Being an old metalhead, I've always had a wavering attitude about Marilyn Manson. Although some of his ideas I like "keep watering dead flowers" is an interview to read, and some (rare) songs I like, like "Spade", when I talk about metal I'm more of a Sodom, Slayer & co type. If we go to the Dark I go more to Dimmu Borgir or Dissection.

Having revealed my bias, I read these days that one of his ex-fi-fi-fi-girlfriends (I write it like this because they broke up and took back 4 times) claims that Manson would have "abused" her, if not even "subjected her brainwashing ".

This phenomenon of people waking up after 10, 15, 20 years and pointing fingers is not new, you will remember the 33 women who accused Trump of harassment 20,25,30 years ago, the same 33 complaints that the courts did not accept because 'corroborated by no evidence. Or Daria Argento, who is now the first to tell us who has NOT abused her (there will be two or three, I think, on the planet. According with her .) Instead of keeping the world immersed in this unbearable suspense.

Here, the problem of this movement, which I would define as that of “Abused-Chic”, is obscenity. I'll explain.

Every day in the newspapers we read about femicides, violence of all kinds, stalking, and more. Let's leave out the dead for a moment, as the signs of violence are evident.

But even the women subjected to stalking, when we go to investigate, always have a story: hospitalizations in the emergency room, calls to the carabinieri, warnings of a judge, etc. Then the fact that the law is weakened in these cases is a different matter, but the point is that violence always leaves marks. Signs that an investigator, and even a reporter, eventually finds. That time she came home with a black eye. That time she went to the hospital for a "fall". That time she was crying and her mother asked her what she had.

And even when there is no obvious damage to the body, for example in the interviews with the victims, there are always women who are quite "modest": not out of Christian modesty, but because the abuses devastate people's self-esteem . It takes a very hard psychological path to regain self-esteem and make wounds a strong point, as we have seen with Annibali or with Gessica Notaro.

And if the abuser is a cohabitant, the victim is normally out of hell that involves the annihilation of self-esteem, and it is something that is noticed (using that minimum of empathy that makes us human beings, or simply by observing body language).

Abused-Chic, on the other hand, is different. It has Wolverine's signature powers of rebuilding and regeneration. Never been to the hospital. No calls from neighbors to the police. No relative who saw her with a black eye. No previous warning from the judge. Never asked for help from anyone. Simply invulnerable.

Psychologically, too, the abused-chic has an extravagant demeanor. From a history of abuse, women usually come out and report to the police. They never report anyone to the police. They never go to court. Do you know how many police reports Daria Argento has made? None. For the state these women are absolutely non-existent. They only report to the newspapers, which they evidently mistake for courts. (And in a sense they are, too bad that the right to defense is not provided.)

Abused-chic is characterized by an incredible feature: while real victims of continued domestic abuse live locked up at home, and normally keep a very low profile due to lack of self-esteem, they have very long stories with the abuser, stories that they see in the particular position of smiling girlfriend, perfect make-up, assured presence in every social occasion, textbook red carpet , and it is a pity that normally the male abuser is very jealous . The abused-chic abuser is never jealous, never possessive, he lets them get out of the house as much as they want with a nice unlimited shopping budget. With the money they have in their pockets during a shopping spree, they could rebuild their lives elsewhere, while victims of real violence are normally chained to the abuser for economic reasons.

In the real victims we see jealous, possessive men who lock the victims in their homes, depriving them of any economic independence. But the abused-chic always find open-minded abusers, of course.

The ways of "brainwashing" are also quite strange. While brainwashed victims are normally reduced to vegetables and need help, they leave the abuser 2,3,4 times, as in Manson's case. It is the famous "brainwashing that allows you to fuck off dry". And I say fuck you dry because usually abused women can't (even when they can) fuck off the torturer: usually in these cases the torturer goes crazy and starts stalking, if not in person (Manson is enough conspicuous) at least by telephone.

Not these: despite the brainwashing they send the torturer to fuck off 2,3,4 times, and since the last time they have not seen him again. Rather "comfortable" torturers, at least. For normal women, leaving the guy and not wanting to see him anymore is usually expensive, unfortunately.

But there is another characteristic of Abused-chic: the ex-partner is always rich, and they remember the wrongs suffered only when the ex marries another.

Here, this is the reason why I consider OSCENE the abused-chic.

