Safety in the Shadow of Coercive Control

When my Perpetrator and I saw each other after a lengthy separation, I intuitively pressed my forehead against his. It was as if I’d hit pause on the world. Relief washed over me. That was "our thing" when we were together. We would stand forehead to forehead and connect that way. 

Logically, it made no sense for me to do that. Especially considering that he, years prior, had bashed his forehead into mine, leaving a mark that still lingers to this day. In that moment, he felt like a freight train. He possessed the type of brute strength you can’t comprehend, unless you’ve been the target of it. 

It's also hard to comprehend the physical, mental, and emotional relief you feel, when that same brute strength softens back into gentleness.

Years ago, I posted on Instagram, “Everything a victim-survivor does through a safety-seeking lens makes sense.” I stand by that statement. In a relationship marred by Coercive Control, seeking closeness with your Perpetrator is a survival tactic. The same person who harms you can also shield you. 

This truth has echoed in the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial, particularly through the testimony of both Cassie Ventura and most recently, "Mia," his former assistant, who faced aggressive cross-examination tactics by Defense Attorney Brian Steel today.

Mia testified to (allegedly) enduring repeated assaults and psychological abuse from Combs, describing a “toxic” and “chaotic” work environment where “the highs were really high and the lows were really, really low.” On the behalf of his Client, Steel took the opportunity to confront Mia with social media posts she made about Combs, calling him a “legend” and “one of my greatest friends." He noted the posts were made after the alleged assaults took place. Steel asked her, “What if you’re not a victim? Then what?” suggesting her praise of Combs contradicted her claims of assault and abuse. Steel resorted to engaging in what I refer to as Attorney-Enhanced Coercive Control™ to discredit Mia.

Days ago, one of Mia’s response illuminated the paradox I, and so many of the women I've served, navigate: “It’s called psychological abuse,” she said, explaining that her posts reflected a curated facade on social media, masking the pain she endured, in order to survive in Combs’ web of (alleged) abuse. She spoke of being “terrified and brainwashed,” by him, as well. When Steel later pressed her on why she didn’t report the abuse sooner, Mia admitted she was “ashamed and afraid." Like many of us, she likely felt that her silence provided her with a shield against further harm. This trial proves how that shield truly never existed to begin with. 

Today, Prosecutor Maurene Comey (rightfully) objected to Steel’s approach. “Mr. Steel has yelled at this witness, Mr. Steel has been sarcastic with this witness,” she told the Judge, highlighting how Steel’s unnecessarily aggressive questioning risked compromising Mia/other witnesses further.

To be clear, Attorney-Enhanced Coercive Control™ manifests in these exact tactics. Mr. Steel deployed legal strategies to exploit Mia’s trauma responses. He disregarded Mia’s safety-seeking behaviors, to discredit her.

To clarify, Mia’s texts that read, “I love you forever,” weren’t lies but simple, desperate attempts to maintain a “safe” dynamic with Combs.

Unsurprisingly to every Survivor that's ever navigated a courtroom, Judge Subramanian saw no issue with Mr. Steel’s tactics. “I don’t see that this witness has been treated in any improper way at this point,” he said, though he did caution Steel against repeating questions over sustained objections. This judicial response - or lack thereof - underscores a critical issue with our "justice" system: Attorney-Enhanced Coercive Control™ often stays within the bounds of legal propriety, making it invisible to the untrained eye. Steel’s tactics are often effective and I believe that is exactly why he sought to discredit her like this.

I once asked my followers on Instagram, “Does it logically make sense to want to meet the man who beat you, violated you, humiliated you, and broke you?” and here is the answer I provided them: Yes, it does - when you understand it as a safety-seeking behavior. Mia’s texts, like one saying “I love you forever” to Combs, weren’t lies. They were desperate attempts to keep the dynamic she had with him “safe,” as she explained. “When the dynamic would shift to the best friend or friend dynamic, you were just desperate to keep it there because you’re safe.” she said.

Mr. Steel's relentless questioning tried to paint Mia as inconsistent and in my opinion, as a liar. But her words cut through me: “My entire world was ripped away from me,” she said of her employment termination, not because the abuse was absent, but because Combs’ world was all she had come to know. She relied on him, he balanced her and he compromised her. This is the cruel logic of Coercive Control: the Perpetrator's grip can feel like the only anchor in the victim's life.

Pressing my forehead against my Perpetrator’s, despite the pain he caused, felt like a pause in the storm - a safety-seeking act that defies logic until you understand Coercive Control. In the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial, Mia’s testimony laid bare this truth.

Sources:

The Root. “Mia Explains the Tragic Reason She Kept in Contact with Diddy After Alleged Assaults.” The Root, 31 May 2025, www.theroot.com/mia-explains-the-tragic-reason-she-kept-in-contact-with-2000043502. Accessed 2 June 2025.

Rolling Stone. “Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial: Mia Says She Was ‘Brainwashed’ During Alleged Assaults.” Rolling Stone, 31 May 2025, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sean-diddy-combs-trial-mia-testimony-brainwashed-1235350818/. Accessed 2 June 2025.

"Combs Lawyers Question Assistant’s Abuse Allegations: Latest Trial Takeaways" The New York Times, 2 June 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/arts/music/sean-combs-diddy-trial-mia.html.

Disclaimer: Opinion Editorial

This blog post is an opinion editorial. The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or opinions of any other individual, organization, employer, or company with which the author may be affiliated, whether past, present, or future—unless explicitly stated.

Any views or opinions expressed are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or government entity.

The content on this site is provided for informational and entertainment purposes only. Kaitlyn Jorgensen LLC, as the legal owner and operators of this website, make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or availability of any information contained in this post or on this site, or found by following any links.

Under no circumstances shall the author or Kaitlyn Jorgensen LLC be held liable for any errors or omissions in this information, or for any losses, injuries, or damages resulting from its display or use.

Use of this blog and the information herein is at the user’s own risk.