I’ll Keep Saying This Till I’m Here

The Telegraph

How male victims of domestic abuse often end up getting arrested themselves

Research suggests male victims of domestic abuse are failing to report attacks for fear of being arrested themselves

By: Martin Evans

Published: Jan 14, 2016

Male victims of domestic abuse are reluctant to report attacks because they are often subjected to false accusations themselves, according to new research.

More than 700,000 men each year are thought to fall victim to violent attacks at the hands of their partners, but many are too ashamed to report the offences.

It was thought much of the underreporting was due to men feeling embarrassed by the stigma of being a domestic violence victim.

But new research has suggested that many of those who do come forward risk being arrested themselves, after their abusers make false accusations against them.

Dr Jessica McCarrick, a Senior Lecturer in Counselling Psychology at Teesside University, who carried out a study with male abuse victims, said they were often treated with suspicion by the criminal justice system.

She said their experiences were not only dismissed by some police officers, but they could even find themselves under arrest when their partners turned the tables on them.

Dr McCarrick said: “Men find it incredibly difficult to talk about their experiences of domestic violence because of the shame and emasculation they feel is associated with it.

“To find the courage to speak out, only to be accused of violence themselves, is incredibly disheartening and ultimately prevents countless men from reporting intimate partner violence.”

Abuse charities also claim they are finding an increasing number of male victims coming to them to seek advice after becoming the subject false accusations.

Mark Brooks, chairman of the Mankind Initiative charity, which takes calls from around 1,000 men per year, said: “Over the past ten years we have seen a steady increase in the number of callers to our helpline stating they have been the victims of false allegations.

“The type of thing we hear is ‘my wife or girlfriend has said if I leave, or tell anyone, she will say I was the one attacking her and she was just defending herself.”

“It is an extremely powerful weapon in the armoury of the perpetrator and leaves the victim feeling trapped and helpless.”

Police forces insist they are making great strides in tackling the problem with the number of women convicted of domestic abuse quadrupling in the last decade from 806 in 2004/05 to 3,735 in 2013/14.

But the problem remains still largely hidden and campaigners insisting much more needs to be done to encourage victims to come forward and have the confidence to report an offence.

One male victim who took part in the study, but did not want to be named described how he had been arrested on three separate occasions following false allegations by his wife.

He said: “In the latest incident I made the initial complaint to police as my wife assaulted me. But when they arrived, they showed little concern and instead arrested me because my wife made a counter allegation.

“I certainly feel that more compassion and empathy needs to be shown towards male victims of domestic violence.”

Dr McCarrick, said his account was not uncommon adding: “Within my research, the predominant experience is of men being arrested under false charges and their disclosures of being the victim are not taken seriously, despite having evidence.”

She said domestic abuse must be viewed as a human issue rather than a gender issue with more services and support available to enable men to seek help and support.

She added: “Campaigners and researchers made waves in the 1970’s, which had a positive impact and improved service provision for women – it is time to do the same for men.”

“Promoting awareness of the plight of male survivors may encourage men to report abuse and feel assured that they will be taken seriously.

“Intimate partner violence is an issue which affects men and women within both heterosexual and homosexual relationships and I would like to see increased funding to improve service provision and development in order to support all people affected by this issue.”

==

https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332

Rather than self-defense, the most usual motivations for violence by women, like the motivations of men, are coercion, anger, and punishing misbehavior by their partner (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997; Kernsmith, 2005). For example, Pearson (1997) reports that 90% of the women she studied assaulted their partner because they were furious, jealous, or frustrated and not because they tried to defend themselves. These motives are parallel to the motivations of men perpetrators.

dream hasn’t admitted to sexually messaging underaged fans and he actually didnt so idk why ur lying

Okay so basically at the start of the August drama specifically, Tommy made a skit video. You might wanna watch it for context, and if you do, it's called if youtubers were honest.

