Report of My Experiences of Prolonged Psychological and Emotional Abuse
For approximately 15 years, I was subjected to repeated domestic abuse by my former partner. This was primarily psychological and emotional in nature, though it had severe real-world impacts on my life, mental health, and ability to be heard in important discussions. The abuse often involved deliberate tactics to provoke me, derail conversations, shift blame, and discredit me in front of others, especially in formal meetings involving state workers, mediators, or professionals.
A key tactic she used was to interrupt me while I was speaking by suddenly saying, “Don’t interrupt me,” even though I had not interrupted her at all. She would do this repeatedly in meetings. At the moment she said those words, she had not been speaking, she was the one cutting in on what I was saying. Because we then both ended up talking at the same time (me continuing or defending myself), observers would hear the overlap and assume I was the one interrupting her. This created a false impression that matched the narrative she had already planted: that I am volatile, difficult, and prone to interrupting or talking over her.
She knew exactly what would trigger me. Being falsely accused, derailed from the topic I wanted to discuss, and then watching others accept her version without question. She would deliberately push those buttons in front of witnesses to get a defensive reaction from me. When I responded (by calmly but firmly explaining that I hadn’t interrupted, or insisting on finishing my point), it was used as “proof” that I was the problem. I have chronic laryngitis, which means I physically cannot raise my voice or shout, even under stress. I lack the vocal capacity to do so. My speech is naturally slow, deliberate, and firm as I work around the hoarseness and strain. Despite this, observers frequently described my normal speaking style as “raising my voice” or “shouting her down,” even though my volume never increased. This misinterpretation ignored my medical condition and framed my stoic, controlled responses as aggressive or unstable behaviour.
What made it worse was that the people watching (professionals whose job it was to be neutral and observant) did not step in to stop it. When I asked them to intervene and prevent her from triggering me this way, they refused, saying they were only there to observe and record, or that they wouldn’t act on my behalf.
In their records and decisions, they focused on my defensive reaction as signs that I was “impossible to live with” or disordered, while accepting her claims at face value. To me, this felt like they were complicit in the abuse: allowing it to happen in real time, then using my predictable, trauma-informed defense (delivered calmly despite the provocation) to validate her story and dismiss anything I tried to raise.
She often explained to others beforehand that I was “highly volatile” and “easy to trigger,” framing any response from me as proof of my inadequacy or disorder, rather than a reaction to being provoked and misrepresented. This is classic gaslighting and blame-shifting: she would create the situation, provoke the reaction, then criticize me for responding, while denying or minimizing her own role. It’s also a form of DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). She denied her interrupting/provoking, attacked me for my defence, and reversed roles so she appeared as the reasonable victim and I as the aggressor.
The result was that the real issues I wanted to bring to the table, serious concerns backed by evidence, almost never got discussed. The meetings got hijacked by this pattern: her interruption tactic, my calm factual defense, the group’s siding with her narrative, and my evidence or points being dismissed as invalid because I was supposedly “undermining her” or displaying disordered behavior. Even when I clearly explained exactly what had just happened (that she interrupted me with “don’t interrupt me”), they often went into denial, saying things like “well, you were both talking at the same time,” without acknowledging that normal conversation overlap is different from deliberate sabotage. Because they had already been told I was the problem with a history of this behavior, they backed her version instead of looking at the facts.
This pattern repeated consistently over the years. It was frightening how reliably it worked: she protected herself from accountability, prevented criticism of her actions (of which there was a great deal, supported by evidence), and enlisted state workers to reinforce the idea that the man was bad or disordered. The presence of these observers amplified the trigger for me, knowing they were there to document “evidence” against me while ignoring the provocation made it feel like sanctioned abuse. Throughout, I remained stoic and composed in these meetings, speaking slowly and firmly as my condition requires, despite the deep trauma of being repeatedly misrepresented and disbelieved.
In summary, I endured years of female-to-male domestic abuse through sophisticated psychological manipulation. It relied on provoking reactions, misrepresenting them (including mislabeling my medically constrained, non-raised voice as aggressive), and gaining institutional support to maintain control and avoid responsibility. The state systems I encountered did not recognize or support male victims in this context, allowing the same tactics to succeed time after time with no consequences for her.
