# Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have



## ntamph

Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have

I've heard bad things about the website but the comments on this article are amazing. Jezebel is one of the leading feminist websites. Is this what the modern movement is about? Can someone say "self parody"?

Your thoughts?


----------



## Fozzy

The thought that the average Jezebel reader might have a violent temper hardly surprises me.


----------



## ConanHub

Interesting but I'm not sure what I think about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## the guy

Fighting with a chick is tough...at least with a guy you know it's going to blows...you don't have to worry about your balls.

When it gets so bad your old lady is beatin on you, your best bet is a hard slap to her face. It does suck watching them wipe snot from their nose while their picking their dump ass off the floor.


*************disclaimer***************

This is the "old" the guy talking.
Me and Mrs. the guy are way to old and *wiser* to go down that road again.


----------



## EleGirl

I think that the responses to that page are mixed. Some are saying than domestic violence is never ok. Others are saying that they did slap or hit their male SO's. Basically the internet brings out a lot of nut cases.


----------



## Runs like Dog

women who kill their mates generally call it self defense. whether it is or not is a different issue.


----------



## Thundarr

I've never been hit by a gf or my wife so I don't know for sure that I wouldn't react before thinking but I don't think I would. I have however been around drunk fighting couples and it's awkward as h3ll. There's an instinct to defend the woman but geez sometimes they're the ones trying to fight. When my wife and I were first dating we stayed the night at one of her friends house. They started fighting at 4am, I told my wife (gf then) that we're leaving. I asked her friend if she wanted us to take her anywhere but It was clear that she was the one pushing for the fight and the blood coming from the left side of his forehead just confirmed it. I probably should have asked him if he wanted to go rather than her.

Honestly though I was about ready to dot both of their eyes.


----------



## ConanHub

Does being hit on count?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## batsociety

I like Jezebel and I've done some work for them. They can problematic sometimes (a lot of feminists have issues with them) but they've gotten a lot better in recent years. There's no way this article would have existed beyond 2011ish. 

This one is way grosser than most of their more problematic pieces. Actually taking a study that shows the prevalence of domestic abuse against men and turning into "ha ha! Tell us about the time you beat your boyfriend!" Wow.


----------



## unbelievable

Women initiate most violent physical contacts but they also generally sustain the most serious and most obvious injuries during domestic assaults. Since American cops are required to make an arrest when they can identify the primary aggressor, the one with the least obvious injuries has a better chance of being arrested.


----------



## ConanHub

unbelievable said:


> Women initiate most violent physical contacts but they also generally sustain the most serious and most obvious injuries during domestic assaults. Since American cops are required to make an arrest when they can identify the primary aggressor, the one with the least obvious injuries has a better chance of being arrested.


Yup.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## delupt

This is third-wave feminism in a nutshell: the most privileged demographic demanding more special treatment for entitled princesses, while declaring all women as lifelong victims with no agency. Fortunately, most women reject their dogma.

Jezebel is part of the Gawker media group that is legendary for corrupt 'journalists' that deal in click-bait. They are part of the 'progressive' illiberal totalitarianism from the left, essentially the equivalent of the nuttier elements of the christian Tea-party on the right (but with less hold on reality). As a european liberal/socialist, I fear the extreme left more than the right.


----------



## Forest

delupt said:


> This is third-wave feminism in a nutshell: the most privileged demographic demanding more special treatment for entitled princesses, while declaring all women as lifelong victims with no agency. Fortunately, most women reject their dogma.
> 
> Jezebel is part of the Gawker media group that is legendary for corrupt 'journalists' that deal in click-bait. They are part of the 'progressive' illiberal totalitarianism from the left, essentially the equivalent of the nuttier elements of the christian Tea-party on the right (but with less hold on reality). As a european liberal/socialist, I fear the extreme left more than the right.


Good post.

I've seen a few guys that have been assaulted by their girlfriends, etc. Any damage they've sustained has been due to their hesitance to even mount a defense to an attack by a female, not the GF overpowering them.

The whole subject is stupid, and in poor taste. We all know that men should not hit women. If you want one of these last remaining civilities to erode, just start writing BS like this article.


----------



## Rowan

Crazy people be crazy.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I have studied domestic violence at length during my degree, what I have found to be true is MRA groups twisting facts and using false stats to make it look like women are equally the aggressors in domestic violence situations. 

Whilst women can be the aggressors and believe me I don't doubt they can be- as my ex husband is currently (sometimes depending on her mood) engaged to someone who is very scary and at the very least emotionally abusive... But I digress

What the research and stats say are that males are up to one thirds of victims, however what MRA's do not make clear is that many of those victims are in same sex relationships. 

I know in my country and in the USA that many many women die each year at the hands of an intimate partner or ex partner and Something should be done about it.


----------



## tulsy

Women proudly remembering beating the crap out of their BF's or husbands, and feeling very justified for doing so.


----------



## ocotillo

I'd show the article to my wife except that I already know there would be charred, smoking hole in the ceiling where she went through it. 

This is a big pet peeve of hers.


----------



## Jellybeans

My thoughts are the moment either partner lays a hand on the other, the relationship has jumped ship into disrespect territory.

It is an absolute dealbreaker for me. I do not believe in hitting your partner.


----------



## Wolf1974

It finally seems some of the old stereotypes are dying out with each new generation. When I was first an officer almost any domestic violence call I went to the guy just assumed he was going to jail. And he did if he was the predominate aggressor but when the female gets arrested they looked shocked. They also tried to recant more to prevent the arrest which of course we have no option to do.

It seems that some men are becoming more savvy to the law and how it works. Calling more often and having less fear of getting arrested themselves. I honestly think a lot of this has to do with the Internet 

I have always found it interesting, maybe because I never expected it, that the the number one thing, by far, that I arrest women for is domestic violence. Men commit more crimes in almost all categories but this is the one area that is somewhat leveling out for both genders.


----------



## Cletus

My wife (then girlfriend) punched me in the arm once when we were engaged when she got mad over something. I punched her back in the same spot and made it clear that if there was going to be violence in our relationship, I could hold my own.

