So Michael Irvin is in one of those situations, like with Daniel Holtzclaw, where his side of the story makes him sound guilty.  In this situation it's especially bizarre, since he's centering himself as a victim of persecution when nobody was accusing him of anything.

But before we get to that, what is DARVO, and why should you care?   Basically it's when abusers attack you for speaking up.   "You're ruining my life by complaining about my bullying."  Once you learn to identify it, you'll notice people doing it all the time.

If you haven't heard of DARVO before, it's a critical, need-to-know concept for every survivor to understand.  And if you've never seen it before, you'll never see anyone allegedly do it harder than Michael Irvin -- some sportsball man I  had never heard of before and hope to soon forget.

Wikipedia

"DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.[1] Some researchers indicate that it is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers.[2][3][4]

As the acronym suggests, the common steps involved are 1) the abuser denies the abuse ever took place, 2) when confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was abused (and/or the person's family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the abuser accountable for their actions, and finally 3) the abuser claims that they are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender.[2][4] It often involves not just "playing the victim" but also victim blaming.[3]

Origins
The acronym and the analysis it is based on are the work of the psychologist Jennifer Freyd.[2] The first stage of DARVO, denial, involves gaslighting.[3][4]

Freyd writes:

... I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. ... [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. ... The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.[5]"

Here we have an incident, caught on videotape, where an admittedly intoxicated sportsball man approaches a hotel employee.  He touches her arm twice.  She moves away from him and clasps her arms behind herself.  As a woman who has been in similar situations I recognize this as a way of preventing him from repeating that behavior; remove the temptation, the same way you keep a child from breaking something he has already reached for.

A male coworker approaches them and eventually escorts the woman away from the giant sportsball man, who is towering over the female hotel employee.  The intoxicated guest has extended his hand for a shake, which she does before parting ways.   He is then seen watching the woman walk away, before taking a selfie with another hotel employee.

This is apparently what can be seen in the video, the indisputable part.

Irvin allegedly slaps himself on the face and says, "Hold it together, MIke," as well as saying he would come back and look for the woman after she got off work, among other lewd comments that can't be heard on the tape and which he disputes.

There is no audio on the video -- which I haven't seen.  I've only read the breakdown of it here.

WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?

Has this woman filed rape charges against Irvin for touching her arm?  Is that why he's in the news?  Is she calling for his head on a platter and demanding a multi-million dollar settlement?

NO, MICHAEL IRVIN IS SUING HER!

Seriously!  Famous sportsball man Michael Irvin, who couldn't leave that minimum-wage bartender the fuck alone at her job in Phoenix to the point where several of her coworkers had to escort her away because she was allegedly freaked out by his lewd conversation -- WHICH CAN BE SEEN IN THE VIDEO WHETHER MICHAEL IRVIN LIKES IT OR NOT -- is now suing her for reporting it as an on-the-job incident, as she was almost certainly required by Marriott to do.

HIS EMPLOYER REQUIRED THAT TO BE REPORTED

I'm pretty sure that Marriott, as a huge hotel chain, has reporting requirements for when employees get harassed by guests -- because it happens all the time. 

And as reported, multiple coworkers took note of the situation in real time and were concerned:.

"[Marriott's filing in response to Irvin's suit] alleges Irvin made the woman uncomfortable by touching her arm, and that the two other hotel employees noticed a “look of concern” on her face. Before the woman left, Irvin told her he’d come back and find her when she wasn’t working, according to the Marriott filing.

“She bad, She bad, I want to hit that,” Irvin said, slapping himself in the face and saying to himself, “Keep it together, Mike,” according to one of the woman’s colleagues cited in the filing.

"The woman reported the incident to hotel management the next day, and Marriott alerted the NFL, which had reportedly asked the company to flag any misbehavior by its staff."  [Emphasis mine]

Ask yourself, why would the NFL have standing orders with a major hotel chain, asking them to flag misbehavior by their personnel with hotel staff?  Because such a thing has never happened before?  That's why upper management has this phone tree established?  As far as I've ever been able to tell, professional sportsball is like the lounge where capitalism and rape culture meet up to drink beer. 

So if "boys will be boys" is getting in the way of their bottom line to this extent, that they're being this proactive with Marriott, it's been a problem in hotels.

According to one of the bartender's coworkers, Irvin said he was coming back to look for her when she got off work.  I would be terrified of this giant, drunken goof with his lack of boundaries -- even more so when I found out how his mind works while sober.  

Because this whole situation is off the deep end.  She absolutely needed to report that for her own safety. 

BOO HOO HOO, POOR MICHAEL IRVIN!

The Daily Beast

"Five days later, Irvin filed a $100 million lawsuit against Marriott and “Jane Doe,” alleging they sabotaged his career. ..."

Because that's totally a thing!  Sabotaging the careers of random sportsball men you've never heard of before, by luring them into saying weird, gross shit to you at your job is a big lucrative side gig that all the hot hotel bartenders are doing these days, because it benefits them ______________________???

