July 10, 2023 - 5:30pm
To navigate the world of modern dating, readers first need to understand the new lexicon of love: green flags, red flags, beige flags, love bombing, breadcrumbing, ghosting, gaslighting. Do you know what your love language is? Do you know if you have an anxious or avoidant attachment style? Are you manifesting, healing your inner child, trauma-bonding? This therapy-speak has become so normalised that on Hinge, a dating app with over 23 million users, you can respond to prompts like, “Therapy recently taught me___”, “A boundary of mine is___” and “My therapist would say I___.”
Yet what happens when this psychobabble becomes less of a tool and more of a weapon? The actor Jonah Hill was widely criticised this weekend for sending “emotionally abusive” text messages to his ex-girlfriend, surfing instructor Sarah Brady, in which he outlined his romantic “boundaries”. In one message, Hill said that if Brady needed “surfing with men, boundaryless inappropriate relationships with men, to model, to post pictures of yourself in a bathing suit, to post sexual pictures, have friendships with women… from your wild recent past […] I am not the right partner for you.”
This is a classic example of how the language of wellbeing and “self-care” can be misconstrued. Hill’s messages are not about setting boundaries, but instead setting a list of demands. Boundaries are values and limits you impose on yourself and your own behaviour, not rules that can then be enforced on other people. As upfront and clear as Hill may have been with his expectations, this ultimately sounds like an attempt at coercive control, apparently justified because he is, to use his own words, “vulnerable”. If the actor didn’t want a girlfriend who posted pictures in a swimsuit, perhaps he shouldn’t have dated a professional surfer.
This should therefore be a timely reminder that being in therapy is not necessarily a barometer of whether someone is a good or adjusted person. Hill has apparently been so enlightened by therapy that last year he even created a documentary about his therapist, called Stutz, in which he talks about concepts like “life force”, embracing his “shadow self” and “the reversal of desire”. Yet people aren’t just learning to diagnose their lives (and their love lives) through therapy, but also through podcasts, YouTubers, influencers, TikTokers, life coaches — basically anyone with a front-facing camera.
The assumption is that therapy can only improve its recipient, but for some people solely focusing on themselves can give them an elevated sense of self-importance: that becoming aware of their own issues and “doing the work” somehow makes them better than everyone else. Ultimately, therapy, and therapy-speak, can simply make manipulative people better manipulators. Hill told Brady to “take some accountability and operate with respect”, but by hiding behind his “boundaries”, he is hardly doing the same; rather, he is just projecting his own insecurities.
This pervasive pathologisation is fundamentally changing the way we interact with one another. Navel-gazing can lead to unhealthy self-centredness (one of the easiest ways to boost mental health is to do something for other people). It can help us to deceive ourselves that nothing we ever do, say or feel is wrong (for example, we can smugly say, “No, I’m not ending our relationship; I’m just reassessing my emotional capacity for you right now.”) It simplifies messy, nuanced, complex realities into neat clinical boxes while we continue our quest for self-optimisation, being the “best” versions of ourselves.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“I too struggle with mental health, but I do not use it to control [people] like he did to me”
I think making public the private texts of your ex, a highly public figure, with the direct intention of taking him down, might qualify as controlling or abusive behaviour.
“It’s been a year of healing and growth with the help of loved ones and doctors to get back to living my life without guilt, shame and self-judgment for things as small as surfing in a swimsuit rather than a more conservative wetsuit. And I’m sure there’s still much more healing from this abuse ahead of me”
This seems like it might be another Depp-Heard situation – big ego actor attracts narcissist; explosion results.
Would it not simply be classed as revenge. If he has made her life a misery with his controlling behaviour (while cultivating a happy go lucky persona professionally) why shouldn’t she get her own back, and warn other women of what he’s really like in the process?
Yes like you I find the American therapist babble extremely irritating, but I think she’s well within her rights to show him up
Could be – but I’m not seeing any terrible behaviour that an adult shouldn’t be able to deal with. Revenge is almost always regressive, and in this case seems so.