Here's the part I will be talking about for the post, though

Also for more context, dream has admitted to sexually messaging underage fans, and still associates with George, who made openly sexist comments.

He had a section in there about how Dream handled the Qsmp situation and was basically just making fun of him.

After seeing this, Dream gets on Twitter and starts liking and unliking posts making fun of Tommy.

Inniters get mad, ofc.

Drm stans are ticked bc their precious baby pedo is being bashed, inniters are fighting back.

Drm stans are calling Tommy abelist for the way he portrayed dream, he was not being ableist, he portrayed every character similarly,and are saying he was joking about Dream getting doxxed, which he never did.

Inniters are pointing out that Dream has tried to take credit for Tommy's career before and that this is bot the first time Dream has behaved like a manchild.

And then the Drm stans go after motherinnit.

She fights back, we fight back, all out controversy, that brings us to where we are now.... awaiting Dream's twitlonger so we can watch Philza bash him and end his career. (This has yet to happen but the second it does I'll add it to the post)

Also, a helpful don't stop the party edit to help explain things too

Be careful though, it flashes.

@give-grian-rights

@uncertaininnit

@timetokrill

@uncalamar

@atlusreadsrandomshit

@girldiomedes

@kyromaniacc

@happyunknownunknown

@colorsystem-color

@milkforartist

The "Main" Characters of the Generations Tend to be...a bit unsavory?

I was talking to my friend the other day about ‘Skins.“ She was talking about how the show is an ensemble show with an emphasis on one character on particular that acts as the face of the generation. Many people argue whether or not Franky was the face of Generation 3; however, she was suppose to be so for this post I am considering her as the face. Anyway, she brought up the fact that it seemed to her that the face of all the generations tends to be the characters who might not be the most likable. They are not usually the ones you think to yourself "oh, man I want to be her friend." 

This intrigued me. So I wanted to do some digging about the three faces of all the generations: Tony Stonem, Effy Stonem, and Franky Fitzgerald. 

Tony Stonem: Is someone who has sociopathic tendencies and a definite case of narcissistic personality disorder (apparently not recognized as a disorder–but he has it.) He manipulates people out of boredom to see what happens. He treats people as if they are pawns in his game disregarding their autonomy and their feelings. He uses sex as a symbol of his power over others. 

However, by the end of the series due to massive head trauma and his recovery. Tony becomes a more thoughtful person and learns to allow himself to show his feelings a bit more than he use to. He becomes more human and humbled by his situation. Though he does crave for that power and that passion again. 

Effy Stonem: Definitely has some sort of personality disorder. Psychotic Depression or Bi-Polar Disorder. She was selectively mute in the beginning and lived a double life. She does not understand the point of emotions and feels as if they get in the way. She plays games and uses people like Tony only sometimes she uses her powers to fix situations. Still she is quite secretive and is capable of using people’s weaknesses against them due to the fact she is quite perceptive.

By the end of the series she gets the help she needs and is on her way to recovery. She allowed herself to fall in love and even broadened group of friends to include several different personalities. She is also shown being more affectionate.

Franky Fitzgerald: She has extreme abandonment and intimacy issues. Which gives her that crazy pulling people told her and pushing people away at the same time vibe. She does not understand what love is and finds it quite baffling. In the beginning she did not have a real sense of self or identity. She is prone to run away from problems and accidentally hurt people as she runs and self-destructs.

At the end of the series Franky confronts her past and stops stringing along several of the other characters along her path of destruction. She is shown to have good intentions but she simply does not know how to love or what love is. However she desperately wants to find out.

All Three: Every one of the main faces of the series has issues with emotions especially love. Tony sees love in the beginning as a weakness. Refusing to declare his love for Michelle in fear that she will hold the power in the relationship. Seeing it as a sign of weakness. Effy sees love as something that is suffocating and that it actually crushes you by the intensity of it. Love tipped her over the edge psychological she did not know how to cope with the powerless feeling love gave her. Franky simply does not know what it means to love or to be loved unconditionally. She feels it with her adoptive fathers but she can’t comprehend or accept it after being denied it for so long. 

