That seems a bit.. @ASKOVERKILL ON TUMBLR

1. The school

[Text reads: "A young person walks into your school building." / "They walk in with you. You're holding their hands." / "They come out crying into their hands, because nobody will love them, not ever again."]

This one is certainly the weakest standing on its own two legs, as it could refer to any sort of abuse, and we certainly have evidence to say that there's other types of abuse happening in the school. After all, many characters reference Care having an injured face suggesting physical abuse, and the scene describing how Marvin convinced Care she was too ugly to be seen again suggests emotional abuse and gaslighting.

However, it is worth noting that the vagueness of the wording here can suggest any number of things, and it's most likely intentionally worded in such a way.

Keep this in mind.

2. The flower

The flower, I think, has a double meaning, and one that strengthens the first part. First of all, it's an obvious Daisy-Head Mayzie connection, only if you were to play "loves me, loves me not" on this flower, due to its even number of petals, you would land on "loves me not". Care believes nobody loves her, shown by the daisy and plucking it turning her into Care NLM, and she believes that- tying back to the first point- because of something Marvin did. (They come out crying into their hands, because no one will love them, not ever again.)

That's where the potential second meaning behind the flower comes into play.

Deflowering is an old-fashioned term for taking someone's virginity. It also means to spoil, mar, or violate. (You said, "Do you see that? Look at how ugly you are now.") Plucking the petals from a flower isn't a perfect symbolic depiction of deflowering as a concept- a more direct one would be removing flowers from a bush or plant- but again it ties back to Daisy-Head Mayzie; that was chosen for a reason. The removal of the petals is itself symbolic of the trauma that caused Care to believe no one could love her anymore. Marvin did something to Care in the school that violated her and made her believe no one could ever love her again. Marvin marred his daughter, took the petals off and convinced her no one would love her ever again. He deflowered her, and this is Rainer's way of showing he knows it.

That's why he chose to connect Care's abuse to a story with a focal point of plucking a flower.

3. The bathtub

[Text reads: "You're in the bathtub thinking about her." / "I have a guess at which child you'll pick next."]

This one, I think, is the only one with absolutely zero way around it, and that comes down to one main detail: you're in the bathtub.

It's not just that the bathtub implies nudity. More so, it's that because the scene that Rainer is describing involves Marvin in the bathtub, that means that there is no way that Rainer could possibly know that this exact scenario happened. And yet he chose to include it anyway. He had certainty that this had meaning, that this would mean something to Marvin. Something that would serve as an accusation or an indictment.

(You all will have to forgive my repeated use of the word "indictment" in these posts. I don't have a better one.)

The bathtub is an intimate setting. "In the bathtub thinking about her" suggests thinking about "her" in a vulnerable and intimate, likely sexual, context. That's something Rainer is certain that Marvin is doing with regards to this "her". But there's no "her" this could be based on the context that doesn't paint Marvin as having sexual intent with Care. Either he's thinking about Care herself, or he's thinking about Lina, who he wants to make Care into a new version of. If he's thinking about Lina, this also implies that he was or is in love with her, which itself recontextualizes his intention to shape Care into a new version of her.

"I have a guess at which child you'll pick next" suggests that this also happened to Mike while he was missing, or at least that Rainer has probable cause to believe that it did- but likely that it did, in fact, happen.

That gives us two probable cases of Marvin sexually abusing children- Mike and Care.

But why do I care so much about this being addressed?

4. Why I think it matters

Most fans are content to ignore this. Many fans, instead of talking about this, are content to kind of... mangle Marvin's character into a generic child torturer and murderer. Even fans that deal in similar thematic analysis to me don't always talk about this- likely, partially because of the transphobic and misogynistic narrative of trans men being women trying to escape sexual violence.

But I think that it matters, and I think this because not only does it recontextualize a lot about Care's trauma and Marvin's actions and motivations, but also, very rarely in media is CSA handled delicately or properly at all.

Very often, stories about abuse kind of seem to go out of their way to reassure the audience that yes, abuse was happening, but it was not sexual in nature, because that'd just be too far. On the other end, when CSA is depicted, it tends to be... like Megan is Missing. Its goal is to shock, and it is played very heavy-handedly. Because CSA is too far, and look at the lines this media will cross. I also think this is why many Petscop theories prefer to, as I mentioned, mangle Marvin into a generic child torturer and murderer. Because CSA is just too far.

But Petscop doesn't do that. By treating the implied CSA on a similar level to the rest of Marvin's abusive behavior, it treats it not as a shocking taboo it wants to make you see or a line it's willing to cross, but as a type of abuse, and it's not afraid of the idea that you'll read Care's abuse as sexual in nature. It's not a stigmatizing refusal to address it, and it's not an equally stigmatizing heavy-handed shoving of it in your face for shock factor. And that matters, because for the sake of CSA survivors, it needs to be talked about more and not treated as taboo.