Really though, could Michael Irvin get over himself?  Does he imagine he's the first or only celebrity that ever stayed at that place?  What makes him so special? 

And what's theoretically in it for her or Marriott -- neither of whom initiated any of this, remember?  This all started when she didn't want what was on offer.  Neither the hotel nor the employee had done anything but comply with the NFL's policy and moved Irvin to a different hotel.  And he got $100 million worth of diaper rash about it..

He apparently felt picked upon and demonized because she felt unsafe -- which she should have, IMO -- as if he was being called a kidnapper, so he had no choice but to sue her. 

Telling a woman half your age/size, who you don't know, that you're coming back for her when she gets off work might freak her out even if you are drunk, broseph.  Somebody needs to sit that guy down man-to-man.  He's too old for this shit. 

(I'm going to add emphasis to what Irvin's lawyer, Levi McCathern, said below.)

“Marriott’s recently created account goes against all the eyewitnesses and Michael’s own testimony as well as common sense,” he told the Morning News. We will release the video next week. There is no sexual assault. The fact Marriott is taking the position that it is is an insult to all of the true female victims out there.”

1.  No, from what I can tell we have another "Holtzclaw interrogation" situation, where his side of the story makes him seem guilty, and the video makes her seem perfectly credible.  In other words, from what I can tell from the reviewed reporting, the first sentence is pure lies and bluster, and he's just gaslighting the fuck out of the world.  I wonder what color the sky is on their planet, McCathern and Irvin.  As long as I never have to visit!

2.  There is no claim of sexual assault!  Liar.  She reported inappropriate comments from a guest that made her uncomfortable, as she was probably required by company policy to do. NOTHING MORE.  SHE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ASKED ANYONE FOR ANYTHING.   He's the one making the false sexual assault claim here.  It's a truly ugly straw man.

From the same Daily Beast article linked above:

"No criminal charges have been filed against Irvin."  .
                
3.  Please ask yourself who, at any time, for any reason, ever authorized Levi McCathern, Esq.,  to speak on behalf of "true female victims."  How is he representing both Michael Irvin and people like me, both at the same time?  How would that even work, gaslighting and suing us while fighting for us?  The balls on this guy..

Okay, so that's his lawyer's position.  What does Mike himself have to say?  Guessing by the fact that he's pressing a $100 million lawsuit against a minimum-wage employee who had no idea who he was, asked nobody for nothing, and had already let the matter drop, apparently he's not like, "Sorry for the misunderstanding, ma'am, guess I had one too many to drink."  She wasn't even asking for an apology.

THE 80S ARE OVER.  DON'T BE LIKE MIKE ANYMORE

Still from The Daily Beast:

"“It just blows my mind that in 2023 we’re still dragging and hanging brothers by a tree. It blows my mind that I have no opportunity to defend—I don’t even know what I’m defending,” Irvin, who admitted he had been drinking that evening, said at a press conference last week."

WAIT, HE GOT LYNCHED?  WTF?!?

They put hands on Michael Irvin?  Dragged him behind a truck and strung him up in a tree just for allegedly being rude while drunk?  Holy shit, what did I miss? 

"The woman complained to hotel management, and a Marriott operations director reached out to their point of contact at the NFL, as the league had directed the chain to do in instances of alleged misconduct. The NFL moved Irvin to a different hotel, and ultimately dropped him from the upcoming Super Bowl broadcast."

Oh, okay.  So not  LYNCHING lynching. The meaning has evolved. Now it means they put you in a different hotel and you can't be on the Super Bowl.  Not nearly as gruesome and horrifying as the other kind.

Nobody ever put hands on Michael Irvin about this.  Nobody even wanted to talk to him about it.  There's nothing in the report about him even being asked to apologize to the employee.  They literally just moved him to a different hotel, and his boss took away a privilege per their internal policies.  Ladies and gentlemen, DARVO.

Not only did nobody even think about putting hands on this piagnucolone, Michael Irvin put hands on that employee more than once, which is on that video, and she didn't like it.  He can redefine it as a "friendly conversation" all he wants.  But she wasn't enjoying him at all, and it was obvious to her coworkers in real time, so they got her out of there.  His ego apparently can't take it.   So he filed a lawsuit against her.

Michael Irvin sobbing at a press conference that he has no opportunity to defend himself?  He doesn't know against what?  WTF, he's the PLAINTIFF!!   He could have just shut the fuck up and gone away and nobody would ever have known any of this even happened.  She wasn't asking anyone for anything at all.  She simply reported an alleged workplace creeper, which I would also have done in the same reported circumstances -- according to statements made by her coworkers.

But really, fuck the Plaintiff for complaining that he can't defend himself.  What's the name of that bartender he grossed out, who works at the Marriott lounge in Phoenix?  You know, the one who can't call a press conference about this bullshit that Michael Irvin initiated while intoxicated, and now he's burning himself at the stake at the press conference he called after nobody even knew anything about it?  The minimum-wage employee he's suing for $100 million?  Her name?