Could be – but I’m not seeing any terrible behaviour that an adult shouldn’t be able to deal with. Revenge is almost always regressive, and in this case seems so.
Would it not simply be classed as revenge. If he has made her life a misery with his controlling behaviour (while cultivating a happy go lucky persona professionally) why shouldn’t she get her own back, and warn other women of what he’s really like in the process?
Yes like you I find the American therapist babble extremely irritating, but I think she’s well within her rights to show him up
“I too struggle with mental health, but I do not use it to control [people] like he did to me”
I think making public the private texts of your ex, a highly public figure, with the direct intention of taking him down, might qualify as controlling or abusive behaviour.
“It’s been a year of healing and growth with the help of loved ones and doctors to get back to living my life without guilt, shame and self-judgment for things as small as surfing in a swimsuit rather than a more conservative wetsuit. And I’m sure there’s still much more healing from this abuse ahead of me”
This seems like it might be another Depp-Heard situation – big ego actor attracts narcissist; explosion results.
The author uses the word demand almost as a pejorative, but what is the difference between demand and the far less loaded word request? Hill never used the word demand so what did he say and was it abuse?
Hill mentions he doesn’t want her to have any more boundaryless inappropriate relationships with other men. It is a request and probably one that is absolute, a demand if you are the author.
I’d say that is a demand most people of all persuasions implicitly make when they commit to someone, and explicitly make before a second chance should a partner cheat. Are there degrees of acceptable demands? The author doesn’t say so. The author simply goes on to argue demands are abuse, and then escalates demands to coercion.
The hyperbolic disassociation of words and meaning by academics and writers is a far bigger threat than any quack therapy.
If I “requested” what my missus could wear to the beach or tried to control who she spoke to she’d quite rightly tell me to f**k off. Requesting a partner do something and then get stroppy if they don’t comply does strike me as rather controlling behaviour
I agree that Hills “emphatic requests” sound controlling, (also insecure and self-important) but not with your conclusion that Brady did a well-warranted thing by publishing a meant-as-private, no doubt carefully-selected sampling of his texts. Perhaps he deserves it in some measure–though a full transcript of their text exchanges would probably provide instructive context and be a voyeuristic waste of time–but her approach does not seem laudable to me.
For all the talk of emotional maturity, the emotionally mature response would’ve been “yes I agree, we’re not as compatible as we first hoped, goodbye” and then just got on with their lives.
Yes, rather than publishing it to all and sundry.
Yes, rather than publishing it to all and sundry.
For all the talk of emotional maturity, the emotionally mature response would’ve been “yes I agree, we’re not as compatible as we first hoped, goodbye” and then just got on with their lives.
I agree that Hills “emphatic requests” sound controlling, (also insecure and self-important) but not with your conclusion that Brady did a well-warranted thing by publishing a meant-as-private, no doubt carefully-selected sampling of his texts. Perhaps he deserves it in some measure–though a full transcript of their text exchanges would probably provide instructive context and be a voyeuristic waste of time–but her approach does not seem laudable to me.
If a woman made similar demands of her man she would be praised for ‘taking control of her life’.
If I “requested” what my missus could wear to the beach or tried to control who she spoke to she’d quite rightly tell me to f**k off. Requesting a partner do something and then get stroppy if they don’t comply does strike me as rather controlling behaviour
If a woman made similar demands of her man she would be praised for ‘taking control of her life’.
The author uses the word demand almost as a pejorative, but what is the difference between demand and the far less loaded word request? Hill never used the word demand so what did he say and was it abuse?
Hill mentions he doesn’t want her to have any more boundaryless inappropriate relationships with other men. It is a request and probably one that is absolute, a demand if you are the author.
I’d say that is a demand most people of all persuasions implicitly make when they commit to someone, and explicitly make before a second chance should a partner cheat. Are there degrees of acceptable demands? The author doesn’t say so. The author simply goes on to argue demands are abuse, and then escalates demands to coercion.
The hyperbolic disassociation of words and meaning by academics and writers is a far bigger threat than any quack therapy.