30 years later and no additional blows. She was never abusive anyway, but thought that a woman could just get away with whacking a man when she felt like it. To her credit, she learned in a single lesson.


----------



## SoWhat

delupt said:


> This is third-wave feminism in a nutshell: the most privileged demographic demanding more special treatment for entitled princesses, while declaring all women as lifelong victims with no agency. Fortunately, most women reject their dogma.
> 
> Jezebel is part of the Gawker media group that is legendary for corrupt 'journalists' that deal in click-bait. They are part of the 'progressive' illiberal totalitarianism from the left, essentially the equivalent of the nuttier elements of the christian Tea-party on the right (but with less hold on reality). As a european liberal/socialist, I fear the extreme left more than the right.


Great post. Lest we forget Jezebel's reaction to skepticism about the UVA "rape" - "Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax, asks Idiot".... well, yes, it was a gigantic hoax. 

The driving ideology (besides "obtain page views" of course) behind Jezebel and its ilk is this: certain assumptions are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned. Those assumptions spring from the pseudo-academic "gender studies" camp and fold into prescriptively-loaded jargon (note, even in this thread, someone who has done work for Jezebel describing it as "problematic" - an increasingly-popular weasel word that is in fact simply used as a synonym for "morally wrong" but adopts a vaguely descriptive air, so that it's as if the offending entity has some sort of mathematical error embedded in it that the enterprising feminist has sniffed out after intense investigation). 

The neatest dividing line one can draw is that of oppressor/oppressed. If men invented the oppressive Patriarchy, which endorses or encourages domestic violence against women, and the Patriarchy is bad, then domestic violence against men can't be bad, because it's "punching up" against the Patriarchy, rather than the Patriarchy "punching down" against women... right? Heck, "domestic violence" merely means "physical harm + institutional authority" and women, as oppressed, lack institutional authority. Therefore, they cannot commit domestic violence.

The question-begging embedded articles of faith there are obvious enough to the neutral observer. "But", the Jezebelian third-wave feminist objects, _there are no neutral observers_. You are either an oppressor or an oppressed." Questioning violence against men means you're a male Patriarchal apologist or, even worse, a female apostate .... As a woman you are, at best, blinded by false consciousness or, at worst, an out-and-out traitor. Questioning the veracity of a ridiculous story about gang rape-as-fraternity-initiation means you are undermining every rape victim's "lived experience." 

This is par for the course for them. Don't feed them any clicks.


----------



## Fozzy

Wolf1974 said:


> It finally seems some of the old stereotypes are dying out with each new generation. When I was first an officer almost any domestic violence call I went to the guy just assumed he was going to jail. And he did if he was the predominate aggressor but when the female gets arrested they looked shocked. They also tried to recant more to prevent the arrest which of course we have no option to do.
> 
> *It seems that some men are becoming more savvy to the law and how it works. Calling more often and having less fear of getting arrested themselves. I honestly think a lot of this has to do with the Internet*
> 
> I have always found it interesting, maybe because I never expected it, that the the number one thing, by far, that I arrest women for is domestic violence. Men commit more crimes in almost all categories but this is the one area that is somewhat leveling out for both genders.


Watching Cops for 20 years taught me to put my shirt on before dialing.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Well then you can expect a man to come back at you in kind. If everyone goes to jail, fair enough.


----------



## vellocet

*LittleDeer* said:


> I have studied domestic violence at length during my degree, what I have found to be true is MRA groups twisting facts and using false stats to make it look like women are equally the aggressors in domestic violence situations.
> 
> Whilst women can be the aggressors and believe me I don't doubt they can be- as my ex husband is currently (sometimes depending on her mood) engaged to someone who is very scary and at the very least emotionally abusive... But I digress
> 
> What the research and stats say are that males are up to one thirds of victims, however what MRA's do not make clear is that many of those victims are in same sex relationships.
> 
> I know in my country and in the USA that many many women die each year at the hands of an intimate partner or ex partner and Something should be done about it.


I don't know about MRA groups and don't care about their statistics on who suffers what more.

What I do care about is its not acceptable for ANYONE to commit violence against ANYONE. Even if someone sees it as "just" a slap.

I also will say that ANYONE has the right to physically retaliate, to the point where self defense would end.

Would I retaliate against a woman? Not by punching or hitting, but I would restrain so that I did not sustain any injury.

And if a woman did commit battery against me, she will end up in jail.


----------



## Yeswecan

ConanHub said:


> Does being hit on count?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


With a baseball bat, yes.


----------



## jaquen

I've read that before. Disgusting? Yes. But it's Jezebel, what more can you expect?


----------



## As'laDain

ntamph said:


> Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have
> 
> I've heard bad things about the website but the comments on this article are amazing. Jezebel is one of the leading feminist websites. Is this what the modern movement is about? Can someone say "self parody"?
> 
> Your thoughts?


my thoughts are that these are the kind of people i like to ignore. 
they would discredit this guys experience just because he is a guy...
this story is real. i know him in real life. 





