1 – Plausible deniability
Plausible deniability = doing something intentionally, yet done in such a way that the aggressor can claim it wasn’t intentional, and so the victim has no way to prove that claim wrong. This is the core of passive aggression and of gaslighting.
Gaslighting = using denial and lies to make a victim doubt his own sanity of judgment and perception.
When you hear any of the following phrases:
– ‘I didn’t mean to’
– ‘it was not intentional’
– ‘it just happened’
– ‘that is not the reason’
– ‘You are wrong’
Then there is a good chance you are actually spot on, you are not wrong, it didn’t JUST happen, but was very intentional and it was meant. Worse, part of it is that you are meant to know it was intentional, but are left with no proof of intention. When a woman is using these phrases against you in any of the contexts described as follows, you can be pretty sure she knew what she was doing very well.
When to expect a woman to use plausible deniability to serve her own needs?
– In a sexual context
Women carry a huge responsibility when having sex, because ultimately they are the ones to decide whether it will go down or not the first time around. To reduce this sense of responsibility, women prefer men who take initiative and who create a situation where she can feel, or at least know that afterwards she can claim ‘it just happened’.
This relieves her and frees her to enjoy the sex she so desperately wants to have. Of course the woman knows it is going to go down quite a while before it actually happens, and she fully well cooperates for the situation to arise where the two of them to ‘accidentally’ end up in a place where they can have sex. All she needs is to be able to have a plausible excuse that she really didn’t know it was going to happen and that she got carried away by the moment or wasn’t her regular self (e.g., ‘a bit drunk’ after just one glass or something of the sort).
⇒ With players
If she is going to have sex with a guy who she knows is not a stayer, she needs a plausible excuse for it, and in 99% of the cases women make it so that they can always claim they were the unknowing victim of a player or douchebag. Obviously, women are very capable of assessing who is a player and who is a ‘nice guy’ in the first two minutes of meeting, but it usually plays in their favor to deny this. (Their claims to their infallible female intuition are conveniently forgotten when it doesn’t suit their need for a plausible excuse.)
In fact, women will play it so that the player gets to fuck her before they know eachother too well. That way she has plausible deniability built in, and she can always say that he used her, and she can pretend she resents him and other players, even though everything turned out exactly like she wanted, and so she has a constant supply of casual sex until she finds a guy who she rationally decides is going to serve her longer term plans well.
⇒ With stayers
Perversely, women will also play the plausible deniability excuse on the nice guy to let him wait for first sex: if later he asks why she waited so long to bed him, she will use the plausible deniable excuse “I didn’t know whether I could trust you, because [fill in lame reason that didn’t stop her to bed a player here]”, or “You were just a friend” [of which she conveniently did know there was a great likelihood of ending up with for the longterm, but with which she waited until after she fucked everyone she still wanted to fuck].
FACT: In the first two minutes of meeting, any woman can accurately assess a man’s character and can very easily spot a serious and decent guy who is unlikely to walk out on a girl without first trying his best to make things work. (Thanks to the ever infallible female intuition, you know?) Reality is, she rationally decided she wants to keep him, and she rationally decided she wanted to use cheap sales tricks of car salesmen (getting the potential buyer emotionally invested by artificially stalling the time) so she can get full control over his emotions. Not romantic at all, yet a widespread practice among the hypocrite part of the female population that talks about finding real love and romance, yet approaches relationships with men from the attitude of manipulation.
Guys: if you fall for this, then welcome to the manipulationship! You have now implicitly agreed that she can walk over you and demand more of you than of other guys for less investment on her behalf into what pleases you compared to what she did for others, as well as accepting she deceives you and manipulates you to get whatever she wants out of you. Feeling loved already? If yes, wait till you get married, then divorced.
– When she wants to hurt someone
Lots of people think men are more aggressive than women. I tend to disagree, and research supports me on this, having found that the number of domestically abusive women is equal to the number of abusive men. Moreover, as men tend to underreport personal issues relative to women, in all likelihood the number of women resorting to controlling behaviors is much higher than men.
