When entitlement is the keystone, remove it, and the whole structure collapses. Leave it untouched, and nothing you say will penetrate, because the system is doing what it was designed to do β protect themΒ from responsibility.
βEverything in my behaviour and choices regarding you have been because of my feeling for you.β
Translation:
My inner experience is the primary reality. Your experience is secondary.
Entitlement step one: centring their feelings as the moral axis.
βI always chose the βwrongβ thing because that felt safer.β
This is not saying, βI made choices that hurt you.β It is saying, βMy fear forced me.β
Fear is being positioned as an external authority. All agency quietly exits through the side door.
Fear explains behaviour; it does not absolve it.
You can be afraid and still choose honesty. You can be afraid and still choose care.
βSaferβ here does not mean neutral.
It means safer for them.
βI didnβt choose things because I wanted them.β
Because if they truly had no choice, then:
- They cannot be held accountable
- They cannot repair
- They cannot change
And yet, somehow, they expect you to choose:
- Understanding
- Forgiveness
- Continued access
They claim powerlessness retroactively, but claim entitlement currently. That is not confusion. That is a strategy.
Inner states and outer behaviour can diverge. Humans are complex. People can smile while breaking. People can act against their values under pressure.
Inner suffering does not entitle someone to external immunity.
You can say:
βI was afraid.β
βI was confused.β
βI didnβt know how.β
You cannot say:
βTherefore, the damage doesnβt count.β
βTherefore, you must stay.β
βTherefore, my love should outweigh my actions.β
Tragic vs manipulative.
βBut I love you, do not leave me.β
This is entitlement laid bare.
This is saying:
βMy feelings should override your reality.β
βMy intention should outweigh your injury.β
βMy attachment should guarantee access.β
Love is being used as a stay clause, not a care practice.
You do not get to opt out of responsibility by narrating yourself as a victim of your own feelings.
If they truly had no agency, then they would not be safe to be close to. If they did have agency, then they are responsible for how they used it.
Those are the only two options. Either way, the conclusion is the same: your obligation to endure does not exist.
You are not denying that inner experiences are messy. You are refusing the idea that messiness grants a license to harm and then demand proximity.
That is not cold, it isΒ sane.
And the reason nothing you say cracks the surface is that you are arguing with someone who is defending a self-concept, not seeking truth. To accept what you are saying, they would have to admit this: βI chose my comfort over your safety.β
And that is a sentence many people will burn the house down to avoid saying.
This is not ignorance. This is someone who wants forgiveness without reckoning, connection without accountability, and love without limits.
Calling that nonsense is not cruelty or bullying.Β It is accurate.
Β