Oh, Michael Irvin, what I love most about you -- aside from your irresistible sex appeal -- is your honesty, your integrity, and your courage.  It's the way you step up and take accountability when  you make a mistake, rather than being a fucking loser, scumbag punk and trying to crush the life of a minimum-wage employee who you  harassed while you were drunk like a fucking goon -- which of course you would never do, SUPERSTAR!!!  luv you Mike, mean it <3

Thank God.

VRT News

"Marc Dutroux shocked Belgium in the 1990’s with the kidnap, false imprisonment and rape of 5 girls and 1 young woman: Julie Lejeune (8), Mélissa Russo (8), An Marchal (17), Eefje Lambrecks (19), Sabine Dardenne (12) and Laetitia Delhez (14). Four of his victims were murdered. Only Laetitia Delhez and Sabine Dardenne were rescued alive. Marc Dutroux was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2004."

Dutroux's wife went to the house to feed his dogs while he was in jail, knowing two girls were captive in the cellar.  She fed the dogs and left the girls to starve there.  She's currently out of prison.

After all these years the house has finally been demolished; there will be no memorial to the girls who died there per the families' wishes.

At the site of the other building, where two of the girls survived, there is a memorial garden. 

Sabine Dardenne's book, I Choose to Live, was inspirational for me in coming forward with my story.  I read through her reviews and saw that some people were angry that she didn't give enough details about the rape and accused her of a cash grab.  (Because nothing gets you richer than torture/rape, amirite?)  It prepared me for the same, which did happen.   So she will always be a personal hero of mine.

One of my least-favorite things about America is the way its laws are really antiquated and uneven.  It's  a big part of the serious inequality problems that we have, and one of the things that keep our prison-industrial complex happy.  It's all fairly slapdash and arbitrary, and states can do almost whatever they want -- or not. I remember slavery being outlawed in Mississippi in the 1990s.  Jeez, take your time, no rush or anything.  They weren't doing it anymore, but still.

But this just kills me.

The Hill

"The bill, which was narrowly voted down 9-8 by the committee, sought to establish 18 as the age of consent for marriage and remove the ability for minors to even seek consent from a parent, guardian or court to marry. "

To be clear, it's almost never an underage boy trying to get permission to be married to an old woman.

My friend Wendy Huggy got married, I think she was only 14 or 15 at the time, to a 27-year-old man.  That was in Illinois, before Chris Hansen had a TV show where he tricked guys like that into thinking they might get to marry (or at least bang) a 15-year-old girl.  But on his show, when they got there it was actually cops waiting to arrest them.  Good times!

Why did the State of Illinois allow Wendy to marry this guy without any parental signature?  Her mom had abandoned her.  The rest of her family was in Florida.  Say whatever you want about West Virginia, the rest of America is a shithole for women too.

I have a love-hate relationship with the Arts & Entertainment Channel -- which is kind of weird since they don't know I exist.

The thing is, they do some of the best true crime reporting.  What I really hate about true crime is the sheer exploitation, the bandwagon nature of it, where people cover the same two or three cases in minute detail.

For me, as a survivor, I want true crime to be about what we can learn and what we can be doing better to get better outcomes for everyone.  A&E still isn't doing that.  But they at least come closer, and tell a more diverse range of stories.  A&E does some research.  And they do give survivors some voice that they wouldn't otherwise have.

But I'm almost always left screaming at the screen for one reason or another.  The title of the above-linked episode is "Suspicion Cast On Murdered Schoolteachers Soon To Be Ex."

If you watch the episode, what was very clear to me in the beginning was that the police allowed suspicion to fall on the ex -- only the most natural thought in the world -- by not following through on the very obvious investigative leads from the beginning.  People talk because they don't know what to think.  But the police knew what to think, and they shouldn't have allowed it to go that way.

SPOILER ALERT:  Episode reveal below.

So at the very beginning of the crime scene discussion they mention that there were multiple intruders, that they stayed in the apartment for hours torturing the victim, and that they ransacked the place searching through things like cereal boxes.

Based on my life experience -- and I'm not even a cop or a drug dealer -- that sounds like they very obviously thought that drugs and/or money were hidden in the home.  Right?  She wasn't sexually assaulted.  She obviously wasn't targeted at random of they're searching through items in her freezer.  They for some reason believe she has something of value hidden inside her home.

They also had the ex-husband's cell phone data showing that he was nowhere near the place. 

They found a lighter in the apartment near the point of obvious forced entry, although the victim was not a smoker and had no candles, incense, or other reasons to have a lighter.  This also contained DNA from an unknown male, not the husband.

In the end, they solved the case because the husband, so tired of being demonized as a murderer by the entire town, started asking around at the barbershop.  And since this was an obvious gang of drug dealers that had gone to the wrong house looking for some other drug dealer's girlfriend -- DUH -- there were a lot of people who actually knew what had happened. 

I suppose A&E doesn't want to risk becoming seen as "anti law-enforcement" by accurately labeling this episode "Man Solves Ex-Wife's Homicide By Asking Around At Barbershop."  For God's sake.