Over the weekend, Jonah Hill’s ex-girlfriend Sarah Brady leaked a series of messages between the two, detailing alarming “boundaries” Hill set out for their now-ended relationship. Hill allegedly (the exchange isn’t verified) explained his needs for romantic partnership didn’t support Brady “surfing with men,” “boundaryless inappropriate friendships with men,” posting pictures “in a bathing suit,” posting “sexual pictures,” “modeling,” or “friendships with women who are in unstable places from your wild recent past beyond getting lunch of a coffee or something respectful.” Many of us have joked that this sounds like the perfect marginally unhealthy, slightly-dissociative, completely autonomous summer. We could even jokingly argue that boundary-less inappropriate friendships with men are exactly what your 20s are for. But glibness, fun as it is, won’t staunch the coercive control bleeding out of Hill’s (alleged) words.
For me, articulating boundaries means accurately identifying people, places, or things that test your moral truth, personal safety, or emotional wellbeing, in order to make the decision to either challenge the overstep or remove yourself from the situation entirely. Boundaries are not a way to stop your partner surfing with men or modeling. Boundaries are not a device to contain another person’s actions, to control them. It’s amazing to see how the therapized language—something protective by design—is being used to easily breezily usher in manipulative, misogynistic behaviors. In this new normal—an icky era of weaponized therapy—softbois argue your autonomy away with open logic and emotional upfront-ness. It’s very “it hurts me so bad when you seem free,” and it’s all being done so matter-of-factly. It’s not dramatic, it’s not forged in the outward rage we’re used to from toxic men. It feels reasoned and reasonable, verging on the emotionally pragmatic. And yet it’s a hideous bunting of red flags, an incredibly eloquent exercise of coercive control.
Hill also asked his then-girlfriend to delete a series of photos from her feed, some of which she’s now re-posting. These pictures of Brady—in our increasingly hypersexualized, faux-coquettish times, where sexual availability are quietly announced to our Instagram followers—feel startlingly sexless and benign. Most adult women (and men) know when their content is sub-textually provocative or inviting, yet we see none of this in the excavated pics; they’re un-thirst traps. But the way sexuality and sexual availability is assessed is a huge part of the issue at play.
By the logic of Hill’s messages, the devices women use to catch a man—flesh, flirtation, frivolity—are to be stopped once the man is snared. When a woman retains pride in her appearance, when she keeps her confidence and maintains friendships on her own terms, she reinforces her autonomy, her capability apart from her partner, and above all emphasizes her position as not his possession. This is what the misogynists don’t like: women who don’t fall into submissive adjacent roles. These debates are never really about bathing suits or boundaries, the guise of caring for her wellbeing is erroneous. They are about a woman relinquishing who she is for her man.
For all the latest fasion News Click Here
