Mouna's Story

Adriane’s Pattern of Control, Boundary Violations, and Psychological Abuse

How Mouna Survived: Apology as De-escalation

To understand Adriane’s abuse, it is first necessary to understand the survival strategy Mouna was forced to adopt. Mouna apologized constantly. There are over 100 documented instances of Mouna apologizing in the text messages alone.^[1] Many of these apologies were for things Mouna never did.^[2] Mouna apologized when Adriane blamed them for preventing her from dating someone named Connor, even though Mouna had actually encouraged her to date him.^[3] Mouna still just apologized.^[4]

This pattern has a name in the psychological literature. Therapist Pete Walker identified the “fawn response” as a fourth trauma response alongside fight, flight, and freeze. It is a trauma-driven pattern of people-pleasing behaviors designed to diffuse danger when the brain senses threat, especially social or relational threat. The survivor instinctively placates, appeases, or over-accommodates. Over-apologizing is one of its hallmark features: the apology becomes a currency that purchases momentary safety.^[R1] Research rooted in polyvagal theory explains why this happens: when fight, flight, or freeze are not viable options, the nervous system defaults to fawning to maintain connection with the source of threat.^[R2] What begins as a protective strategy becomes deeply ingrained. For survivors of intimate partner violence, fawning is not kindness. It is survival.^[R3]

The trial judge in Kaminsky v. Apperson recognized exactly this dynamic. During a sidebar, the court articulated that Mouna was “apologizing just to kind of deescalate the conversation” because of the crisis Adriane was going through.^[5] This was not a casual observation. It was a judicial finding, made in real time, about the nature of Mouna’s apologies. The court saw what Adriane’s allies refuse to see: Mouna’s apologies were not admissions. They were survival.

Understanding this pattern is essential because Adriane and her allies have weaponized these apologies. They treat each one as a confession. But the research is clear: in coercively controlling relationships, the victim’s apologies do not reflect the truth of what happened. They reflect the power dynamics of the relationship itself.^[R4]

Sexual Boundary Violations and Consent

Adriane felt entitled to violate Mouna’s sexual boundaries without consequence.

The nude video. Adriane took a nude video of Mouna and distributed it to others without consent.^[6] Her account of this event changed three times under oath. In her deposition, she was unambiguous: “I did not ask Mouna before I sent it” and “I didn’t think to ask.”^[7] But at trial, in front of the jury, she changed her story and claimed that Mouna “did” consent and was “next to” her when she sent it.^[8] The text messages prove this was physically impossible: when Adriane sent the video on June 22, 2016, Mouna was in Seattle attending a wedding while Adriane was in Orlando, Florida, approximately 2,500 miles apart.^[9] When confronted on redirect with her own deposition answers, she confirmed every single one of them, then tried a hybrid version, and finally conceded: “I guess you could say, if you want.”^[10] Three versions of the same event, each contradicting the last, with documentary proof that the version she told the jury was a fabrication.

This behavior fits a pattern identified in coercive control research. Distributing intimate images without consent is recognized as a tactic of coercive control, listed by WomensLaw.org alongside monitoring movements and financial abuse as behaviors abusers use to take away a partner’s freedom and dignity.^[R5] The fact that Adriane’s testimony about it shifted repeatedly is consistent with what researchers have documented about perpetrators of intimate partner violence: minimization, denial, and shifting narratives are commonly used by those who perpetrate abuse to avoid accountability.^[R6]

The face-sitting incident. Less than three weeks before the breakup, Adriane sat on Mouna’s face without first getting permission.^[11] She simply felt she did not need consent. This was not an isolated lapse. It reflected an orientation toward Mouna’s body as something she was entitled to access on her own terms.

The Double Bind

Adriane utilized the abuse technique of double binding. She once asked not to have penetrative sex. Mouna was fine with that. But shortly after, she became angry when Mouna refused to break her own stated rule.^[12] Later, when Mouna used that same example to explain their feelings on something, she became very angry, yelled at Mouna, and accused them of criticizing her character.^[13] As was typical, Mouna just apologized.^[14]

Double binds are a well-documented feature of coercive control. Torna Pitman’s research, published in the British Journal of Social Work, describes how coercive controllers entrap their partners within “a web of double standards, double binds and boundary violations, denying them equality, autonomy or agency.”^[R7] Kate Amber’s “Quicksand” model of coercive control identifies double binds as one of the “5 D’s” of coercive control, alongside double speak, double standards, double vision, and DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender).^[R8] In a double bind, the victim is confronted with two irreconcilable demands: no matter what they choose, they are wrong. The only safe response is appeasement, which is exactly what Mouna did.

