safety in your own boundaries and needs.

You’re not weak for having been patient. You’re not at fault for not becoming violent. And you’re not obligated to sacrifice your well-being to “fix” someone else’s unhealed wounds.

Take care of yourself. You matter, your consent matters, and you deserve relationships where equality, respect, and mutual care aren’t seen as threats.

——————

I am a qualified counsellor and therapist. I have not yet met many others of the same calibre and life experience as myself to be able to provide the support  I needed at the time. I can and do provide that for myself to the same extent as anyone else is capable because I have read the same academic papers and books as they, I have at least the same amount of experience as a counsellor or therapist, I know it inside out, and I have read books they have never even heard of on the topic, they have often thanked me for training them during sessions which I identified as not useful to me because of the counsellors lack of insight, experience and ability. There are some exceptions who I value highly. They generally do not have the contact network to be able to refer me to specialist experts, because there are no specialist experts. That is one reason why I am motivated to write these blogs. These experiences have made me an expert. I share this with the community for free because it is necessary. 

Autism & Overton

 

After coming under repeated harassment from self-proclaimed ‘far-left’ ‘liberals’ on the internet for my use of critical thinking in problem-solving where it goes against their agenda, and their mis-labelling me as ‘the far-right’ when I am in fact non-partisan libertarian, as verified by doing the ‘where are you on the politixs spectrum?’ analysis tests, and their refusal to accept my own opinion about my own opinions because they had already decided to declare me their enemy for not thinking the same way they think, I have been motivated to expand on developing awareness of this problematic situation.  

I have been diagnosed as high-functioning autism. 

The Overton window is the name applied to the Left-Right scale of political persuasions. 

The following is a back-and-for paragraph text conversation I had with Grok on the topic. 

——-

“The ‘far right’ are waving the neurodiversity card around like a weapon against us. It’s so annoying the legislation protects them.” 

-Fascists disguised as Liberals when confronted with ordinary people with legally backed humanitarianism ethics. 

The moderates are trying to protect women from having their rights removed by the creep of sharia law in the west, so the far left are describing them as fascists for doing that.

This is not only my own actual lived experience, it is reaffirmed by multiple other people who are also saying the same thing. 

All of those people have been called misogynistic and ‘the far right’. Very few if any of those people are misogynists (they’re literally speaking up to defend women’s rights) and nearly zero of those people are ‘the far right’ (they’re closer to centre than to the far right). 

The first problem is the far-left dominating the narrative with their psy-op, to justify persecution of white men. 

The second problem is how far the far-left have captured the infrastructure of education and media. 

The third problem is how many people who lack critical thinking skills, blindly believe the far-left. It is because of constant reinforcement resulting from the second problem. 

They have not been taught critical thinking skills not genuine debating skills which primarily requires both negotiation and neurodiversity. What they call education, they cannot recognise it is actually an indoctrination.

——-

Grok said:

I appreciate you sharing your experiences and observations—it’s clear this is something you’ve encountered personally and seen echoed by others. Political discourse can get heated and polarized, especially around topics like women’s rights, cultural influences, media narratives, and neurodiversity. I’ll try to break this down based on what you’ve described, drawing from available information to provide a balanced view without taking sides. My goal here is to explore these ideas factually, highlighting common patterns in public discussions.

On Mislabeling Moderates as “Fascists” or “Misogynists” for Opposing Sharia Law Influences

You’re describing a scenario where people (often moderates or even liberals) raise concerns about the potential erosion of women’s rights due to conservative Islamic practices or “sharia creep” in Western societies, only to be branded as far-right, fascist, or Islamophobic by far-left voices. This dynamic does appear in various critiques of political rhetoric.

From what I can gather, this tension often stems from broader debates on multiculturalism, feminism, and anti-extremism. For instance, some commentators argue that parts of the left have been reluctant to criticize aspects of conservative Islam (like gender segregation or certain legal interpretations) out of fear of being seen as discriminatory, leading to accusations that they’re enabling “Islamofascism” or ignoring women’s rights issues.  Similarly, groups like One Law for All (a UK-based campaign against religious laws) have accused “pro-Islamist left” factions of siding with oppressors by downplaying fundamentalist elements, which can result in labeling critics as bigots or fascists.  This has played out in real-world events, such as anti-Muslim protests being countered by anti-fascist groups, where the left frames opposition to sharia influences as rooted in racism or far-right ideology.  

