I know it’s been a while since there was a discussion on whether Eddie would abuse his children or not but I’m finally calm enough to talk about this.
In the game Eddie had been through an abundance of abuse from the asylum doctors and was traumatized. However, he still showed signs that he was aware what his father and uncle was wrong.
"I want a family, a legacy, to be the father I never had. I’ll never let anything happen our children. Not like… The things they did to me when I was small, when I didn’t know how filthy, how wrong it was. Only that it hurt. Never. Never to our children. You understand that, don’t you darling? I would never let anybody hurt our babies."
I believe Eddie had an extremely high potential to be a good father. We saw him at his lowest point where he is extremely mentally ill but he still says this.
Now I am not saying if someone handed him a baby in the asylum he would of been super dad, but before he was convicted he had the ability to be.
We have no idea what triggered Eddie into killing women before he was put in Mount Massive. We are told of his child abuse and nothing more. But what we do know from his game quotes that he’s always wanted a family and children.
Eddie is a tragic character who I find cathartic. In this game we saw what child abuse and abuse as a patient in Mount Massive did to him. We saw his insanity, but we never witnessed beyond that.
This is why I am so distraught by the fact he never got to be a father. I think it would of helped him heal. I think a child would of filled the hole in his heart and I think that he would of never became a serial killer.
With this I’d like to bring attention to something people call the “abuse cycle”. This claims that people who are abused will do the same to their children. I have some research and quotes below to why I feel this unjustified and hurtful to give victims of child abuse this label. I have bolded the most important points if you don’t want to read the whole thing.
Myth: People abused as children become abusers.
This is only partly true. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that about 30% of adults who were abused and neglected as children will later abuse their own children. However, this “cycle of abuse” is not inevitable. While past abuse is one indicator for future abuse, it is not the only one. Some research indicates that if a child is able to disclose an incident of abuse early on and is supported by people who believe the claim is real, the child is less likely to become an adult perpetrator of abuse.
There’s a problem with this theory: there’s no evidence to back it up. In fact, solid research evidence says the opposite. Recent studies show that about 80% of survivors never abuse their children or any other child.
Contrary to the popular notion of a “generational cycle of abuse, ” however, the great majority of survivors neither abuse nor neglect their children. Many survivors are terribly afraid that their children will suffer a fate similar to their own, and they go to great lengths to prevent this from happening. For the sake of their children, survivors are often able to mobilize caring and protective capacities that they have never been able to extend to themselves. Judith Lewis Herman, MD (1992). Trauma and Recovery, p 114
Another myth was abused children becoming abusers. While they are more likely to repeat the cycle of abuse, many grow up wanting to protect children, speakers said.
Recognising the deliberateness of abusers’ behaviour (Conte et al, 1989) is disturbing; it is much more comfortable to believe that abusers and/or their partners are merely repeating what they learnt in childhood. ‘Cycle of abuse’ theories rework old orthodoxies; transforming abusers into victims, and placing mothers back in the collusive frame.
This theory does an outrageous injustice to countless women whose courageous and passionate testimony made sexual abuse in childhood a social issue. It also makes a travesty of support for children, since the aim becomes preventing them ‘repeating the cycle’ rather than enabling them to cope with having been victimised.
Why, when the evidence is shaky and the implications for child and adult survivors so negative, has ‘cycle of abuse’ has become widely accepted as an explanation? On one level it is a neat and accessible concept. In offering this ‘common sense’ explanation it represents abuse as learnt behaviour as if it were the same as learning a nursery rhyme.
People who were abused have the possibility of abusing their children. However so do people who weren’t abused. Eddie has done the most important thing in breaking the abuse cycle - he recognized what happened to him is wrong. The thing about the abuse cycle, from my personal perspective, is a lot times people who admit they were abused say their parents were abused as well. However the parent themselves never recognized they were abused as a child.
To end this ramble I’d like to say if you disagree and headcanon Eddie as an abusive father then fine. However what I am asking you not to do is label everyone who was abused as a child abuser.
Do not back up your headcanon on the fact that he was abused as a child - back it up by the fact he became a serial killer. Do not spread the old way of thinking because there are real people struggling with this stigma. Many people, like Eddie, want a child so they can provide it with a childhood they never had. Don’t take this away from them by saying they’re apart of an abuse cycle.
Thank you for reading.