The Weaponized Apology: July 30, 2016

One apology in particular has been weaponized against Mouna. On July 30, 2016, Adriane demanded an apology for a sexual act during an acute pregnancy crisis. She believed she was pregnant, was discussing abortion, and had been texting since 4:50 AM about her symptoms.^[15] Mouna apologized, as they always did.

Adriane and her allies now treat that apology as an admission. But Mouna explicitly denied the underlying act under oath. When asked directly at trial, “Did you ejaculate in her without her consent?” Mouna answered: “No.” When asked, “But you apologized for doing it?” Mouna answered: “That’s correct.”^[16] The trial judge recognized exactly what was happening, articulating in a sidebar that Mouna was “apologizing just to kind of deescalate the conversation.”^[17] Opposing counsel then abandoned this line of questioning entirely when warned that continuing would open the door to the full context of the abortion crisis.^[18] Even the attorney trying to use the apology against Mouna recognized it could not survive scrutiny.

There is another critical detail. The same accusation, using identical language (“came in me without asking”), had been made by Adriane about another person named Chris just weeks earlier, on June 8, 2016.^[19] The same narrative template was applied to two different people within two months. This is consistent with what Jennifer Freyd’s DARVO research describes: perpetrators deny wrongdoing, attack the person confronting them, and reverse the roles of victim and offender. The use of a repeating accusation template against multiple people is a feature of this pattern, not an aberration.^[R9]

Research by Harsey and Freyd (2020) demonstrated experimentally that exposure to DARVO causes observers to perceive the victim as less believable, more responsible for the violence, and more abusive, while simultaneously judging the perpetrator as less abusive and less responsible.^[R10] This is precisely the effect Adriane’s weaponization of Mouna’s apologies has achieved.

Jealousy, Isolation, and Control

Adriane was extremely controlling and jealous. She felt entitled to declare that people wanted to have sex with Mouna, and used these declarations to restrict who Mouna could spend time with.

Jenny. Jenny was a housemate who had a boyfriend. Adriane disagreed that there was no chemistry between Jenny and Mouna, and became upset that Mouna spent time with her.^[20] Mouna mostly went along with Adriane because it was easier.^[21] But one time, Mouna tried telling Adriane that they and Jenny were not interested in each other. This angered Adriane and she started a fight.^[22] Mouna had to leave the fight for their own emotional safety, which Adriane called “mean.”

Rodney and Kate. Adriane also claimed both Rodney and Kate, also housemates, were obsessed with Mouna.^[23] Mouna never had any romantic or sexual interest in either of them.

This pattern of isolating a partner from friends and housemates is one of the most consistently identified tactics of coercive control in the research literature. Evan Stark’s foundational work defines coercive control as a pattern of acts and behaviors designed to degrade, isolate, and deprive a person of their autonomy. Isolation from friends and social support is a core tactic.^[R11] A systematic review and meta-analysis by Lohmann et al. (2024) found moderate associations between coercive control and PTSD (r = .32) and depression (r = .27), with emerging evidence linking coercive control specifically to complex PTSD (CPTSD).^[R12] The cumulative effect of these tactics, as Sharp-Jeffs et al. (2018) describe, is to progressively close down the victim’s “space for action” and severely restrict their autonomy.^[R13]

The double standard. In contrast to Adriane’s controlling behavior, Mouna supported her making friends.^[24] Even after the relationship ended, Mouna encouraged her to seek support from others,^[25] while she tried to convince Mouna they should not talk to their friends.^[26] She was upset that Mouna met people from Tinder, but she would spend time with people from Tinder routinely.^[27] Double standards are another hallmark of coercive control, as Pitman’s research demonstrates: the abuser holds the victim to rules the abuser does not follow, reinforcing the power imbalance.^[R14]