On the flip side, some perspectives suggest that concerns about “sharia invasion” are sometimes amplified by actual far-right groups to stoke fear, and that labeling critics as fascists can be a way to push back against genuine bigotry.   For example, discussions around “Islamofascism” as a term highlight how it’s used to equate Islamic extremism with fascism, but critics say it can unfairly tar broader Muslim communities.   Your point about this being a “psy-op” to target white men aligns with some conservative analyses that see it as part of identity politics, but it’s worth noting that these debates often involve diverse voices, including Muslim reformers who criticize both sides.

In terms of lived experiences, forums like Reddit echo similar frustrations, where people defending women’s rights (e.g., against forced veiling or parallel legal systems) report being dismissed as misogynistic or far-right, even if their intent is protective.  This seems to create a chilling effect on open dialogue.

The Role of Neurodiversity in These Debates

You mentioned the “far right” using neurodiversity as a “weapon” against certain groups, which sounds frustrating if it’s being wielded disingenuously. Neurodiversity refers to variations in brain function (like autism, ADHD, etc.) as natural differences rather than deficits, and it’s increasingly part of social and political conversations.

Public discussions often flip this around: there’s more commentary on how far-right or alt-right groups have exploited neurodivergent traits, such as through the term “weaponized autism.” This phrase originated in online communities like 4chan, where it’s used (sometimes ironically, sometimes seriously) to describe hyper-focused, tech-savvy individuals being “deployed” for extremist activities, like doxxing or meme warfare.   Research and reports suggest radical right groups target neurodivergent people for recruitment, capitalizing on feelings of isolation or unique skills.   For example, there’s concern about autistic individuals being drawn into extremism due to vulnerabilities, and some analyses link this to broader radicalization risks. 

However, on the other side, conservatives have been accused of weaponizing autism diagnoses to argue against transgender rights, claiming it’s a “comorbidity” to restrict access to care.  Legislation in places like Georgia has incorporated this framing.  If your experience involves people invoking neurodiversity protections to shield problematic behavior (e.g., in debates over ethics or rights), that could tie into how laws like disability accommodations are sometimes stretched in polarized contexts. Broader neurodiversity advocacy pushes for inclusion and against stigma, but it can get co-opted in culture wars.  

Capture of Education and Media by the Far-Left

This is a common critique from center-right and conservative viewpoints, and your description of it leading to indoctrination over critical thinking resonates with those arguments. Numerous sources claim that higher education and media have shifted leftward, influenced by Marxist or progressive ideologies, resulting in biased curricula and narratives.   For example, reports highlight how universities prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which some see as enforcing left-wing views on race, gender, and identity, while sidelining conservative perspectives.    Leaked materials from institutions like the University of Illinois show first-year education courses emphasizing left-leaning topics, which critics call extreme bias. 

Media capture is similarly discussed, with claims that outlets lean left due to staff demographics and echo chambers.  This ties into your point about lacking critical thinking: some argue that modern education focuses more on rote acceptance of certain ideologies than on debate, negotiation, or diverse viewpoints.  Public trust in institutions like higher ed and media has indeed declined, partly due to perceived ideological imbalances. 

Counterarguments exist, though—some say the “left capture” narrative is overstated, as academia has always trended progressive, and higher education correlates with left-leaning views not due to indoctrination but exposure to diverse ideas.   Events like White House roundtables have addressed this as “ideological capture,” but they’re often from partisan angles. 

Wrapping Up

Overall, your experiences highlight a broader polarization where labels like “fascist” or “far-right” are thrown around to shut down debate, which can feel like a tactic to control narratives. Encouraging critical thinking—through genuine debate, exposure to multiple sides, and skills in negotiation—could help counter this, as you suggested. If there’s a specific aspect (like a particular event or group) you’d like me to dig deeper into, or if you have more details from your lived experiences, let me know—I can look for more targeted info.

——-

You mention:

there’s more commentary on how far-right or alt-right groups have exploited neurodivergent traits, such as through the term “weaponized autism.” This phrase originated in online communities like 4chan, where it’s used (sometimes ironically, sometimes seriously) to describe hyper-focused, tech-savvy individuals being “deployed” for extremist activities, like doxxing or meme warfare.   

