Talk:Emotional blackmail

It would be good if someone included info on how 'emotional blackmail' is used within cult environments. its a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.42.81 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Types" of emotional abuse is rubbish
"tantalizers - Tantalizers are the most subtle blackmailers, they offer nothing with a free heart."

This is absolute nonsense. What is a "free heart"?? If my 10 year old doesn't want to go to school, but I tell her I will be disappointed with her if she doesn't, is THAT emotional blackmail? I'd say not. If I threaten to make her live in a closet if she doesn't, is that? I'd say it is simple abuse, not emotional blackmail. How about if I tell her I won't love her? I'd say it is. This article completely fails to distinguish between the many types of less than joyful, spontaneous compliance. There is a whole spectrum of compromises we make between what we want and what someone we are emotionally attached to asks of/from us. If my girlfriend threatens to move out unless I get rid of my pet is that emotional blackmail? Does it matter if she is allergic to it and also has serious cardiac problems? Obviously. So, my best definition (off the top of my head) is emotional blackmail is the use of a DISPROPORTIONATE threat in order to gain compliance from someone who is emotionally attached to the blackmailer. I'd also say that a single incident where I said (for a silly example) to my girlfriend that unless she sleeps with my boss (or best friend, or HER best friend, or that pet I was talking about, LOL) that I would dump her and toss all of her stuff out of my apartment is - at least - emotional blackmail, while a single instance of me telling her I was not going to water her plants when she is on a business trip unless she buys me a Mets t-shirt (and she hates the Mets, say) is not. That is, while there can be single or isolated instances that qualify as emotional blackmail, it is (probably) equally common for it to be a PATTERN of minor threats which taken individually do not qualify because of their minor nature. I think we also get on shaky ground if we claim that the threat can be "implied". I'd say the threat needs to be something "a reasonable person would conclude" was "clearly implied" (and not something that exists simply because we magically know what the blackmailer knows about the emotional reaction of their victim.) If the definition requires us to "know" the mental state (motivation) of the perpetrator, then its useless, imho. This gets into 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'preponderance of the evidence' territory. It also isn't clear to me that a personal emotional attachment has to exist in order for it to be emotional blackmail. If a stranger comes up to you and tells you unless you give him $5, he will cut himself (or abuse his pet dog), seems to me that is emotional blackmail, but there isn't any meaningful emotional bond present. I have no good suggestions on how to fix this. I suggest Ms Forward NOT be used as a reliable source (if we want this to be about the scientific psychology (compared to her pop-psychology) of the subject. I also suggest that the "voluntary" (free-will) aspects of this type of coercion have most likely been extensively studied by PHILOSOPHERS of free-will, and so this shouldn't rely on "self-help" authors for the core of the article.173.189.77.209 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Information has been added to the first paragraph to explain that this term is about the dynamics of controlling people and the people that allow themselves to be controlled. 192.136.237.111 (talk)


 * The word "you" was replaced with "the victim" multiple times in the Gavin Miller references which gave this quote a strong negative bias not intended by the author. This has been corrected. 107.77.72.114 (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2014

The Recovery Section Needs Work
Recovery section needs work. Recovery can be divided into the controller and the controlled. There are healing pathways for both.107.77.72.109 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2014

POV
I've been asked to explain why I added a POV-template to this article. It's mainly the first sentence—which reads, "Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish us if we don't do what they want". By using wordings like "people close to us" and "to punish us" you are writing from a personal point of view. A more professional wording would be, "Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish others if they don't do as they are told." Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Response Removing the first sentence (underlined) resolves the POV issue. The sentence is a "call to action" taken from Forwards book and is out of context as a lead in. The utility of the emotional blackmail concept is not to label bad behavior of others, but rather to be able to identify when we are caught in this transactional dynamic and to know how to detach from it.
 * < Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation which people close to us threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish us if we don't do what they want. > Emotional Blackmail and FOG,terms coined by psychotherapist Susan Forward, Ph.D., are about controlling people in relationships and the theory that fear, obligation or guilt ("FOG") are the transactional dynamics at play between the controller and the person being controlled. Understanding these dynamics are useful to anyone trying to extricate themselves from the controlling behavior of another person, and deal with their own compulsions to do things that are uncomfortable, undesirable, burdensome, or self-sacrificing for others.
 * 192.136.235.164 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Campaigning / fundraising
The article would benefit from a section describing how this behaviour occurs outside of interpersonal relationships. For example, charities often include a cheap ballpoint pen or a couple of cardboard coasters in their mailshots because some people then feel indebted and obliged to donate. Campaigning organizations often display extreme and atypical images in campaigning literature to induce guilty feelings. Commercial marketeers use similar techniques. --Ef80 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emotional blackmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824075736/http://www.coda.org/tools4recovery/Patterns2-2011.htm to http://www.coda.org/tools4recovery/Patterns2-2011.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw something nasty in the woodshed!
This catchphrase comes from Stella Gibbins' comic novel 'Cold Comfort Farm', and was the perpetual cry of an elderly matriarch who controlled her extensive family and farming estate by claiming to have suffered some kind of trauma - without saying exactly what, or exactly when. She would wail 'I saw something nasty in the woodshed!' to avoid all commitment, e.g. about the dispersal of the family property.

I might add the emotional blackmail technique, famous in some old people, of saying 'I don't want to be a burden on anyone,' when nobody has mentioned or even thought of the word 'burden'.

And the threat along the lines of 'If you are going to talk like that/ bring up that subject etc etc then I'm leaving.' As though their departure from one's presence will cause one to feel remorse, guilt or regret, and their absence will be a loss. For some people, that threat works. Some say 'Don't let me detain you.'