> I am in the US Army currently stationed at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. I came here from Fort Bragg where I spent the last two years doing all things manly. I jumped out of airplanes, I shot things, I walked around with heavy rucks on my back for 12 to 15 miles twice weekly. I deployed to Iraq and spoke Arabic while doing an important job to close down the war there. I earned my Expert Infantryman Badge "True Blue" which basically means I not only met the minimum requirements for the US Army to consider me an expert infantryman, but I got perfect scores in every event.
> One thing I also spent the last two years doing was getting beat up by my wife. Physically, mentally, financially, emotionally. On the outside I was a man's man, with hair on my chest to prove it. On the inside I was a hurting, scared, and helpless person. Many from my old unit saw me show up to work with black eyes and cut lips. I even have scars on my neck from an attempt to choke me with her nails. I have had my testicles kicked, stepped on, pinched, punched and mocked. Oftentimes I joked about it with others, because it is all I could do to keep from falling into a deep depression. I had no control over my finances, my phone calls, my friends, my facebook, my emails, the clothes I wore, how I folded towels, what food was in the refrigerator, and what time we ate dinner. Any deviance from her wishes warranted a threat of pain, infidelity, death, etc. The smallest incidents would usually get me shoved and verbally abused at the very least.
> Sometimes, however, the smallest incidents ended up being blows to my head. I have been hit with everything you can imagine. Broom handles, wine bottles, pots, pans, spatulas, shoes, purses, rolling pins, etc. And of course with fists. Per Army regulation I could not even bear hug her to keep her from landing more blows to my head without being help responsible for a DV offense and thus by defending myself be kicked out of the military. Per Army regulation I must withstand all abuse, and if possible, find my way to a door and get out. The Lautenberg Amendment strips all service members who ARE IMPLICATED in acts of DV of their right to hold and possess a government issue firearm. Thus making the soldier useless to the military. Many women have used this career ending loophole to pigeonhole soldiers into years of abuse for threat of losing their job if they speak up.
> 
> I've been locked in rooms, locked out of the house, cornered in closets, and chased around my own home. I have even been chased down by her in our Jeep when I did manage to run out of the house. However, nothing physical ever done to me compares to the emotional and verbal abuse visited upon me. This is always the case in DV. The bruises end up leaving, but the psychological scars stay for quite some time.
> Now I won't go into every little thing she said to me, that is neither appropriate or able to be done here. I could add an edition to the Encyclopedia Britannica that covers that topic. I have been called every vulgar and hateful thing in English...and in Spanish. I've been outraged by some of it, and brought to tears by the rest. My life has been threatened, as has my job. I have a top secret government clearance which she threatened to make lies up about me in order to cause me to lose my clearance, thus losing my job.
> The most terrible thing about all of this has been the fact that my two little girls have been witness to every incident. They were in the room every time I was hit, and heard everything that was said. They were in danger more than I was by the crossfire. The amount of glass that was broken in my home was staggering, and until the abuse exhausted her to the point she fell asleep I was not able to clean it up, leaving kids to play around glass.
> Two years later, however, the law finally caught up to her, and my girls and I are safe as can be in our home. I have my job, I am rebuilding my finances, and I have full physical and legal custody of my kids. Life is slowly getting a whole lot better and I finally saw my family for the first time since December 2010. It is typical for abuse victims to not be allowed to speak to their family and friends for threat of violence.
> Why am I telling you this? Because I was the most unlikely candidate to be a domestic violence victim. Yet I was. On the outside you can never really know a person beyond the persona they give off. I gave off the persona that nothing to penetrate my stony exterior. I was built for war, and not meant to show pain.
> Having been a victim I know how insanely, gut wrenchingly, painful and dangerous it is to try and get away. And depending on how long the abuse has gone on it may be the case that, like me, you have told yourself several times over that you really think they are sorry and won't do it again. But they do. "Why don't they just leave?" is not an acceptable question. You really have no idea. Like my case, it took SOMEONE ELSE calling the police on her for the law to step in and force my safety. Thank God someone did, because I've been threatened at knife point and I know what kind of crazy things people like Jodi Arias are capable of.
> If you don't educate yourself on domestic violence you won't be able to help others. It doesn't need to become your pet cause, but it NEEDS and BEGS you to be something that is at least on your radar. I am a man, and I let a tiny woman abuse me for years. We have to get beyond the stigmas and stereotypes to recognize abuse happens to all people and everyone is capable of being a victim.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ntamph said:


> Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have
> 
> I've heard bad things about the website but the comments on this article are amazing. Jezebel is one of the leading feminist websites. Is this what the modern movement is about? Can someone say "self parody"?
> 
> Your thoughts?


It looks like its tongue in cheek in response to a Psychiatry Today article that says that Interpersonal Violence in relationships is mostly perpetrated by women. I am not sure how they calculated those statistics.

I probably would not have responded to that article in that way. Violence against anyone is serious. 

The Jezebel article is not very big either. I was kind of confused. It just a paragraph. I think the Psychiatry Today article is making a claim that should be discussed though.


----------



## Wolf1974

Fozzy said:


> Watching Cops for 20 years taught me to put my shirt on before dialing.


:smthumbup:


----------



## Dogbert

Fighting against violence in general should be the aim of any society calling itself civilized.


----------



## Cletus

Dogbert said:


> Fighting against violence in general should be the aim of any society calling itself civilized.


I hope that irony was intentional.


----------



## arbitrator




----------



## Wolfman1968

*LittleDeer* said:


> I have studied domestic violence at length during my degree, what I have found to be true is MRA groups twisting facts and using false stats to make it look like women are equally the aggressors in domestic violence situations.
> 
> Whilst women can be the aggressors and believe me I don't doubt they can be- as my ex husband is currently (sometimes depending on her mood) engaged to someone who is very scary and at the very least emotionally abusive... But I digress
> 
> What the research and stats say are that males are up to one thirds of victims, however what MRA's do not make clear is that many of those victims are in same sex relationships.
> 
> I know in my country and in the USA that many many women die each year at the hands of an intimate partner or ex partner and Something should be done about it.


I am required to regularly re-credential in state-sanctioned Domestic Violence education as part of my occupation. Your representation of this situation is misleading.

At LEAST 1/3 of the domestic violence reported is male victim (and probably more), and it is NOT disproportionally same-sex. Are you insinuating that same-sex relationships are more violent? The best data estimates the homosexual population at about 3%, so they would have to be vastly more violent than heterosexual relationships to impact that 1/3 (and it's probably even more than 1/3). However, as I understand it, the violence level is estimated to be similar in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

The credentialed domestic violence information (which, incidentally, was created by a committee predominantly composed of women domestic violence professionals/activists) reviews the literature and admits that the violence is initiated roughly at least half the time by women. This is in a educational course that is overall actually slightly biased against men. These studies include SELF-REPORTED studies--basically, women ADMIT that they are the initiators. These are not "MRA" distortions. However, what this mandated course also points out is that the extreme subset of domestic violence--that which leads to extreme control of the victim and/or the extreme violence that leads to the severe injuries/hospitalizations and deaths--is almost exclusively male perpetrated.

