Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 89: Intimacy Refused as a Strategy of Control
The Cold Economy of Emotional Leverage
By Linh Ng
Researcher in Ethics, Media, Culture and Policy
Focused on academic integrity, legal frameworks, and narrative accountability
IG: @linhngresearcher | X: @linhresearcher
Abstract
This paper explores the phenomenon of touchless leverage — a symbolic mechanism through which individuals gain emotional, material, and reputational capital without engaging in physical intimacy or overt romantic attachment. Using the case study of “Aria,” we argue that strategic abstention can function as a form of affective control, particularly when combined with ambiguity, selective compliance, and moral optics. This essay situates such dynamics within broader theories of relational asymmetry, emotional economy, and symbolic manipulation.
Photo by Diana Krotova via Unsplash
Introduction: Abstention as a Symbolic Economy
Traditional theories of intimacy often frame physical closeness as a mechanism of emotional bonding and relational progression. However, abstention from intimacy — particularly when deliberate — can itself become a site of power.
In this context, Aria’s refusal of physical affection did not signal disinterest, but rather, became a form of symbolic elevation. Her distance was interpreted not as withdrawal, but as moral virtue — granting her a unique position of influence without corresponding vulnerability.
Constructing Moral Legitimacy Through Physical Absence
While Aria rejected all typical markers of intimacy — hand-holding, public displays of affection, sexual engagement — she retained the symbolic role of “future wife.” This duality allowed her to benefit from commitment and care without being held accountable to the relational expectations such roles typically entail.
This pattern aligns with what we term moral laundering: the selective performance of virtue to obscure asymmetrical relational dynamics. In Aria’s case, the absence of physical intimacy functioned as moral currency.
Strategic Ambiguity and Emotional Monopolization
Aria maintained an ambiguous position — neither fully rejecting the relationship nor affirming it. She did not verbally promise a future, but tolerated and benefited from her partner’s long-term investment under that assumption. This ambiguity enabled her to access material and emotional resources while preserving plausible deniability.
Such dynamics are not incidental. Rather, they reflect a strategic deployment of passive control, where inaction becomes a means to preserve influence.
Touchless Leverage as Affective Extraction
The term touchless leverage refers to the ability to extract symbolic, emotional, and material value from a relationship without engaging in physical intimacy or explicit commitments. In Aria’s case, the absence of touch was not a limitation — it was the foundation of her control.
This model of interaction challenges binary understandings of power in relationships. It suggests that agency may be exercised through selective absence, and that silence can function as an instrument of affective dominance.
Implications and Contributions
This case invites reconsideration of how we define emotional labor and relational ethics. While much attention has been given to overt manipulation and coercion, subtler forms of control — enacted through abstention, ambiguity, and symbolic framing — remain under-theorized.
We propose that touchless leverage be recognized as a distinct form of asymmetrical intimacy, one that disrupts conventional narratives of victimhood and agency.
Appendix: Behavioral Summary of Case Subject (“Aria”)
Consistently refused physical intimacy
Maintained symbolic relational titles (e.g., “future wife”)
Benefited materially and emotionally without explicit commitment
Practiced image control via abstention
Exhibited patterns consistent with passive manipulation and strategic ambiguity
References
Ahmed, S. (2004). The Cultural Politics of Emotion.
Katz, E. (2022). Coercive Control in Intimate Relationships Revisited.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling.
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.
Although the individual has responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal does not equal 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 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
- Entry 67: Patrick James Johnston
- Entry 68: This Man is A Sexual Abuser
- Entry 69: The “Farewell” Email
- Entry 70: Australia’s Version of Florida Man, Except With Fewer Alligators and More Poems
- Entry 71: Literary Necromancy
- Entry 73: Can You Be Named in a Will If They Only Have Your Bank Account?
- Entry 74: Why Patrick James Johnston Cannot Sue Me for Defamation
- Entry 76: Dr. Pussy — The Scholar of Infinite Goodbyes
- Entry 77: Curriculum Vitae_Patrick James Johnston
- Entry 78: Behavioral Replication as Evidenced by Prior TPO
- Entry 79: Forensic Narrative Valuation Statement
- Entry 80: Final-ish. I guess.
- Entry 81: How Johnston Constructs Moral Immunity through the Figure of Aria
- Entry 82: Aria as an Emotional Script
- Entry 83: The Archetype of Aria
- Entry 84: Cambridge Man Accidentally Buys Invisible Wife
- Entry 85: The Invisible Bride, The Defenseless Provider
- Entry 87: From Aria to Linh — The Making of a Feminized Archetype in Coercive Male Narratives
- Entry 88: The Emotional Free Rider
- Entry 89: Intimacy Refused as a Strategy of Control (you are here)
- Entry 90: Pedestal Purity and Symbolic Abuse
- 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.