According to the last tweet and her last stream, she has full control over all her accounts again. I dunno if that means her bank accounts to, but it implies it because I feel like she would have mentioned that her money is still locked up.
Top female Twitch streamer Amouranth stream turns dark as an apparent abusive husband comes to light
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
I think people like this idea that personal lives being broadcast is normal and should be respected. I disagree, its absolutely not normal. She is running a business. At best she's an unreliable narrator here and worst she's drumming up drama for clicks. I feel no social responsibility give a shit.
"All we can do is speculate"? No, the other option is just... not doing that. It's very easy. I'm doing it right now, in fact.
It doesn't matter whether she was unwise to put it in a stream or not. That's not relevant to the fact that we don't know shit, so accusations of faking domestic abuse are gross.
Fuck me dude, you're about to make me defend Amouranth. Of all people. God damn it.
Remember when I said this all fit the DA/IPV textbook a little too perfect? Because this is textbook DA/IPV. This shit's cyclical.
Cycle of Abuse: Understanding the 4 Parts
The idea of looking at abuse as a cycle is common practice among experts, but it has its limitations. Here’s a closer look at what the cycle involves and why it doesn’t always represent the full story.
www.healthline.com
There's four stages to an abusive cycle: tension, incident, reconciliation, honeymoon. Key stage here is "incident"; an incitement after a period of tension building triggers a drastic, sudden, and extreme backlash from one party or the other. Most attention is on how the incident phase plays out for the perpetrator, but rarely on how it plays out for the victim: it's the only stage in which the victim retaliates, leaves, calls attention to the abuse, or reaches out for help. Yes, it is often public, often quite visible, and to outside observers can come across as unprovoked; the last of which has the possibility to help the abuser cover up the cycle to third parties, and gaslight/socially isolate their victim further.
In the other three stages, the victim generally attempts to appease their abuser, and obfuscate the cyclical nature of the abuse out of Stockholm syndrome. The context or the venue by which the "incident" occurs is less relevant to the incident, than it having occurred. Abusive cycles can move into the "incident" stage practically anywhere, and under any context; all that is necessary, is incitement.
This is why I'm personally skeptical of the situation, given Amouranth's past track record. That cycle doesn't happen as cleanly, quickly, or by-the-numbers as this has in real life. Like I said, it's a little too perfect for me to accept in and of itself, and why I'm in "trust but verify" mode.
Last edited:
I really don't think we even need to doubt whether the abuse is happening here, cause even if it is, doesn't she have millions to cushion the blow anyways? And even if she somehow lost it all, can't she like...make it back in a couple months on new accounts that she fully controls anyways?
Can't she use those millions to hire private security to be around her 24/7 and mob the guy if he tries to touch her or her dogs or what have you? What is this bruhaha even about?
That's why I'm leaning to it being just a pathological need for attention more than anything, and that doesn't have to mean that her claims are false. You can exploit true claims and true crimes that have been acted out against you to do something you wanted to do anyways, just look at our wars in the middle east post 9/11.
Can't she use those millions to hire private security to be around her 24/7 and mob the guy if he tries to touch her or her dogs or what have you? What is this bruhaha even about?
That's why I'm leaning to it being just a pathological need for attention more than anything, and that doesn't have to mean that her claims are false. You can exploit true claims and true crimes that have been acted out against you to do something you wanted to do anyways, just look at our wars in the middle east post 9/11.
Yeah innocent until proven guilty in these cases is clearly bullshit. What they mean is the woman is lying until proven otherwise. You can take a stance without speculation. But people will actively assume the worst of the accuser.
This thread is going to be archived in the museum exhibit about why gamers of the early twenty-first century never got laid and died out.
I think I’ll just let the police and social services sort this one out, thank you very much.
She streamed yesterday and said that she has her accounts back and that her husband is gone. More importantly she has said that she is going to change her content and stop taking her clothes off for entertainment. Which is great, now she can make the content she wants without the pressure of someone pushing her into sex work she isnt interested in doing.
Which means she'll close down her Onlyfans account now right? Right? I know i wouldnt wanna leave up videos of my abuse. Maybe that's just me.
Which means she'll close down her Onlyfans account now right? Right? I know i wouldnt wanna leave up videos of my abuse. Maybe that's just me.