What that means is that the most common types of domestic violence (much of which never gets to the judicial system)--slapping, pushing, throwing things, lower level/less injurious kicking and punching--is initiated at least as often, and probably more often, by women. However, the extremely violent situations---those that result in significant injuries/hospitalizations/death--are almost exclusively perpetrated by men. 

This information is from mandatory, state-approved syllabi prepared by Domestic Violence Professionals, which is part of my periodic re-credentialing for my profession. It is also in keeping with my son's personal experience as a Domestic Violence Caseworker with the State's Attorney's office in his county (he estimates that about 1/3 of the cases being prosecuted are female-on-male violence). It is not part of some MRA falsehood conspiracy that you seem to blame. For you to imply so, or to try to explain away male victims by same-sex situations, is not only dishonest, but false and not supported by the data.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Wolfman I couldn't disagree more. 

Domestic violence reality check for the 'manosphere' - Eureka Street

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/domestic-violence-statistics_n_5959776.html


----------



## Wolf1974

Wolfman1968 said:


> I am required to regularly re-credential in state-sanctioned Domestic Violence education as part of my occupation. Your representation of this situation is misleading.
> 
> At LEAST 1/3 of the domestic violence reported is male victim (and probably more), and it is NOT disproportionally same-sex. Are you insinuating that same-sex relationships are more violent? The best data estimates the homosexual population at about 3%, so they would have to be vastly more violent than heterosexual relationships to impact that 1/3 (and it's probably even more than 1/3). However, as I understand it, the violence level is estimated to be similar in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
> 
> The credentialed domestic violence information (which, incidentally, was created by a committee predominantly composed of women domestic violence professionals/activists) reviews the literature and admits that the violence is initiated roughly at least half the time by women. This is in a educational course that is overall actually slightly biased against men. These studies include SELF-REPORTED studies--basically, women ADMIT that they are the initiators. These are not "MRA" distortions. However, what this mandated course also points out is that the extreme subset of domestic violence--that which leads to extreme control of the victim and/or the extreme violence that leads to the severe injuries/hospitalizations and deaths--is almost exclusively male perpetrated.
> *
> What that means is that the most common types of domestic violence (much of which never gets to the judicial system)--slapping, pushing, throwing things, lower level/less injurious kicking and punching--is initiated at least as often, and probably more often, by women. However, the extremely violent situations---those that result in significant injuries/hospitalizations/death--are almost exclusively perpetrated by men. *
> 
> This information is from mandatory, state-approved syllabi prepared by Domestic Violence Professionals, which is part of my periodic re-credentialing for my profession. It is also in keeping with my son's personal experience as a Domestic Violence Caseworker with the State's Attorney's office in his county (he estimates that about 1/3 of the cases being prosecuted are female-on-male violence). It is not part of some MRA falsehood conspiracy that you seem to blame. For you to imply so, or to try to explain away male victims by same-sex situations, is not only dishonest, but false and not supported by the data.


this would be my experience as well 14 years in. If men were to every start calling for every thing like being slapped or threatened, throwing things or the all time number one breaking things you would see the numbers on domestic violence even out quickly, perhaps immediately. Men generally take the level of violence to a whole other level so the more grevious offenses will stay with them but domestic violence laws cover a lot more than hitting.


----------



## Wolfman1968

*LittleDeer* said:


> Wolfman I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> Domestic violence reality check for the 'manosphere' - Eureka Street
> 
> At Least A Third Of All Women Murdered In The U.S. Are Killed By Male Partners
> 
> 30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It's An Epidemic


Really? You're using opinion blogs as a factual "evidence"? An article that has the word "manosphere" in its title is being trotted out as an unbiased source?

A quick perusal of these blogs show that they are NOT AT ALL objective, academic treatments of the subject. In fact, the first blog you reference uses an Australian violence survey to support their contention that "less than five percent of males who experienced violence were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner". But if you click to their own link, the Australian survey is NOT JUST about intimate partner violence, but ALL violence, including stranger violence (and "and violence is broadly defined in that survey to not just include physical violence, but intimidation, etc.). So they use male on male Bar Fights, Robberies, Assaults, Bullying, etc. in an attempt to argue for a lower proportion of female-on-male Intimate Partner Violence. That is a frankly dishonest post, and reflects on just how biased that blog is.
In fact, the comments section of this blog calls the author out for just these very distortions of the Australian survey. So why did you link to it? It does not reflect well on your argument.

If we look at actual ACADEMIC, SCIENTIFIC data, such as the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary" http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf, we see a very different story.
Page 43 & 44 of the summary addresses reports of physical violence (other areas of the report deal with sexual violence/rape, stalking, psychological, ethnic breakdowns, etc.). It says that 30.3% of women report experiencing physical violence BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER during their lifetime, and 24.3% report severe physical violence. 25.7% of men report physical violence during their lifetime and nearly 1 in 7, 13.8% of men report severe physical violence BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER (as opposed to your BS Australian Blog that tried to include all violence). The percent of perpetrators was not precisely reported in the CDC report, but the Executive Summary (p. 1-5) and also the end sections note that most rape/non-contact sexual experiences againt men were perpetrated by other males, and almost half of stalking of male victims was perpetrated by males, but the perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly females. Despite the fact that the exact percentage was not enumerated in this study, there are just not enough same-sex male-male couples in the US to account for 1/4 of ALL men experiencing physical violence (only about 5% less than the women's percentages) and 1/7 of ALL men experiencing severe violence unless the overwhelming percentage of perpetrators of physical violence against men are women. (And don't forget, then, that female same-sex violence is part of the percentage of reported women victims as well).