• Because their falsity is insulting to real victims. It's like Oprah who “felt the whipping on her skin against her ancestors”, when the only thing she felt on her skin was the 19 beauticians who keep her young, twice a day. No, Oprah, it wasn't the hassle of liposuction that terrified your ancestors.
• Because their stories are so false that they insult the intelligence of the listener. A true story of abuse is so radically different from what they tell that one clearly perceives an insult to the intelligence of the listener, which immediately puts him at attention.
• Because seeing these red carpet ladies who come out unscathed from “years of abuse” honestly provides a “pretty dangerous” message: madday, it's just a scratch. It passes in a day .

Added to this is another effect that makes abused-chic ridiculous. And that's when they describe the behavior of males. Because surely I as a male cannot judge the behavior of an abused woman if not comparing it with that of women who are obviously abused (evidently = there is material evidence).

But there is one thing that as a male I can do and a woman cannot do: I can judge if the behavior of the male abuser in the story told is likely. Because that's MY kingdom, and no woman will ever be able to make up a believable story about a male's behavior without getting caught in 3 … 2 … 1 …

For example, when I hear that a man physically overpowered a younger woman, and then forced her into oral intercourse it is already so long that I don't burst out laughing. For reasons that are obvious to any male (don't put the bird in your opponent's teeth in a fight), just as ridiculous are those stories where the abuser makes himself physically vulnerable to the victim. The "forced me into oral intercourse" story only works when the "victim" has no vaginal lesions to wear as proof of her invention. Surprise: no male is so fooled as to force the victim to the ONLY KIND of sexual intercourse in which he is physically passive and vulnerable. If you want my dick between your razor-sharp teeth I have to trust you, nock. ALL, and I repeat ALL the stories of men forcing women into oral intercourse are CREATED from scratch. No doubt, ever. No exceptions, ever. I don't believe it today, I didn't believe it yesterday and I won't believe it tomorrow, and no male believes it, not even those who pretend to be progressives and feminists.

And it's just one example of how terrible women are in making up a rape story: you don't catch them by observing their behavior, but a rape story is inevitably a story about a male, and to see if it's It is likely that a male should only observe the alleged behavior of the male protagonist.

(in case some abused-chic were wondering why a jury of males did not believe her, the reason is simple: in your fairy tale you have completely screwed up the male protagonist, who by force of circumstances you cannot describe in the physical reactions).

For example, Asia Argento's stories seem as truthful as her father's: when I hear the story of her being abused by Weinstein, I laugh. There are so many things a male would never do in that story that Ron Hubbard seems realistic in comparison when writing science fiction.

In fact, Asia Argento has never reported him except in the newspapers: I don't feel very surprised by this thing. And when I read the story about Brizzi it made me laugh. But did anyone really believe it? In fact, Brizzi was acquitted.

When I hear a story of rape, I don't wonder if the story about the woman is credible. I wonder if the description of the male is credible. Because I'm the competent one there. Because that's my world. Because I know how a male thinks. Because I know how to fight. Because I know how her body feels. Because no woman will ever be able to invent a credible rapist: either she has seen one, or there is no mention of it.

Generally, the abused-chic believe that they are the main protagonists of a story of violence, but they do not realize that the protagonist of the story is the male (it is the acting part, not the one undergoing) and therefore they fall precisely on that: in the story they INVENT (because abused-chic almost always invent), the male character is very badly written. Of course.

So, I give some tips to abused-chic:

• you look nothing like the victims of real abuse stories. Neither as regards the physical damages, nor as regards the psychological effects. Does not work.
• you can only win battles in a particular court, ie one in which your counterpart has no defense. But it doesn't work in court. (see Brizzi).
• a story of rape is necessarily the story of the behavior of a male. If that's not true, the males will catch you in 5 minutes. Give up.

In short, I suggest one thing to the Abused-Chic. When you make up, you tell about being abused by a woman . It suits you, and if you do it almost no male can sneak up on you (then the other women catch you). But if you put a male protagonist in a story of violence, you need to know how a male thinks when he fights in a physical fight, and then you need to know how a male thinks he intends to have sexual intercourse about his body.

And you can't, simply because you're not male. You haven't worn a male body for years and years. There is wonder about the details.

Your stories will be weak: start accusing yourselves, it's better.

Or leave serious and serious things to reality, and to the police. I repeat, to the police.

Not to the newspapers.

That abuse is exactly the movie you DON'T want to be in. And especially, it's exactly the movie you can't write. Kubrick can write a story of violent males. Not Rowling.