Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 39: Open Relationship
Ethical Commentary
In Western contexts, “open relationships” are not inherently unethical or shameful. In fact, when practiced with full transparency, informed consent, and mutual respect, they are widely accepted within progressive communities, academic circles, and among younger generations.
The issue arises when the concept of “open” is weaponized as a smokescreen for abuse — when it is used to rationalize manipulation, emotional coercion, or boundary violations. Consent is not merely about a verbal “yes”; it is about an ongoing, informed, and freely given agreement, free from threats or emotional blackmail.
In this case, his attempt to blame my mention of “open relationship” as justification for months of harassment is not only intellectually dishonest, but ethically bankrupt. It reflects a profound misunderstanding — or willful misrepresentation — of what ethical non-monogamy actually entails.
You cannot cite “openness” while simultaneously ignoring consent, breaching agreed boundaries, and engaging in revenge-driven communication. In any Western ethics framework, this is not love nor freedom; it is abuse cloaked in pseudo-liberal language.
Primary evidence: unsolicited email from Johnston confirming the timeline.
Email sent on 3 July 2025 – Day 120 of documented harassment
Johnston attempts to weaponize my private mention of “open relationship” as his moral shield — as if my openness somehow justified months of post-separation harassment, coercion, and unsolicited sexualized writing.
But here’s the forensic truth: While I mentioned “open relationship” as a theoretical conversation, he actively maintained and financially supported another woman — Aria — during our relationship. He wrote about her with reverence: quoting the Qur’an, calling her silences galaxies, offering her a future. In contrast, he wrote about me as a “tiny frame,” a “cunt,” a backdrop for grief and masturbation.
This is not about monogamy versus openness. This is about symbolic violence, emotional manipulation, and narrative erasure. It is about a man who preserves one woman’s dignity in poetry while annihilating another woman’s humanity — all to protect his fragile ego and rewrite the story.
“Open relationship” is not a free pass to extort, threaten, or publicly humiliate a former partner. It is not a legal defense for unsolicited contact after explicit no-contact requests.
If you truly believe your moral defense is “she mentioned open relationship,” then by all means — publish it publicly, under your name, on your own platform. Let the world see your defense in full daylight.
This is not about an “open relationship.” This is about an open record of abuse.
You’re not defending monogamy. You’re defending abuse.
Her name and his poems about her were already publicly published in The Argyle Literary Magazine, so let’s not pretend he was ever discreet.
A study in contrasts: the sacred, the degraded, and the mythologized.
The same author — different targets, different manipulations.
When a woman is worshipped, she is sacred. When she resists or loves back, she becomes an object. When she is coerced, he calls it ‘consent.’
Side-by-side: One poem written for Aria (left), one for me (right). Let the readers decide what dignity — and what consent — look like in words. Same poet. Different moral lines.
Side-by-side evidence of moral duplicity
One woman gets offered a haven, a sanctuary, and words of worship. The other gets threats, demands, and emotional blackmail.
And he calls this “cruelty” for not wanting him back?
This is the same man who blamed me for mentioning “open relationship” — yet offered unconditional devotion to someone else, while controlling and punishing me for setting boundaries.
Who really betrayed whom?
Publicly presented as a poet, former neuroscientist, and contemplative thinker — yet privately orchestrating narrative violence through sexualized poetry and symbolic coercion. The face behind the lines.
Screenshot taken directly from The Argyle Literary Magazine website (public bio), unedited, for critical commentary and educational context.
Publications for reference:
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
Note on Naming:
The subject of these verses is identified by name due to the severity of the public threats made during that period.
Naming is not intended to humiliate, but to preserve the integrity of the record and reflect the seriousness of the documented behavior.
While the individual has since responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal is not accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and Ethics Australia: View here.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 39: Open Relationship (you are here)
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- Entry 55: A Letter I’ll Never Send
- Entry 56: Outc(L)assed - Critical Race Analysis
- Entry 57: Forensic Breakdown: “A Voidance” by Johnston
- Entry 58: Johnston, Who Raised You?
- Entry 59: Public Financial Terms & Narrative Conditions
- Entry 60: What Kind of Future Do You Think Awaits You?
- Entry 61: Why I Believe He Has No Real PR or Legal Team
- Entry 62: Why I Can Legally (and Ethically) Call You a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 63: Tell Me You’re a Pathetic Pig Without Telling Me You’re a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 65: Did Your Mother Teach You To Speak Like This?
- Entry 66: Nobody Cares Anyway
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.
Photo Cover by Markus Winkler via Unsplash