This is in danger of (and may already be starting to be) a threadjack from the initial post of women gleefully admitting to abusing their male partners. For some reason, Little Deer felt obligated to inject some false data trying to downplay the statistics of male victims of Intimate Partner Violence (does anyone really expect that even the 1/3 represents a disporportionate effect by gay partners, as Little Deer seems to insinuate?). From where I stand, it is because of attitudes like Little Deer that these Jezebel posters feel free to gloat about their abuse of men. By downplaying the severity/scope they minimize their behavior. 

I am a Mandatory Reporter of Intimate Partner Violence in my daily work, which means reporting for both female AND male victims, REGARDLESS of the exact percentages. However, if the mindset is falsely that male victimization at the hands of women rarely occurs, then these incidents will not be pursued or identified. For example, when my wife was hospitalized, they made a point of asking her (away from my presence), "do you feel unsafe at home?" type questions. When I was hospitalized at the SAME hospital, NONE of those questions were asked of me (although I suspect the admitting nurse just routinely clicked the "no" button during my admission). It is just not part of their mindset that men could be victimized. This is despite clear data from respectable sources such as the CDC to the contrary.

The initial post of those Jezebel bloggers shows just how widespread this problem is. Despite Little Deer's rant about "MRA" groups and her "Manosphere" blogger, from someone who actually has to potentially address this on a daily basis, I see no reason to even post that except to try to minimize male victimization. After all, how does it otherwise really address the initial post? For all their rants about "MRA" and "Manosphere", it seems like there are far more Jezebel types (which includes many of womens' activists who are just as biased as any "MRA") who are willing to distort and twist data, as the blogger did in Little Deer's link above. And none of it is helpful to people like me who actually have to potentially address this on a daily basis, or to my son who is a DV caseworker for the State's Attorney and tells me that women are shocked to learn that they can be held responsible as well--just as these Jezebel posters don't think much of their transgressions.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolf1974 said:


> It finally seems some of the old stereotypes are dying out with each new generation. When I was first an officer almost any domestic violence call I went to the guy just assumed he was going to jail. And he did if he was the predominate aggressor but when the female gets arrested they looked shocked. They also tried to recant more to prevent the arrest which of course we have no option to do.
> 
> It seems that some men are becoming more savvy to the law and how it works. Calling more often and having less fear of getting arrested themselves. I honestly think a lot of this has to do with the Internet
> 
> I have always found it interesting, maybe because I never expected it, that the the number one thing, by far, that I arrest women for is domestic violence. Men commit more crimes in almost all categories but this is the one area that is somewhat leveling out for both genders.


I'm sure you know that abusers will make it look like they are the victim, right? Many women who are actually being abused will be arrested because the abuser has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor. I am not denying that women can be abusive. But I doubt the "leveling out" you are talking about is an accurate interpretation of who the abuser is.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> I'm sure you know that abusers will make it look like they are the victim, right? *Many women who are actually being abused will be arrested because the abuser has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor.* I am not denying that women can be abusive. But I doubt the "leveling out" you are talking about is an accurate interpretation of who the abuser is.


Do you think it is at all possible that many *men* "who are actually being abused will be arrested because the absuer has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor?" Because I think a review of posts here on TAM will show that actually has happened.

Furthermore, given the attitudes in society today, who do you think is more likely get arrested by being falsely blamed for being the aggressor? Men or women? I think the cop is likely to be convinced that the man was the aggressor, so the false accusation scenario you envision is likely going to be pulled off succesfully more by women, in my view.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*for example, when my wife was hospitalized, they made a point of asking her (away from my presence), "do you feel unsafe at home?" type questions. When I was hospitalized at the SAME hospital, NONE of those questions were asked of me (although I suspect the admitting nurse just routinely clicked the "no" button during my admission). It is just not part of their mindset that men could be victimized. *

That is true. It is very problematic. Sorry, Cletus, I think that's a good term. 

I worked in a domestic violence shelter and for a crisis line and we talked about this all the time. We were very aware that there can be male victims. The complication is that abusers will make themselves out to be the victim and so it is difficult. We discussed how we would screen people and one shelter in our area does bring men into the shelter. I know when I was working in dv there was a program in Seattle working on this issue and developing a screening process to attempt to figure out who the abuser is. It's difficult because abusers can be very tricky at trying to control their victims. But if you are trying to figure out the abuser, it is the same issue when you have abuse in a lesbian relationship. They are both women so you have to somehow determine who the abuser is. And I had heard of cases where a lesbian abuser will go into shelter looking for her partner. That is a problem. 

It's very complicated. What is your solution?


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Do you think it is at all possible that many men "who are actually being abused will be arrested because the absuer has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor?" *

Of course that can happen. I'm saying that whoever gets arrested does not tell the full story.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> *Do you think it is at all possible that many men "who are actually being abused will be arrested because the absuer has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor?" *
> 
> Of course that can happen. I'm saying that whoever gets arrested does not tell the full story.


No argument there.

But that doesn't contradict Wolf1974's post, then.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolfman1968 said:


> No argument there.
> 
> But that doesn't contradict Wolf1974's post, then.


Yes. It does. The way I interpreted his is that this just proves that abuse is equal or that women abuse more. But arresting someone does not prove anything. It just proves that A. You are arresting the right person or B. You are arresting the person the abuser convinced you was the right person.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. It does. The way I interpreted his is that this just proves that abuse is equal or that women abuse more. But arresting someone does not prove anything. It just proves that A. You are arresting the right person or B. You are arresting the person the abuser convinced you was the right person.


I don't think Wolf1974 was saying the arrest proves anything. I think he was just saying it would be a consequence police being called for ALL forms of Domestic Violence.

Here's what he posted (I still can't figure out multi-quoting):

"If men were to every start calling for every thing like being slapped or threatened, throwing things or the all time number one breaking things you would see the numbers on domestic violence even out quickly, perhaps immediately. Men generally take the level of violence to a whole other level so the more grevious offenses will stay with them but domestic violence laws cover a lot more than hitting."

So, if I am interpreting him correctly, he is saying that in his experience of 14 years of police work, the low-level "slapped, threatened, throwing, breaking things" are committed equally by women and men, but the "grevious offenses" are generally done by men. However, the law doesn't just cover "grevious offenses" but also those lower level incidents, so once men start calling in equal numbers for lower level offenses, the percent of women who are arrested will rise.

