I mean, suuuuuure, it's possible that Yaniv was molested. But just examine the facts here. He's a manipulative, abusive fucking pissant who literally can't pretend to be a woman or disabled, which are two of his most outward delusions that he wants the world to accept. This is convenient.
Why wouldn't he have joined the smattering of women who came forward during the #MeToo movement, given his penchant for trying to wrap himself in other people's identities? Why wouldn't he have joined in on #TimesUp, given his work in tech and and likelihood that he saw victims of abuse connected to his industry?
Because, duh, anything that doesn't fit the narrative is discarded immediately. He didn't care about victims then, because it didn't fit the narrative. He's exposed. Suddenly it's important.
His relationship with Mama Yaniv is fucking weird, but that isn't proof positive that he was sexually abused (by her or by anyone else). He is freakily emotionally enmeshed with his mother, in a way that even if you bricked everything else would be developmentally abnormal. I wouldn't wish Mama Yaniv's feral tiger mom shtick on anyone. That shit is cancer, and it breeds a lot of fucked up coping mechanisms. But it's also not an inherent indicator for sexual abuse. Watching people here fall for a guy's nonsense when he has publically, repeatedly lied (about shit we do know) in the past few days... is weird, to say the least.
Anyone who has ever had the displeasure of being around a malignant narcissist or psychopath knows that when the floodlights focus on parts of them they dislike, they pull out all the stops. Word salad, victim complexes, projection, appeals to emotion. It's gibberish and it's destabilizing and that is its purpose. It's meant to make the onlooker dizzy. Yaniv might slink under the radar because he doesn't use strength or power to make his most effective impacts. He uses weakness and pity, and clearly, if anyone is even seriously considering it for a second, it's working.
There's a book called "Why Does He Do That?" that is written by a guy who works with abusive men (for reference: it's very easy to find a free pdf online). One of the first things the author does is dispel some common myths that abusers use to try to deflect blame. Yes, some abusers were abused. But if it's the number 1 excuse on the list, and we know all of the above context... what's more likely?