The STI Incident and the Cheating Accusation

The jealousy and control escalated even further when Adriane invited an ex over and told Mouna that this ex had sexually assaulted her without a condom.^[28] Since she wanted sex from Mouna, Mouna mentioned the risk of sexually transmitted infections, but she dismissed this. Eventually Mouna had to bring up getting tested.^[29]

Her response was to violently accuse Mouna of cheating on her.^[30] Even more outrageous: she said they were not even exclusive at the time she accused Mouna of cheating.^[31] She instructed Mouna to make a video list of every person they spent time with^[32] and then told Mouna they could not see any of those 30 people.^[33]

She never had any evidence of cheating but refused to believe Mouna. She felt entitled to invite her ex over, but Mouna was not even allowed to have friends. She was allowed to expose Mouna to STI risk, but when Mouna politely asked her to get tested, Mouna deserved to be emotionally abused and accused of cheating and lying. She never apologized for exposing Mouna to bodily risk.

Research on IPV perpetrators confirms that blame projection is a defining feature of abusive behavior. Dutton’s studies described associated psychological features of abusiveness that include “a tendency to project blame” and “attachment anxiety manifested as rage.”^[R15] A considerable percentage of perpetrators deny or reject responsibility for their conduct, leading them to project responsibility for the abuse onto others, and in particular onto the partner.^[R16]

Sexual Rejection Fragility and Projection

Adriane was fragile about perceived sexual rejection. Mouna did their best to be sensitive,^[34] but she would get upset if Mouna was not available to have sex. This lasted through the relationship^[35] and even after it ended (a dynamic explored in greater detail in Adriane’s Response to Rejection Was Violence).^[36] Less than three weeks before the end of the relationship, she brought sex up three times in under 24 hours.^[37] Mouna had simply been too busy.

Adriane could not accept perceived rejection, so she rewrote what happened. Not long after, she declared: “[you] pressured me to have sex with you at least twice a day and put me through hell if I refused you. aka, you raped me.”^[38] She was describing her own behavior, not Mouna’s. As the evidence shows, she was the one upset when they did not have sex, not Mouna.^[39] Her accusation of rape was born out of what she did to Mouna, not the reverse.

This is textbook DARVO. Jennifer Freyd’s research documents how perpetrators deny wrongdoing, attack the person confronting them, and reverse the roles of victim and offender. In Freyd’s words, “the offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed.”^[R17] Harsey and Freyd (2024) found that DARVO use is positively correlated with sexual harassment perpetration and acceptance of rape myths, suggesting it is part of a broader worldview that justifies participation in violence and blames victims.^[R18]

What makes Adriane’s reversal particularly striking is that the documentary evidence directly contradicts her accusation. The text messages show that she was the one who was upset about not having enough sex, not Mouna. She took her own behavior and attributed it to Mouna. That she pretends Mouna had the power in this relationship and used it to abuse her is contradicted at every turn by the evidence.

The Cumulative Picture

Taken together, these behaviors form a coherent pattern of coercive control:

Adriane distributed intimate images of Mouna without consent and lied about it under oath. She violated Mouna’s sexual boundaries without permission. She created double binds in which Mouna could not win. She isolated Mouna from friends and housemates through jealousy and false accusations. She applied rules to Mouna that she did not follow herself. She accused Mouna of cheating without evidence while she herself invited exes over. She weaponized Mouna’s survival-driven apologies as confessions. She projected her own behavior onto Mouna and accused them of the very things she did. And through it all, Mouna’s primary coping mechanism was to apologize, to de-escalate, and to absorb the blame.

The research literature makes clear that these are not the behaviors of someone in a healthy disagreement. They are the tactics of coercive control. Lohmann et al. (2024) found that coercive control is associated with PTSD and depression at rates comparable to broader categories of psychological intimate partner violence.^[R19] Pitman (2017) documented how double binds and boundary violations entrap victims, denying them autonomy. Freyd (1997) and Harsey & Freyd (2020, 2023) have shown how DARVO functions to shift blame from perpetrators to victims, and that education about these tactics can mitigate their effects on observers.

Mouna is a survivor of these tactics. The evidence supports that conclusion. And the apologies that Adriane treats as admissions of guilt are, as the trial judge recognized, the marks of someone doing their best to survive.