I still don't see how what you responded contradicts this (assuming I am interpreting Wolf1974 correctly). He never says the arrest is the proof. He says it would be the consequence. It's his EXPERIENCE as a police officer (not some arrest statistics) that women do the low-level offenses just as much.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't think Wolf1974 was saying the arrest proves anything. I think he was just saying it would be a consequence police being called for ALL forms of Domestic Violence.
> 
> Here's what he posted (I still can't figure out multi-quoting):
> 
> "If men were to every start calling for every thing like being slapped or threatened, throwing things or the all time number one breaking things you would see the numbers on domestic violence even out quickly, perhaps immediately. Men generally take the level of violence to a whole other level so the more grevious offenses will stay with them but domestic violence laws cover a lot more than hitting."
> 
> So, if I am interpreting him correctly, he is saying that in his experience of 14 years of police work, the low-level "slapped, threatened, throwing, breaking things" are committed equally by women and men, but the "grevious offenses" are generally done by men. However, the law doesn't just cover "grevious offenses" but also those lower level incidents, so once men start calling in equal numbers for lower level offenses, the percent of women who are arrested will rise.
> 
> I still don't see how what you responded contradicts this (assuming I am interpreting Wolf1974 correctly). He never says the arrest is the proof. He says it would be the consequence. It's his EXPERIENCE as a police officer (not some arrest statistics) that women do the low-level offenses just as much.


Ok.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't think Wolf1974 was saying the arrest proves anything. I think he was just saying it would be a consequence police being called for ALL forms of Domestic Violence.
> 
> Here's what he posted (I still can't figure out multi-quoting):
> 
> "If men were to every start calling for every thing like being slapped or threatened, throwing things or the all time number one breaking things you would see the numbers on domestic violence even out quickly, perhaps immediately. Men generally take the level of violence to a whole other level so the more grevious offenses will stay with them but domestic violence laws cover a lot more than hitting."
> 
> So, if I am interpreting him correctly, he is saying that in his experience of 14 years of police work, the low-level "slapped, threatened, throwing, breaking things" are committed equally by women and men, but the "grevious offenses" are generally done by men. However, the law doesn't just cover "grevious offenses" but also those lower level incidents, so once men start calling in equal numbers for lower level offenses, the percent of women who are arrested will rise.
> 
> I still don't see how what you responded contradicts this (assuming I am interpreting Wolf1974 correctly). He never says the arrest is the proof. He says it would be the consequence. It's his EXPERIENCE as a police officer (not some arrest statistics) that women do the low-level offenses just as much.


So here is a question. What do you think is at the heart of this debate -the attempt to prove that men are victimized in ipv by women either equally or moreso?


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> So here is a question. What do you think is at the heart of this debate -the attempt to prove that men are victimized in ipv by women either equally or moreso?


 Which "debate"? The initial post about the Jezebel posters gloating about abusing their boyfriends?
Or about Wolf1974's post (which actually was just a response to mine)?

I don't think the exact percentage is all that pertinent to this thread; what's more important is the attitude toward male victimization. 

I think the best evidence support that the LOW LEVEL violence is about equal in men and women (only less than 5% difference in the CDC study, as do some other studies), and the even the reliable studies with the lowest numbers say at least 1/3 of the victims are men. However, you have posters such as we have seen in this thread, or that ridiculous Australian Blog that she linked to, which try to minimize male victimization by writing it off to gay couples, or by falsifying the statistics by including non-IPV street violence in the mix to reduce the female perpetrator numbers (like that Australian blogger did). 

Why does all this minimization matter? Because if male victimization is minimzed, you end up with the exact situation you have with the Original Poster---Jezebel posters cackling among themselves about how they abused their boyfriends, but they "deserved it".

Because if male victimization is minimized, then you have situations like I mentioned a few posts ago--my wife being asked routine DV questions at the hospital (hospitalized for unrelated issues, similar to thyroid surgery, not something that is DV-associated), but no such questions for me when I am hospitalized, because male victimization doesn't even enter into the admitting nurse's mind (even though I know it is a question on their intake form they have to fill out). The ironic thing (which I have been hesitant to get into in an open forum like this), is that I have been the victim of my wife's violence against me on several occasions. (It was not bad enough to hospitalize me, but included things like kicking me in the chest so I fell backwards over a coffee table and hurt my back, or her hitting me with a ceramic planter on the head when she tried to get my cell phone away from me when i videoed her outbreaks. When the police came on one of these occasions, she initially blurted out falsely that I was abusing her--even though I had called the police. Luckily, physical evidence to the contrary supported me, and she instantly recanted and confessed to my version once confronted by the evidence (we were separated by the police for interviews). However, she was not arrested, although I am pretty sure I would have been had it gone the other way. This was mixed in with issues of mental illness and alcohol excess by my wife, and I will say no more about it in a public forum).

So, although I don't think it's all that critical whether women perpetrate 1/2 of the domestic violence or 1/3 of the violence, or whatever, what is important is that it is NOT rare. Furthermore, this minimizing of male victimization leads to injustices against men (which is what the Jezebel posters were doing), and lack of support for male victims because of a false belief that they are too few/rare to worry about--thus, men are not even asked about DV upon hospitalization like women are. And although these Jezebel-types and their fellow travelers (like the Australian blogger who falsified/twisted data, and Little Deer who linked to the blogger), always start with the obligatory "we don't deny women can abuse sometimes", that comes off as wholly insincere when the rest of the screed is devoted to minimizing the magnitude of male victimization. Why is it that such people are threatened by any discussion of male victims? Why post such ridiculous assertions such as trying to pin it on gay partner violence (really? gay violence leading to 1/4 of all men being victims, according to the CDC?) unless it is specifically to minimize the perception of male victimization. For some reason, there appears to be an intentional effort to minimize the experience of male victims; if not, then why even post the threadjack statistics in the first place in this thread, which is about SELF-ADMITTED perpetrators on Jezebel?