I mean, that applies to everyone, not just the accusers, it applies to the accused too. And if you make a claim you bear the burden of proof, not the person you accused. Cause even if you are telling the truth, if we don't do it this way there will be others who will not be as truthful and exploit the system to get innocents imprisoned. And this even applies to the person who victimised you, they now get to claim you abused them, and we would have to believe them based on this standard.
I doubt that, but it could be used as one of many showcases of why neoliberals who will jump to defend a person who has a capacity to make a million dollars a month, merely because it fits their narrative based on idpol, lost the working class and opened the way for fascists to take over the government. Actual leftists should have been criticizing the systems that allowed for someone to become wealthy like that in a world where people are living in the streets, that should have been the takeaway, but because the multi-millionare fits a certain profile their obscene wealth is celebrated instead.
Partner abuse victims are a dime a dozen, and most of em don't have millions of dollars to cushion the blow, but we focus on the one who does because of dumb things like celebrity, that's all kinds of messed up.
Last edited:
TIL that one cannot oppose societal wealth structures if one also doesn't want a wealthy woman to be personally abused. Didn't realise they were mutually exclusive-- here I thought economic reform was about the systems themselves, not just abusing rich people.
I'd like to focus on the rest of them too. But you've just established a standard that means we disbelieve them or dismiss them if they go public, so you're also making that harder.
I can see if you were already familiar with this person how that may seem the notable thing, but as someone who had never heard of her before this issue came up, hearing how much money she made was news just as much as the partner abuse claims she made. So yeah when you have claims of something coupled up with literal evidence of absurd wealth and earnings made through just stuff like twitch and onlyfans, obviously the latter will be more attention-catching.
And no, I'm protecting the rest of them from these same false accusations too, because like I described, there would be nothing to stop their abuser from making claims that they were abusive to them too if we had a system of just believing everything everyone claims. It may seem in this context that there's a greater degree of urgency in protecting the victims from the actual abuse than from false accusations of abuse, but that is only because we operate under a system that negates the potential for such accusations, and that is not the situation that would be the case if the system was different. Basically, the urgency is an illusion and we are already being protected from a much greater evil as we speak, we just can't notice it because we're being proactive in preventing said evil so it can't manifest and make us feel its harm.
Id ask if you realise that she can want different things from different platforms, but I know you arent interested in a nuanced position because you see OF and women on twitch as a problem which society lost the battle on.
She can do whatever the hell she wants. It's not your decision to make. I wouldn't hate her either way, nor pass judgment on the lady. It's her business and nobody else's.
In the nicest possible way, you are a simpleton. We can be critical of a system that enables a person to earn large amounts of money without believing people existing within that system the way the system wants them to deserve to live in abusive relationships or be otherwise abused. It's actually fine that a person earns a lot of money, as long as we take most of it back through taxation. That we don't do enough of that is irrelevant to the discussion and absolutely not within the power of the individual the discussion concerns in any case.
That you think you are left-wing is a little joke that the rest of us get together and chuckle about while we're trialling new berets.
I still haven't seen a single reason why the latter should negate or undermine the former. It doesn't change the facts of the matter, its just a sharp turn into irrelevant territory.
It's like someone reporting getting beaten up, and your response is, "ok but dude I've seen your phone, it's a very nice phone so you'll be fine".
You're protecting nobody. You have no evidence Its a false accusation, but you're now asserting it as if it's a given.
The message that is (unintentionally) given to victims of abuse from this kind of moral positioning is, "you can't prove shit, so don't bring it up-- and even if you could, if you've got a nice lifestyle I'll feel zero sympathy".
Not every victim is a "perfect victim". But if you have a consistent and principled objection to the behaviour, that shouldn't matter, because the behaviour remains objectionable regardless.
Fair enough. I just think that if you were abused and forced into doing all this sex work, and you really didn't want to be a part of it. At the very least you would close your current porn-filled account and make a new one with a fresh start. Or hell purge the content off the page currently and sort of reset and rebrand yourself. Wouldn't that make sense?
Of course walking away from over $1,000,000/month is easier said than done I bet.
I mean most of the defense is against the blatant victim blaming, anti-women, anti-sw rhetoric which is popping up.
So less going to bat over an internet personality and more going to bat over values and attitudes in.....the current events section. Whodathought.