This is not an exaggeration or one-sided complaint—it is my lived reality, repeated across numerous interactions. I am sharing this to document what happened and seek understanding, validation, or appropriate support.
———————————-
Grok reply:
The situation you describe is a deeply distressing and prolonged experience of what appears to be psychological manipulation and emotional abuse, often framed within the broader context of domestic abuse where the roles are reversed from common stereotypes (female perpetrator, male victim). The core tactic here—intentionally derailing someone’s speech by falsely accusing them of interrupting (“don’t interrupt me”) when they are the one speaking uninterrupted—fits patterns of gaslighting and DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender).
Understanding the Specific Tactic
This method exploits social norms in group settings (like meetings, mediations, or family court proceedings). By inserting “don’t interrupt me” at a moment when the target is mid-sentence and hasn’t spoken over anyone, the accuser creates the illusion of being spoken over—especially if others aren’t paying close attention or are already primed to view the target negatively. Observers hear overlapping voices (as the target naturally defends or continues) and default to the accuser’s framing because:
• It matches the pre-planted narrative (“he interrupts her,” “he’s volatile”).
• It aligns with gendered assumptions or prior “programming” that the man is the problem.
This isn’t mere miscommunication; it’s a calculated deflection. When explained clearly, denial or minimization by observers (“well, you were both talking”) reinforces the gaslighting, making the target question their own reality while the group reinforces the false narrative. Over time, this erodes the target’s credibility, prevents substantive discussion of issues (e.g., evidence of wrongdoing), and positions the accuser as the reasonable/victimized party.
This aligns closely with DARVO, a well-documented response in abusive dynamics:
• Deny — The behavior (triggering/interrupting) is reframed or ignored.
• Attack — The target is criticized for their reaction (e.g., “shouting her down,” “interrupting”).
• Reverse Victim and Offender — The perpetrator claims victimhood (“he’s impossible to live with,” “he’s undermining me”), while the actual victim is painted as the aggressor or disordered.
Research on DARVO shows it’s effective at shifting blame, increasing self-blame in victims, and influencing third parties (like authorities or mediators) to side with the DARVO user—particularly when gender stereotypes play in (e.g., male victims seen as less believable or credible).
Broader Context: Institutional and Societal Factors
Your account highlights how state workers (e.g., in family proceedings, mediation, or social services) can unwittingly—or sometimes complacently—enable this by:
• Prioritizing one narrative without scrutiny.
• Viewing defensive reactions as evidence of instability rather than responses to provocation.
• Failing to intervene when abuse is occurring in real time.
Male victims of domestic abuse face unique barriers:
• Lower reporting rates due to stigma, shame, and disbelief.
• Services often geared toward female victims, leading to fewer tailored supports.
• In some family court or mediation contexts, biases can manifest as skepticism toward male claims of abuse, or assumptions that men are inherently the aggressors.
Statistics vary, but studies indicate male victims are often disbelieved or face harsher judgment, and false or exaggerated accusations can be weaponized in custody disputes. While systemic bias debates exist (some argue courts favor mothers in custody overall, others point to abusers—regardless of gender—exploiting processes), your experience reflects documented patterns where psychological tactics like gaslighting succeed in group/institutional settings, especially over long periods (e.g., 15 years).
What This Means for Him
This isn’t “just” reactivity or a mental health failing—it’s a response to repeated, intentional provocation in an environment stacked against recognition of the abuse. The fear and anger make sense: being gaslit publicly, with authority figures complicit, is profoundly invalidating and isolating.
If this is ongoing or recent (or if seeking validation/healing), resources like male-focused domestic abuse helplines (e.g., in the US: Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men; in the UK: Men’s Advice Line) can offer non-judgmental support. Therapy specializing in narcissistic abuse or trauma (e.g., EMDR for triggers) helps rebuild trust in one’s perceptions. Documenting patterns (dates, witnesses, what was said) can counter gaslighting in future interactions.
You’re describing a form of abuse that thrives on invisibility and denial—naming it clearly (as you have) is a powerful step toward breaking its hold. If there’s more context or specific help needed (e.g., resources in a certain country), feel free to share.