The main faces of the show are three people who have issues with emotions and have deep seeded psychological issues. They push many of the plot points forward with their issues and the things they must learn. They are the…destroyers. Some may be more easier to love than others, but all of them hurt people some meaning it and some on accident. THE BRINGERS OF DRAMA! 

Thank you Indigenous Bridges!!

I would like to submit two ideas because I think I'm poking something but not going in fully, so I would very much like your opinions and additions about it (of course, as long as they remain in good faith *side eyes possible antis viewing my post*).

Marauders and surface-level rebellion

I've finally put to words something that really bothered me with the Marauders, though I don't know the name for it.

It started when I read a reblog that said:

I remember Brennan saying “laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class” during an episode of D20 and we truly just had to stan immediately

This is something dear privileged white woman Rowling didn't realize/understand well, since she held a high socioeconomical status even during her """poverty""" stage. It's known that, despite seeming to be defending ideas of fighting against fascism and "pureblood" supremacy in favor of acceptance of the other, her books reek of colonialism/imperalism. The story of the Marauders, a gang of privileged boys like her, is an in-world replica of that problem where Rowling betrays yet again her actual mindset.

The Marauders adopt the "bad boys who break rules" to get style, while completely losing/staining the moral sense in it.

Let's take piracy.

Some people pirate stuff because they consider that the stuff they'd like to get comes from unethical companies that abuse their employees or use modern slavery, or people who spread harm against certain minorities (like Rowling against trans people and thus the LGBT+ community), so while they may want to access the content, they don't want to give them money and might even encourage pirating their stuff to make them lose money.

Some pirate stuff because otherwise it's lost due to unfortunate "terms of use" -- see video games companies like Ubisoft (deletes gaming account after a while), Nintendo (does not bring back old games), etc.

Others pirate stuff because they just don't have the money but they still want to try the stuff that might make them happy and forget that they're poor -- reasoning that the company isn't losing any money anyway, or not much, since they wouldn't have been able to pay for it in any case.

Others pirate stuff because they consider the price ridiculously high or they consider it shouldn't be something to pay for at all. (Like education stuff -- isn't education supposed to be free for all, so that it can actually uphold everyone's fundamental and unconditional ( = not conditioned by wealth...) right to have an education? Oh and before anyone asks: I've DEFINITELY bought the ~15 expensive books that's roughly worth 500€ in total and that my uni asked I buy to study and get my degree...)

Rowling's Marauders is a group that would pirate stuff just because they'd think it would give them an edge, because they'd think it would make them cool to be seen as "talented" hackers who "defy" companies. Companies... that their own friends and families would own, and as such, would find that kind of behavior funny and entertaining (while they would trash other people around for considering it).

Another example. In society, in history, it's been proven time and again that breaking rules -- going against the law -- is an eventuality that's important for everyone to consider, if they want to defend their rights. Anti-racism, feminism, LGBT Pride, etc, advanced because people broke rules. In USA states where abortion is currently being banned, women and minors (+ their close ones) must now consider breaking the rules to get an abortion. (Privileged people don't give a fuck about those people, and if they suddenly decide that (moral) rules don't apply to them and they will get an abortion, they will just take a plane ticket to a country where abortion is legal, fiddling with legal stuff if necessary thanks to the lawyers their fortunes can afford and the lobbies that they're instituting.)

Revolutions happened because people broke rules too. I particularly like the 1793 Constitution in France Because it asserts that the people have the right to break rules and riot if the power in place threatens their fundamental rights:

Article 35. - Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. Article 35. - When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most essential of duties.

(Of course the power in place would state and enforce and make use of propaganda to say that it's completely illegal and illegetimate and that those who riot for legitimate rights are terrorists!)