”If the actor didn’t want a girlfriend who posted pictures in a swimsuit, perhaps he shouldn’t have dated a professional surfer.“
Thanks. That actually says it all.
”If the actor didn’t want a girlfriend who posted pictures in a swimsuit, perhaps he shouldn’t have dated a professional surfer.“
Thanks. That actually says it all.
“Boundaries are values and limits you impose on yourself and your own behaviour, not rules that can then be enforced on other people.”
This distinction seems very spurious to me. Besides, how does Hill “enforce” his own “rules” on Brady? Why is he “coercive”? He doesn’t threaten her. On the contrary, he gives her a choice that any adult, even any child, should be able to make. She can either say with him or leave him. People make mistakes. They don’t always get along. Breaking up can be unpleasant. But this does not make a confrontation immoral.
The author denounces therapeutic jargon, and this is indeed a curse of our time–one that reinforces the lamentable tendency to replace thinking with feeling. But she nonetheless resorts to her own ideological jargon, which “coercive control” surely is (although it originated in the context of law, not pop psychology).
Agreed, why is he not allowed to communicate what he wants in a girlfriend? Seems quite fair rather than just breaking up with her and not offering an explanation.
Agreed, why is he not allowed to communicate what he wants in a girlfriend? Seems quite fair rather than just breaking up with her and not offering an explanation.
“Boundaries are values and limits you impose on yourself and your own behaviour, not rules that can then be enforced on other people.”
This distinction seems very spurious to me. Besides, how does Hill “enforce” his own “rules” on Brady? Why is he “coercive”? He doesn’t threaten her. On the contrary, he gives her a choice that any adult, even any child, should be able to make. She can either say with him or leave him. People make mistakes. They don’t always get along. Breaking up can be unpleasant. But this does not make a confrontation immoral.
The author denounces therapeutic jargon, and this is indeed a curse of our time–one that reinforces the lamentable tendency to replace thinking with feeling. But she nonetheless resorts to her own ideological jargon, which “coercive control” surely is (although it originated in the context of law, not pop psychology).
The only thing that therapy does is to allow self obsessed nitwits to talk more about themselves using new terminology.
The only thing that therapy does is to allow self obsessed nitwits to talk more about themselves using new terminology.
These texts do not strike me as abusive. I would hope that if I had received them from my boyfriend, I would have thought to myself: When people tell you who they are, listen. This boyfriend is telling me that he is not comfortable with some of my behaviors and that gives me a picture as clear as day. If I find these conditions unreasonable, then adios.
I had a very serious boyfriend when I was in law school whom I ultimately broke up with; he was a good guy and it was a painful breakup. The main reason I left is because I had a hard boundary around smoking and around drug use (different reasons for each) and he continued to dabble in these behaviors. Was it abusive to tell him, in effect, that if he wanted to continue with these things then I was not the right girl for him?
These texts do not strike me as abusive. I would hope that if I had received them from my boyfriend, I would have thought to myself: When people tell you who they are, listen. This boyfriend is telling me that he is not comfortable with some of my behaviors and that gives me a picture as clear as day. If I find these conditions unreasonable, then adios.
I had a very serious boyfriend when I was in law school whom I ultimately broke up with; he was a good guy and it was a painful breakup. The main reason I left is because I had a hard boundary around smoking and around drug use (different reasons for each) and he continued to dabble in these behaviors. Was it abusive to tell him, in effect, that if he wanted to continue with these things then I was not the right girl for him?
“The assumption is that therapy can only improve its recipient, but for some people solely focusing on themselves can give them an elevated sense of self-importance: that becoming aware of their own issues and “doing the work” somehow makes them better than everyone else. ”
Oh, hello Harry ! How’s Meghan ?
“The assumption is that therapy can only improve its recipient, but for some people solely focusing on themselves can give them an elevated sense of self-importance: that becoming aware of their own issues and “doing the work” somehow makes them better than everyone else. ”
Oh, hello Harry ! How’s Meghan ?
Jonah who?
Indeed.
