Nice try with the Ad Hominem.
What I said was that your REASONING was wrong. Your argument boils down to: "The text contradicted me. Therefore the text must be wrong."
This would be like watching the "I am your father " scene and insisting throughout out the rest of the trilogy "Vader is lying! Obi-wan said he betrayed and murdered Luke's father! He can't be Luke's father. Why is everyone lying to Luke that Vader is his father??"
Conversely. If you had instead said in the first movie "Oh! Hangon! Vader must be Luke's father because they said his father was a good pilot and Vader lives in space!" That logic would STILL be nonsense, even if the second movie's twist validates the conclusion.
And everything else you've said proves my point. Your argument boils down to: "I'm right. My interpretation is unquestionable, and anything that contradicts it is stupid or manipulative"
The character says it was something he wanted? Nope. Can't be. Must be lying.
"again I'm not assuming, he literally is repressing" Translation: "I can't be wrong. If he says he consented, then he HAS to be lying, or gaslighting, or repressing. ANYthing so long as I don't need to re-evaluate how I understand what happened based on new testimony and information.
The point about the tears makes that all the clearer. First it's "THE KID WAS CLEARLY BAWLING HIS EYES OUT". But the second it is confirmed you were wrong, "...Well I'm still right anyway!"
You speak of mind tricks and others being unwilling to accept things. But all this boils down to is your own unwillingness to question your own conclusions. Everything you believe is fact. Anything that challenges that is false.