Breaking rules is at the core of anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism. Breaking rules is essential when those rules are abusive. Too often, those who put those rules in place really are only setting their rules of the game to establish their power over the others. Or as the reblog says: "laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class".

Rowling's Marauders break rules because they are the socioeconomical class in power. As such, no one can do anything about it, no one will really tell them down for it. They get excused and justified and romanticized by their peers, just like billionaires & politicians are excused by their peers and notably mainstream media (which is owned... by other billionaires). They break rules -- not because they think it's necessary and the morally right thing to do despite the dangers it puts them in -- but because it makes them feel powerful, important, invincible, which for them is very fun. As Snape says: James and his cronies broke rules because they thought themselves above them:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. [...]”

They break rules because they're allowed to.

Which is why, in reality, the Marauders aren't really breaking rules or defying anything or opposing an actual big threat. They're a bunch of jocks who are having fun in the playground that's been attributed to them thanks to their status and family heritage (others wouldn't get the same indulgence because they don't get that privilege).

They break rules because they want to look cool, to be the "bad boys". The message has been compleyely botched. Especially with Lily actually finding this hot.

Because Rowling finds this hot:

[...] I shook hands with a woman who leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially, 'Sirius Black is sexy, right?' And yes, of course she was right, as the Immeritus club know. The best-looking, most rebellious, most dangerous of the four marauders... and to answer one burning question on the discussion boards, his eyes are grey.

(Anyone has an eyes washing station?)

Another quote:

"Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married."

(Nevermind the eyes washing, anyone's got some bleach instead?)

Stanning James Potter for being the leader of a gang that prides itself on breaking rules and always getting away with it -- it feels like stanning Elon Musk for being "innovative" and "a daring entrepreneur" despite being a manchild who exploits workers and modern-world slavery to play with his billions while always getting away with it.

They're not being "rebels" -- they're being bullies and flexing the fact they can get away with it thanks to abundance of privilege. Those are the tastes of a posh British white woman. She wanted the facade -- not the substance (that is, if she ever understood it).

You might say that they did oppose a big threat, the Death Eaters, but again, it's botched because:

they target a lonely, unpopular boy who's best friends with a Muggleborn Gryffindor, rather than baby Death Eaters like Mulciber, Lucius, Rosier, Avery, Regulus, etc.

The leader sexually harasses the Muggleborn Gryffindor because he's sexually jealous of the unpopular boy who dared not take the insult about his chosen House and shut up. Lily is treated as an object, they don't listen to her, and they barely speak about her later. (Lots to say to show that, which I won't do here because this is not the main subject.)

When the Marauders do join the Order, they do it... because they primarily want to adopt a rock-n-roll style and play the "bad boys" again. Or at least that's the message that's given to the reader:

They seemed to be in their late teens. The one who had been driving had long black hair; his insolent good looks reminded Fisher unpleasantly of his daughter's guitar-playing, layabout boyfriend. The second boy also had black hair, though his was short and stuck up in all directions; he wore glasses and a broad grin. Both were dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with a large golden bird; the emblem, no doubt, of some deafening, tuneless rock band.

(God, the Prequel is so cringy.)

They don't choose Dumbledore as the Secret Keeper, they don't tell him they changed to Pettigrew -- even though he literally was their war leader -- James uses the Cape to fuck around even though he was supposed to be hiding with Lily and then Harry (until Dumbledore takes the Cape from him)... and eventually, their group exploded, with James killed off, Sirius thrown to Azkaban, Peter (the traitor) hiding as a rat and Lupin going off to find jobs to survive.

Why did that happen? Because they thought of playing their part in the Order like going on a teenage adventure rather than engaging in a resistance organization. It was, first and foremost, about playing "the bad boys" and having fun.