He’s a ‘A’ List Hollywood actor, been acting and writing successful films for 15 years and has earned near to $100 million.
Indeed.
He’s a ‘A’ List Hollywood actor, been acting and writing successful films for 15 years and has earned near to $100 million.
Jonah who?
Haven’t women been doing this to men for time immemorial?
Haven’t women been doing this to men for time immemorial?
Why shouldn’t he give her his reasons for dumping her?
Why shouldn’t he give her his reasons for dumping her?
“These are the boundaries under which I am comfortable participating in this committed, exclusive relationship.”
“Those boundaries won’t work forme.”
“Good luck in your future endeavors.”
Is this really the kind of interaction you are going to label as abusive? Really? BFH.
“These are the boundaries under which I am comfortable participating in this committed, exclusive relationship.”
“Those boundaries won’t work forme.”
“Good luck in your future endeavors.”
Is this really the kind of interaction you are going to label as abusive? Really? BFH.
Nothing can be concluded here and it is not worth anyone’s time working up an opinion: these people are celebrities (apparently, though I had never heard of them before and will have forgotten their names a few minutes from now). So nothing we hear about them is remotely likely to be true. Probably even many of the details will have been completely made up; certainly the narrative in which they are embedded and to which those details are intended to lend some sort of specious plausibility is a work of fiction. Sufficiently complex fictions can of course challenge our most cherished preconceptions about how the world works in interesting ways; but those in the media, whether legacy or social, rarely do that. That’s not what they are for.
Nothing can be concluded here and it is not worth anyone’s time working up an opinion: these people are celebrities (apparently, though I had never heard of them before and will have forgotten their names a few minutes from now). So nothing we hear about them is remotely likely to be true. Probably even many of the details will have been completely made up; certainly the narrative in which they are embedded and to which those details are intended to lend some sort of specious plausibility is a work of fiction. Sufficiently complex fictions can of course challenge our most cherished preconceptions about how the world works in interesting ways; but those in the media, whether legacy or social, rarely do that. That’s not what they are for.
Perhaps Sarah Brady should take the hint and dodge that bullet. He has declared himself to be untrusting and jealous so she can judge for herself if he is the right partner for her.
When the texts that Brady published are taken in isolation, I agree. Maybe she wants/needs people to know he’s not as nice as he seems in interviews? If so, that wouldn’t be much of a revelation about nearly any “nicety-nice” personality.
When the texts that Brady published are taken in isolation, I agree. Maybe she wants/needs people to know he’s not as nice as he seems in interviews? If so, that wouldn’t be much of a revelation about nearly any “nicety-nice” personality.
Perhaps Sarah Brady should take the hint and dodge that bullet. He has declared himself to be untrusting and jealous so she can judge for herself if he is the right partner for her.
“Coercive Demands”?
“Emotionally abusive”?
Really?
You appear to be reading rather a lot into these messages – why, I wonder, is it just so that they fit more comfortably with your preconceptions?
Anyone who litigates the break-up of their relationship publicly on social media, let alone in the press, should probably recognise that quite a lot of the fault lies with them. Their energies might be better spent addressing why on earth they’d want to do such a thing, and what it says about them.
“Coercive Demands”?
“Emotionally abusive”?
Really?
You appear to be reading rather a lot into these messages – why, I wonder, is it just so that they fit more comfortably with your preconceptions?
Anyone who litigates the break-up of their relationship publicly on social media, let alone in the press, should probably recognise that quite a lot of the fault lies with them. Their energies might be better spent addressing why on earth they’d want to do such a thing, and what it says about them.
His posts are pretty bad to be fair. Sounds like they weren’t right for each other but carried on regardless. He got to giving ultimatums – always finish when an ultimatum has been thrown.
His posts are pretty bad to be fair. Sounds like they weren’t right for each other but carried on regardless. He got to giving ultimatums – always finish when an ultimatum has been thrown.
I generally find manifesting to be a five-sheets-of-Andrex job.
If she didn’t like the sound of it, she should have left. Isn’t that what autonomy is all about?