I don’t believe her actions were primarily directed toward her daughter at all. I believe the true target and motivating character was her daughter’s boyfriend. The daughter was collateral. A mother jealous of her child being with the type of boy she wished she had been with in her youth and likely fueled by her own sexual trauma. The explicit sexual nature of the texts were around him and his sexuality it seemed. The focus was on his satisfaction through degrading the daughter and calling into question her ability to please him (a deep insecurity held by nearly all women).
Also, the fact that the texts were later directed at the mother of another young girl the boy began seeing. Completely detached from the daughter’s relationship to the boy. I found it telling that that girl didn’t receive texts, but rather her mother. She viewed the mother as her primary competition or obstacle, not the young girl.
Lastly, she developed a very close relationship with the boy’s mother and worked alongside her during their “investigation”. I can’t help but imagine this was not only to keep tabs on what people were finding out in order to redirect suspicion onto other possible candidates (the other female friend at school and the cousin), but also to monitor any potential “Freudian Oedipus Complex” dynamics between the mother and her son.
This is sexually predatory behavior overriding maternal instinct. The daughter was simply in the way of the mother’s sexual fantasy and ultimately deemed disposable collateral. Her subconscious mind decided the well-being of her child was worth less than the gratification of her sexual desire.
Pure speculation as I’m no professional. But I believe it may behoove us to consider the most victimized individual (the daughter) may not have been the primary target or motivating factor behind the behavior.
Yes, there’s a case to be made for this. Many factors point to it. Clinically, it wreaks of FDIA. The dark triad part would support the boyfriend theory. The FDIA part would support protection becoming control, stemming, most likely, from the mothers experienced sexual trauma as a teenager.
Another double-edged sword of being in a position to help... Right, Grainger? When men are ostensibly the ones to be helped, is this danger part of what makes men reluctant to advertise their vulnerability and open themselves to "help" for it?
I haven't seen this, but it sounds as if there is something else at play here too – the growing inability of people to distinguish between fantasy and reality. I agree with all you say, but the merging of fact and fiction – 'in real life' and online – means that people are often behaving as if they are playing a complex game (and I don't just mean 'the games people play' type games). I mean that they are divorced from reality and consequences – they and others are one-dimensional characters to be played with and manipulated (therefore no empathy necessary). They are lost to their own little world, and this enables them to do things they would never do otherwise, especially, as you say, if they were better integrated into real communities.
I don’t believe her actions were primarily directed toward her daughter at all. I believe the true target and motivating character was her daughter’s boyfriend. The daughter was collateral. A mother jealous of her child being with the type of boy she wished she had been with in her youth and likely fueled by her own sexual trauma. The explicit sexual nature of the texts were around him and his sexuality it seemed. The focus was on his satisfaction through degrading the daughter and calling into question her ability to please him (a deep insecurity held by nearly all women).
Also, the fact that the texts were later directed at the mother of another young girl the boy began seeing. Completely detached from the daughter’s relationship to the boy. I found it telling that that girl didn’t receive texts, but rather her mother. She viewed the mother as her primary competition or obstacle, not the young girl.
Lastly, she developed a very close relationship with the boy’s mother and worked alongside her during their “investigation”. I can’t help but imagine this was not only to keep tabs on what people were finding out in order to redirect suspicion onto other possible candidates (the other female friend at school and the cousin), but also to monitor any potential “Freudian Oedipus Complex” dynamics between the mother and her son.
This is sexually predatory behavior overriding maternal instinct. The daughter was simply in the way of the mother’s sexual fantasy and ultimately deemed disposable collateral. Her subconscious mind decided the well-being of her child was worth less than the gratification of her sexual desire.
Pure speculation as I’m no professional. But I believe it may behoove us to consider the most victimized individual (the daughter) may not have been the primary target or motivating factor behind the behavior.
Yes, there’s a case to be made for this. Many factors point to it. Clinically, it wreaks of FDIA. The dark triad part would support the boyfriend theory. The FDIA part would support protection becoming control, stemming, most likely, from the mothers experienced sexual trauma as a teenager.
Another double-edged sword of being in a position to help... Right, Grainger? When men are ostensibly the ones to be helped, is this danger part of what makes men reluctant to advertise their vulnerability and open themselves to "help" for it?
I haven't seen this, but it sounds as if there is something else at play here too – the growing inability of people to distinguish between fantasy and reality. I agree with all you say, but the merging of fact and fiction – 'in real life' and online – means that people are often behaving as if they are playing a complex game (and I don't just mean 'the games people play' type games). I mean that they are divorced from reality and consequences – they and others are one-dimensional characters to be played with and manipulated (therefore no empathy necessary). They are lost to their own little world, and this enables them to do things they would never do otherwise, especially, as you say, if they were better integrated into real communities.