(Harry half-inherits this. While he doesn't break rules just to look cool, and actually has several moments where he does break rules because it's the right thing to do -- like under Umbridge or, of course, when Voldemort takes power -- he does often get pampered when he breaks them in his earlier years. By Dumbledore, but also McGonagall, however much Rowling tries to sell her as a "strict but fair" teacher. Or by Slughorn, now that I think about it. That's something that enraged Snape, as it brought up memories of Harry's father -- Snape's own bully -- getting the same treatment.)

It's not a coincidence that Rowling not only failed to properly convey through the Marauders the true value of breaking rules, but also lusted over them for adopting that "bad boys" trope. It speaks to her own privilege -- she who never had to put herself in danger and go against the law in a risky attempt to protect herself or other less privileged people.

(Here's a useful read to expand on those worldbuilding issues.)

2. Dark Magic, obscurantism and conservatism

For context: Opinion: The Dark Magic/Light Magic Dichotomy is Nonsense (by pet_genius).

The idea of "Dark Magic" as something that's repeatedly told to be "evil" magic and where you cross the line of the forbidden, while hardly putting in question that notion that was (for some reason) enforced by wizard society, is another blatant example of Rowling betraying her mindset of privileged British white woman.

Rowling couldn't put herself in the minds of a society of "outcasts (witches & wizards) deeply enough to consider they would not see any magic as "Dark" at all (being a ""Muggle"" concept), or that Dark magic is only magic that requires something unvaluable to be traded off -- like one's soul or health or life or sanity. Instead, she has Dark Magic defined as "evil" magic, even though her own books show that you can do evil stuff with normal magic, and that you can do morally good stuff with Dark magic. This thing happened because Rowling could not think past her own little world and instead she poured a conservatist mentality (+ typical "Muggle", anti-witch prejudice) into the HP (wizard society) worldbuilding without considering that there could, in fact, be fundamental differences between the two worlds that include thinking of magic differently. (This has a lot to do with Rowling's wizard world being a pro-imperalism fest.)

"Dark Magic" feels like a lazy, badly-executed plot device to tell the reader who's a good guy and who is not. Because of course, that's how things work in real-life, huh… (Did she ever hear of "don't tell, show"?) It's used as an excuse to define who's evil (teen Severus) or not (James), who's worthy or not -- not how their magic was used. Which is a BIG problem:

“I’m just trying to show you they’re not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are.” The intensity of his gaze made her blush. “They don’t use Dark Magic, though.” / “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him —

Even worse, Rowling doesn't follow her own in-world moral framework. Dark magic is acceptable for some people (Rowling's partial self-inserts: Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione to Marietta...) but not for those that Rowling hates (Snape, who ironically represents the closest thing to rebelling by unapologetically obsessing over the Dark Arts). Again, this is at best unadressed in-world hypocrisy, at worst an expression of in-world and out-universe privilege (I get to do this and stay a good guy, but you don't).

There could have easily been rightful criticism of whatever could be defined as "Dark Magic". What if Dark magic was just something defined as "Dark" usually because the power in place doesn't want the people to touch it? Is abortion or contraception or a sex-altering or a goverment-threatening spell, Dark Magic? Is foreign or ethnicity-specific or female-centered or queer-centered magic, "Dark"? How about showing why (Muggle-raised but also neurodivergent) Severus thought Dark magic was so great, showing his point of view, while also establishing where the true limits are? If Lily can't be the one who sees past the "fear-mongering anti-intellectualism/propaganda", how about Harry being the one who does, thanks to him relating to Snape on a personal level? How about making Hermione go from someone who condems Dark Magic, to someone who entirely changes her point of view and understands that this is all bullshit -- effectively showing the dangers of only following what the books say, without putting them into question or thinking by yourself? How about a nuanced view of Dark magic as something that requires a significant sacrifice, which is conceivable for something they see as equally or even more important [Lily's life for Harry; Snape's soul integrity for Dumbledore]? How about making the Death Eaters, people who deviate that legitimate interest, rather than just evil guys who thrive in Dark magic for its supposed added evilness? How about showing that Dark magic was just a notion invented by Muggles to throw "witches" (real or not) to the burning stakes -- later taken by the witches and wizards in power to define, in the magical community, what was okay or definitely forbidden because it's the trademark of those who represent a threat to the magical community (understand: people who riot or strike or protest against the ruling socioeconomical class' politics)?