Even if domestic abuse is merely equally committed by women than by men, the women who intentionally hurt men or other women, do so more often with excuses built in so that they can deny their malicious intentions.
Women are especially proficient at psychological attacks, and frequently use a variety of forms of social exclusion to ‘punish’ others, and to make others bend to her needs. They instinctively know what science has discovered only relatively recently: that social exclusion activates the same brain regions as actual physical pain, therefore social exclusion equals physical pain.
While little boys engage in play fights, little girls hone their proficiency in psychological bullying which escapes the eyes of the teacher keeping an eye on the kids at the playground. Women learned from the moment they were little girls that they could seriously hurt other girls without using physical violence, just by excluding a girl from interaction. Once girls start dating, they transfer their passive aggressive skills to their relationship skills and call it ‘the silent treatment’.As a woman, undoubtedly you know how vicious little girls, other women and even you yourself can be when really pissed, or even just in a bad mood not even brought on by the victim of such a typically female psychological attack.
Women socially exclude each other and men on social media by:
– excessively liking things of a person they don’t like at all
– or the opposite: making sure to not like anything of her victim, but to like everything of common ‘friends’ between herself and the ‘victim’ so it appears in the victim’s feed. This to show she likes everyone except the victim. If called out, she can further gaslight her victim by denying malicious intent and stating the victim cares way too much and is paranoid.
– willfully ignoring a person’s texts for prolonged periods of time and claiming she was busy. (When you see her checking her phone tons of times every time you see her, see her logged into facebook each time you log in, see she read your text, or see her WhatsApp status as ‘online’.)
Standard bullshit excuses here are:
» “I was really busy.” → Really? That’s why you have so much time to log in each day to Facebook and WhatsApp? Hey silly: your last login time is displayed, and even when you block that feature, it still shows you are online when you are online simultaneously as me, so even if you don’t open our chat conversation to avoid it being marked as ‘read’, I know you saw I texted you.)
» “I forgot” → Every time? Jeez, I am witnessing a medical rarity: early onset dementia!
» “I don’t get online that often” → I see. Totally believable given that you are marked as online 99% of all the times that I log in on Facebook, checking your phone every five minutes whenever anyone runs into you, and given that in better times you responded always within five minutes after I texted you regardless of the time of day. That also explains why your friend who is with me at this moment, got a whole conversation with you on their phone from approximately the day I send you my text, till now, a few days later. Very plausible and believable excuse, poor liar.
When women use physical violence, one of the strategies they use to get away with it is plausible deniability.
Personally, I had a Spanish ex-girlfriend who slapped me out of the blue* when we were still a couple, and she subsequently started pounding on me with keys protruding from her fist.
And what was her (not so) plausible denial saying her intention was not to hurt me, but something else entirely?
Lame excuse of Spanish ex: “I wanted to see if you would hit me back. You didn’t, so I feel safe now.” Really? To me seems more like she needed a class in anger management and had impulse control issues, despite her having obtained a PhD in psychology shortly before the incident in 2015.
*Safe to say, that was the beginning of the end, and the relationship ended shortly after. I never got an apology from her even though all I did to ‘elicit’ the attack was to calmly and sadly express I felt unfair and hurt about me wanting to always make her happy without a second doubt, but it not being mutual. That was enough to elicit an unexpected physical attack of her to me.
To reason for the conversation leading there? Shortly before she saw a face on the cover of a book from Haruki Murakami that reminded her of my ex, made her jealous and made her demand me to remove the book. Yes, she was very insecure, mentally unstable, controlling and abusive.
The last thing I did before breaking up was to tell I don’t take such abusive bullshit behavior from her, or anyone and that she does not deserve to be treated as good as I treated her. She left whimpering like a coward bitch she is and now is probably plotting how to abuse some man and get away with it.