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I don't think the exact percentage is all that pertinent to this thread; what's more important is the attitude toward male victimization. *

I agree. Violence is never acceptable no matter who perpetrates it. The images of female violence against male partners has been laughed at because men are not supposed to be weak. You hear, ha,ha he is whipped. In old cartoons you see the wife throwing the frying pan at her husband and it is meant to be comical. 

One time I went into a bookstore because I was going to try to write a paper in college about male abuse victims and I asked the guy at the counter if he had heard of anything relevant. He laughed. I was shocked and offended. Obviously it happens but men have not been allowed to talk about it. My mother was the abuser in our family. No physical abuse but a lot of emotional abuse. That can be worse in some ways than physical abuse.

*Because if male victimization is minimized, then you have situations like I mentioned a few posts ago--my wife being asked routine DV questions at the hospital (hospitalized for unrelated issues, similar to thyroid surgery, not something that is DV-associated), but no such questions for me when I am hospitalized, because male victimization doesn't even enter into the admitting nurse's mind (even though I know it is a question on their intake form they have to fill out). *

Keep in mind that having the hospital even think to ask those questions of women is new. The movement to end domestic and sexual violence is only about 40 years old. It is the feminist movement that started the discussion on these issues. And I doubt that all hospitals ask about domestic violence. But I agree that it should be routine for everyone. 

*The ironic thing (which I have been hesitant to get into in an open forum like this), is that I have been the victim of my wife's violence against me on several occasions. (It was not bad enough to hospitalize me, but included things like kicking me in the chest so I fell backwards over a coffee table and hurt my back, or her hitting me with a ceramic planter on the head when she tried to get my cell phone away from me when i videoed her outbreaks. When the police came on one of these occasions, she initially blurted out falsely that I was abusing her--even though I had called the police.*

That’s terrible. I’m sorry that happened to you. Thank you for sharing that. We need to share things like that for change to happen. Are things better? Has your wife changed her behavior?

*So, although I don't think it's all that critical whether women perpetrate 1/2 of the domestic violence or 1/3 of the violence, or whatever, what is important is that it is NOT rare. *

Right.

*...and lack of support for male victims because of a false belief that they are too few/rare to worry about*

Unfortunately, there is lack of support for all victims of Domestic and Sexual violence. There are actually more animal shelters in this country than domestic violence shelters. And services for sexual assault survivors are way underfunded. At least where I live and work men would not be refused services and I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t be that way across the country. Male victims are shamed though and have a hard time calling to access services. Did you ever call a domestic violence crisis line? Regardless of who is calling, more funding needs to be directed at domestic and sexual violence services so that they can educate and support survivors.

*Why is it that such people are threatened by any discussion of male victims?*

I think it’s because women’s experiences are minimized in general and the degree of violence between men and women is much different. This is from the Bureau of Justice:

In 2008, two of every five female murder victims were killed by an intimate. Among female murder victims for whom the victim/offender relationships were known, 45.3 percent were killed by an intimate whereas only 4.9 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate.

These are emergency room statistics:
Male Female
Spouse or former spouse 1.8% 15.9%
Other relative 6.6 9.5
Boyfriend or girlfriend 2.7 20.9
Other friend 16.5 15.5
Other acquaintance 8.7 4.9
Stranger 28.9  14.0
Not reported 34.8 19.3

Violence is violence, definitely. We need to end violence, period. And the reality is that men being unable to talk about their own experience with IPV is due to a patriarchal power structure that wants to maintain strict gender roles where women are submissive and men are dominant. I welcome people like you in helping to change those dynamics.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> I'm sure you know that abusers will make it look like they are the victim, right? Many women who are actually being abused will be arrested because the abuser has successfully made it look like they are the aggressor. I am not denying that women can be abusive. But I doubt the "leveling out" you are talking about is an accurate interpretation of who the abuser is.


That's not what I was was talking about or what I typed. I was talking about the violations of domestic violence law that occurs daily and is not called Inor reported. 

And you can believe whatever you want. Like I said 14 years and I have seen it, studied and trained on it, and then taught it hand in hand with the district attorney to law enforcement. Most people, yourself included perhaps, wrap their head around this world "violence". In reality it covers any violation of law where a defined couple is involved.

Example if a husband and wife were arguing and the wife picked up a vase and threw it into the wall, opposite direction of the husband, guess what she can be arrested for that. This is only one example so yes if all these cases were to be reported the arrests would level out and fairly quickly


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. It does. The way I interpreted his is that this just proves that abuse is equal or that women abuse more. But arresting someone does not prove anything. It just proves that A. You are arresting the right person or B. You are arresting the person the abuser convinced you was the right person.


Yes if they break the law you are arresting the right person. And we have no option to not do so


----------



## John Lee

I think women are still far more likely to be in a scenario where they are genuinely under threat of severe harm from domestic violence, but men who are victims do have the problem of having to avoid fighting back. I've been hit by a woman a few times, undeservedly, and hard enough that it made me raging mad, and in those situations the hard part was not that I felt under threat, it was controlling my natural urge to fight back. I did though, have never hit a woman in my life.