But there was none of that.

"Dark" magic in HP merely seems to be a weird concept that at best accidentally takes the form of an in-world obscurantism, at worst is just the trademark of someone who cannot imagine a "hunted, ostracized" community with a different culture and mindset than her own. Aggravating is the fact that she used "Dark magic" as a plot device to magically cast some people as good and others as never bad – again, probably reflecting her own questionable mentality.

The fact Rowlnig invented the notion of Dark Magic and had her world consider it seriously as an evil thing instead of being open-minded seems to be less telling of her wishes to show a wizard society that can be as prejudiced as the muggle one, and more of her own bizarre world where you must be evil if you are knowledgeable in or interested in certain "taboo" things (RIP neurodivergents).

Rowling glorifies the Trio and the Marauders for breaking rules. Yet when it comes to actually breaking expectations and norms, notably in the wizarding society -- like the use of another magical species as slaves, or the blatant anti-Muggle prejudice held by everyone including "good guys" (or anti-centaur while we're at it), or stupid anti-knowledge prejudice like "Dark magic is evil" -- there is none of that. At best, it's surface-level opposition that comes out as white savior syndrome. At worst, the protagonists make it their noble code to enforce those norms, and "sinful" characters (Snape, for one) are punished for not conforming. Too often, those sinful characters are punished by the "good guys" with the very thing that they apparently oppose so fervently.

Without ever adressing the fact that those characters were ("morally") allowed to do that because it was just, in the end, a matter of who gets the privilege to do that, and who does not.

There.

Do you have anything to say to develop on those ideas? I feel like I'm reaching my knowledge limit and I'd like to see if those ideas can be expanded.

Me when I defend Snape so much and remember that Snaters brush me off as just “some Snape apologist” even though I actually have so many criticisms of his awful actions, love his deep-rooted flaws and complexities, love to analyse how much his horrible childhood shaped him out to be for the rest of his life and how it turned him into what he hated most (a bully), and usually the only times I defend him are when his haters misconstrue what he did and make up fanon claims about him, not because I can’t handle when they say anything bad about a character I love, but because I simply can’t handle when people misunderstand his character (for better or for worse):

to me, lily is like that girl who swears she's liberal and progressive but she has a racist bf

i truly don’t understand how mentally brain dead you are.

that video was fake

jamie said she was never groomed and she wants you people to shut the fuck up and stop dragging her name through the mud

she was 17 and dream was 19

Im sorry you can call me obsessed or whatever for not shutting up about dream but jesus christ he is DISGUSTING.

Moaning over a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL.

COMMENTING ON HER BOOBS.

SAYING YOU WANT TO “FILL HER UP”?

He was TWENTY. She was SIXTEEN.

DREAM IS A FUCKING FREAK.

I feel so, so fucking horrible for this girl and any other victims of dream, and any victim of grooming / child predators in general.

Dream is absolutely fucking disgusting and so are you if you defend him.

I truly do not understand how anybody can support or defend him anymore.

hunger games what if

what i really want to see is a hunger games version of marvel what if. how cool would it be?

WHAT IF...

Katniss didn’t volunteer.

Katniss and Peeta didn’t eat the berries.

Haymitch volunteered in the place of Peeta in the 75th.

Katniss didn’t kill Coin.

Johanna was the sole winner of the 75th Hunger Games.

Gale was chosen in the 74th.

Plutarch was actually evil.

Someone else was selected as 75th’s Gamemaker.

Seneca didn’t die.

Gale didn’t bomb the Capitol.

***

So many possibilities, so little execution. How interesting would it be?