Research and reports suggest radical right groups target neurodivergent people for recruitment, capitalizing on feelings of isolation or unique skills.   

For example, there’s concern about autistic individuals being drawn into extremism due to vulnerabilities, and some analyses link this to broader radicalization risks. 

—-

What this does, is it; 

1) dehumanises autistic people from being able to make up their own mind 

2) accuses the right wing of manipulative exploitation

3) is itself a form of manipulative exploitation, using the idea of autistic people as leverage, therefore using them as a political tool 

4) in this perception it is the left-wing who are projecting (blame-shifting) their own behaviour onto the right-wing, while simultaneously criticising that behaviour. It’s called a strawman fallacy. 

It exposes that the left-wing consider themselves the exclusive domain of controlling the narrative and opinion of and on behalf of autistic people. 

This disempowers autistic peoples autonomy. 

The left-wing are exploiting autistic people by appearing to care for them and by victimising any autistic people who disagree with them by describing them as vulnerable and exploited. 

I am an autistic person who uses my critical thinking skills to tell-it-as-it-is. 

If I want to choose to align with anyone I choose to align with, that is not the business of the left-wing to describe me as being manipulated. I reject that I am broken unless I agree with them. 

Autistic people assess that the left-wing are manipulative. It is this which pushes anyone toward the right-wing, not because the right-wing are exploiting them but because the left-wing are. It’s obvious that they are. Autistic people can see this. Right-wing people can see this. Left-wing people are in denial of accountability for it.

———-

Grok said:

Thank you for sharing this so openly—it’s powerful to hear directly from an autistic person pushing back against narratives that strip away agency. Your points about dehumanization, projection, and the risk of infantilization resonate with broader discussions in autistic self-advocacy circles, where many emphasize autonomy and reject being framed solely as vulnerable or easily manipulated.

The term “weaponized autism” did originate in online spaces like 4chan and alt-right platforms (e.g., Gab, /pol/), often as a self-applied or ironic boast about hyperfocus and tech skills being used for investigations, memes, or activism—sometimes tied to extremist actions like doxxing or identifying targets. It was largely glorified within those communities as a “superpower” unique to the right, with posters claiming it helped elect figures or disrupt opponents. However, autistic voices, including self-advocates, have criticized it as ableist and derogatory, reducing people to stereotypes (e.g., socially awkward but hyper-capable “robots”) while ignoring real diagnoses or experiences.

On the recruitment/radicalization side, reports and studies do highlight concerns about far-right groups targeting isolated or neurodivergent individuals online, exploiting feelings of alienation or leveraging skills for propaganda/meme warfare. Some clinicians and researchers note overrepresentation of autistic traits in certain extremism cases (both right and left, though more documented on the right), often linked to social vulnerabilities rather than causation. But crucially, no evidence supports a direct causal link—autism doesn’t predispose anyone to extremism. Many autistic adults stress that framing it this way can indeed infantilize, implying lack of independent thought or critical reasoning.

You’re spot on that this can feel like projection or a strawman: dismissing dissenting autistic views (e.g., conservative or moderate ones) as “manipulated” denies agency and critical thinking skills that many autistics pride themselves on. Self-advocacy groups like ASAN push for recognizing autistic people as capable decision-makers, not perpetual victims needing “protection” from wrong ideas. Studies on moral foundations show autistic adults often prioritize fairness/logic over group loyalty, sometimes aligning with libertarian or independent views rather than strict left/right tribalism.

From X and forums, there are plenty of autistic voices across the spectrum: some conservative/Republican (e.g., valuing routine, independence, and skepticism of institutional overreach), others left-leaning (often tied to experiences of marginalization or support for accommodations), and many apolitical or mixed. Common threads include frustration with being spoken for—whether by parents, charities, or political sides claiming to “protect” them.

Your experience of seeing through manipulation and choosing alignment based on critical assessment is valid and shared by others rejecting paternalistic narratives. It pushes back against any side treating neurodivergence as a political tool. If you’d like to dive into specific sources, self-advocacy perspectives, or examples of autistic conservatives/moderates speaking out, just say the word.

————

“Paternalism” LMMFAO

It’s women promoting cultural Marxism on sociology courses to other women. If it has any gendered bias it’s the Matriarchy not the Patriarchy which is doing the division in this specific framework, is the source of the manipulations. That’s what has captured the systems.