But what I DO want to see from Marvel What If is ‘what if the other half were snapped?’ Seems interesting.

the kissing booth is abusive and terrible; an angry rant

Okay. So basically, Noah is first introduced to us as this character like three times the size of Elle, and this character that his brother (Elle's best friend, Lee) thinks should not date Elle, raising a red flag. Lee wants what's best for Elle. And it's clear that Noah isn't that. But if we put that aside and we fast-forward to school, Tuppen sexually assaults her because she is wearing a skirt that is deemed too short in the eyes of the school. Then Lee tries and fails to protect her, and Noah goes psycho, beating Tuppen to a pulp. And of course, like always, the victim gets detention, so when Noah and Elle are waiting outside, he victim blames her, by saying, "Wearing a skirt like that is asking for it." I already didn't like Noah, but now I hate him. Telling somebody who was sexually assaulted that it was their fault because they were 'asking for it' by wearing clothes they were? That's a new level of low, and we're only about twenty minutes in! If that. Anyway, Elle goes on a date with Tuppen, and Noah is jealous. He stands her up (predictable) then explains that Noah has been meddling in her social life, and is the reason she has no prior dating experience, so she doesn't know what a healthy relationship is: the only people she's engaged in an even slightly romantic act with is a sexual assaulter and abusive, toxic man. But if we put all that aside, Elle is angry. So she calls Noah, and these are the words exchanged during the call:

Elle: You do realize that you're not my dad, right?

Noah: Look, you still got a lot to learn, kiddo.

Elle: Kiddo? Oh, my God. Oh, if you were here, I would beat you with my shoe.

Noah: Tuppen is a player.

Elle: So are you

Noah: And that's why I know he's wrong for you. You're gonna thank me one day.

Elle: Okay. Well, today is not that day. It is not your job to monitor my dating life. Do you understand me? The days of you controlling my life are over!

Noah: We'll see about that.

So Noah, creepy as he is, insists on continuing to manipulate and meddle with her life. He is trying to control her life. At that point, even he is warning her. Tuppen was a sexual assaulter, aka a piece of scum. And Noah? He compares himself to Tuppen. That should say something. Numerous red flags are up, but Elle is closing her eyes. Although that's not on her. She's the victim here, in this situation. I may not like Elle, but this stuff should not be happening. Anyway, let's put all that aside, yeah, and move on.

Elle and Lee suggest their idea for the fundraiser, a Kissing Booth (shocker) and of course, they need all the 'hot guys.' Convenient, because Love Interest Number 1 is a 'hot guy' when he's a toxic, abusive douchebag. Okay. I actually don't understand this point - are girls the main aim for this booth? (majority of people are straight in this world, but of course we have the gay tokens for diversity who have zero affect on the plot in the second movie) Because they aren't preoccupied with hot girls. Also, why are the girls presented as the objects to be kissed? No boys there? Doesn't matter, I guess. It's just an abusive relationship, in a plot that barely took two seconds to think out where like every character is an asshole. But I'm not judging that. After school, Noah tries to get Elle to come home with him on his motorbike. Of course, Elle refuses, yet he persists when she says no, because of course, Noah's reputation as a player. And I'm not surprised, you go Elle. He drops every girl. But, I mean, Elle is 'not like other girls.' Elle runs home, and she asks people to do the booth. Surprise, surprise, they say no to kinda selling themselves...and not getting anything from it except maybe herpes.  

Okay. So, after that party I don't feel like talking about, because you know they used the same scene for every high school romcom, and the OMG's, aka the rip off mean girls, invite her over to get her intoxicated, and Elle is totally drunk. Elle asks Noah for the booth, girls he's making out with is mad, Elle gets rejected. There are a few partying scenes, and then Elle strips her clothes off leaving her underwear and dances. Lee, for some reason just watches her (see what I meant about assholes) and then Noah with all his chivalry takes her up into her room, dresses her in his clothes and then she wakes up presumably thinking they slept together, which of course, they didn't - but I wouldn't be surprised with Noah taking advantage of her intoxicated state and r*ping her, because when you're drunk, you can never consent. But the fact she suspected he might have r*ped her means she knows some degree of his toxicity, yet she is somehow still blind to it. Anyways, they had an 'accidental groping' session, and Elle is out and about again. Anyway, Elle lies about Noah liking one of the OMG's so they'll do the booth, and now she's got to convince Noah to do it, because the OMG'S (which he most definitely does not like) are waiting for him at the booth, and he's the main attraction for whoever's at the booth. Noah tries to order Elle around again, and she asks him about the booth again. (Clearly, neither of them can take a hint) and he refuses. 

It's time for the booth now. I'm going to skip out on the beginning, but the OMG's push Elle out onto the stage and Noah comes up and kisses her, and thats something else I don't like: no matter who it was, if it was her boyfriend of a year of someone in her Physics Class, it was clearly not consensual. But the kiss happened, and since it was Noah, Elle enjoyed it, but Noah let her down, telling her it was 'just a kiss' manipulating her feelings, and now she's in this great dilemma, because Lee had been warning her all along with that friendship rule he insisted on. But let's skip a few minutes, after she tells Lee repeating what Noah said, where we're at the bit where Noah confesses his love with the classic fanfiction response, (I mean, this is WattPad, so...) 'You aren't like other girls, you didn't "fall at my feet" I love you you're so sweet!' Etc, etc.  

So, to show his love for her, he takes her to a hookup spot where he takes all of his conquests. Perfect. That fanfiction thing is probably something he tells every girl, because Elle is clearly like the rest of the girls he's engaged in activities with.

Beach party. Warren tries to get a drunk Elle to skinny dip, and Noah jumps in, after an insult, punches Warren in the face and Elle runs off. When Elle is walking home, Noah screams and yells at her to "Just get in the car, Elle. Just get in the car, Elle. GET IN THE CAR, ELLE!" And with much violence, he punches his car in anger and frustration and toxicity and abuse (more controlling, great) Elle is scared (because it was clear that directed to her, Noah was yelling at her and he wanted to hit her) and she gets in. They go to the Hollywood sign (which they cannot go to, because I'm pretty sure you need to pay to go, like, as a tourist, but they filmed it in Africa so I'm sure they know jack shit about how the US works) and etc etc. 

They start a relationship made up of sex and hiding. Sex and hiding includes a lot of these things, and not what a relationship should contain. What I don't like is that they think it's this huge secret that needs to be kept, it's not like they'll be discriminated against. 

Lee is their only worry.

When Elle gets hurt and Noah is there, Lee immediately assumes he hit her. Why? Because he's lived with his brother...his whole life. He knows Noah like she back of his hand. He knows Noah is abusive. So when Elle's hurt, the only logical thing is to assume Noah did it. And what does that tell us if Noah's own brother assumes he abused her? And Noah's only response to being accused of violence is to...get violent. (Thank you, Cynical Reviews! You should watch him on YouTube. He's great. Especially his review of The Kissing Booth.) 

After this, Lee finds out about their relationship, blah blah blah who cares. Except for the fact Lee is still angry: at Noah, not because Elle lied, but because he is sure how this is going to go, because he's experienced it from the sidelines - random girls he's barely known getting abused and having their hearts broken. And he doesn't want the next casualty to be Elle. Of course, like, no one supports them, because they know what happens every time Noah brings a girl home - or something of the sort.

Elle tells Lee to support them, she gets back with Noah and Noah...leaves.

A set up for a sequel which whenever I have time, will be analysed, because it is seriously abusive and toxic. None of these things were done out of 'love.' Love is a word used too carelessly in film. This, at the closest, is lust. And it is unhealthy, controlling, toxic and abusive.

So there's my argument!