----------



## jaquen

Wolfman1968 said:


> I am required to regularly re-credential in state-sanctioned Domestic Violence education as part of my occupation. Your representation of this situation is misleading.
> 
> At LEAST 1/3 of the domestic violence reported is male victim (and probably more), and it is NOT disproportionally same-sex. Are you insinuating that same-sex relationships are more violent? The best data estimates the homosexual population at about 3%, so they would have to be vastly more violent than heterosexual relationships to impact that 1/3 (and it's probably even more than 1/3). However, as I understand it, the violence level is estimated to be similar in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
> 
> The credentialed domestic violence information (which, incidentally, was created by a committee predominantly composed of women domestic violence professionals/activists) reviews the literature and admits that the violence is initiated roughly at least half the time by women. This is in a educational course that is overall actually slightly biased against men. These studies include SELF-REPORTED studies--basically, women ADMIT that they are the initiators. These are not "MRA" distortions. However, what this mandated course also points out is that the extreme subset of domestic violence--that which leads to extreme control of the victim and/or the extreme violence that leads to the severe injuries/hospitalizations and deaths--is almost exclusively male perpetrated.
> 
> What that means is that the most common types of domestic violence (much of which never gets to the judicial system)--slapping, pushing, throwing things, lower level/less injurious kicking and punching--is initiated at least as often, and probably more often, by women. However, the extremely violent situations---those that result in significant injuries/hospitalizations/death--are almost exclusively perpetrated by men.
> 
> This information is from mandatory, state-approved syllabi prepared by Domestic Violence Professionals, which is part of my periodic re-credentialing for my profession. It is also in keeping with my son's personal experience as a Domestic Violence Caseworker with the State's Attorney's office in his county (he estimates that about 1/3 of the cases being prosecuted are female-on-male violence). It is not part of some MRA falsehood conspiracy that you seem to blame. For you to imply so, or to try to explain away male victims by same-sex situations, is not only dishonest, but false and not supported by the data.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> *Why is it that such people are threatened by any discussion of male victims?*
> 
> I think it’s because women’s experiences are minimized in general and the degree of violence between men and women is much different..............
> ...........
> Violence is violence, definitely. We need to end violence, period. And the reality is that men being unable to talk about their own experience with IPV is due to a patriarchal power structure that wants to maintain strict gender roles where women are submissive and men are dominant. I welcome people like you in helping to change those dynamics.


I don't agree that women's experiences are minimized. Domestic Violence is everywhere in the media, in politics (everything from War on Women accusations to Violence Against Women Act--WAVA--although, note, no mention of men in the title), in law-enforcement, to even pop culture (the sleeveless undershirt now being called a "wife-beater", implying the widespread DV against women). I think awareness of women victims is at an all-time high, not minimized. It seems to me that actually it is the male victims/female perpetrators which are being denied/minimized.

The disparity between women and men victims in extreme IPV has already been acknowledge in this thread, and I don't see the purpose in quoting the DOJ statistics when, although they may certainly be true, bear no relevance to the Original Post, which is the insensitivity/lack of acknowledgement of male victims that the Jezebel posters were displaying as they bragged about assaulting their boyfriends.

I just don't understand why you can't see how disparaging those kind of reponses are in this context. The closest comparison I can think of is if a Latino was expressing dismay over acts of discrimination toward him and his ethnic group, and in response an African American says, "You think you have it bad? You were not slaves in this country, and you didn't have to live through Jim Crow, etc.". Can't you see how demeaning that is to the Latino's experience? Can't you see how insulting it is that when an actual problem is brought up, the response is to diminish it by saying it doesn't compare to someone else? There are male TAM posters who actually have had to live through abuse, and to be dismissed by quoting some Echo-Chamber Blogs with false data is demeaning, and essentially tells them that their experience is of no merit because women suffer so much. Meanwhile the Jezebel posters and their ilk gloat about what abuse they have heaped on men. 

As far as your last paragraph, I feel that those who have to fall back on some amorphous "Patriarchy" to blame things are essentially resorting to a type of religion. Their belief in the existence of an overarching "Patriarchy" cannot be proven or disproven. It makes no sense to me. It makes more sense to just call out injustices and work to correct them without having to resort to some unprovable construct.


----------



## As'laDain

John Lee said:


> I think women are still far more likely to be in a scenario where they are genuinely under threat of severe harm from domestic violence, but men who are victims do have the problem of having to avoid fighting back. I've been hit by a woman a few times, undeservedly, and hard enough that it made me raging mad, and in those situations the hard part was not that I felt under threat, it was controlling my natural urge to fight back. I did though, have never hit a woman in my life.


hmm... i dont have much of a problem problem fighting back. 
im not out to hurt women, but i wont tolerate abuse without giving them a reason to stop.

a good hard block to any of the muscles of the forearm is usually enough to stop most people anyway. pull out a weapon though, and all bets are off.


----------



## Dogbert

Maybe anger management and domestic violence courses should be mandatory *for everybody* going through the school system as underage young people.


----------



## Pooh Bear

So out of my entire post that is all you will respond to?

War on Women is about an attack on women’s rights all across the board. It is not about domestic violence specifically. And it’s VAWA – Violence Against Women Act, which funds domestic and sexual violence services. The only reason Congress challenged it not too long ago was because they didn’t want to fund it. They claimed it was based on the fact that men did not seem to be included. But if they wanted to know if men were included they could have talked with dv providers. Domestic and sexual violence services are overwhelmingly funded by VAWA and as I have said, at least where I worked, men were included in services. So if you want support for both men and women for dv services you need to make sure that Congress passes funds for VAWA. We could change the name of the Violence Against Women Act but domestic and sexual violence services need to be funded.

Are you kidding with the wife-beater? It’s as offensive as the Jezebel comments are. First of all, it’s classist because it is implying that some “white trash” guy. It’s supposed to be funny but it is making fun of abuse of women. It’s not funny.

The Jezebel article had nothing to do with the question you asked. I answered the question you asked. I do not support what they said because violence is not funny.

*I just don't understand why you can't see how disparaging those kind of reponses are in this context.*

Did I ever support the Jezebel article? I've never said that I support what they said.

*Their belief in the existence of an overarching "Patriarchy" cannot be proven or disproven. *

Their? My. Of course, it can be proven. Do you know what patriarchy is? Who has the most power in the society? Why do you think men are embarrassed when their partner is violent towards them? It is because there is an overall assumption that men are in control and women are weak and men who are abused are weak. And men cannot admit to being weak. 

I don’t think you even read my post. Oh well. Have a nice day.


----------



## Pooh Bear

As'laDain said:


> hmm... i dont have much of a problem problem fighting back.
> im not out to hurt women, but i wont tolerate abuse without giving them a reason to stop.
> 
> a good hard block to any of the muscles of the forearm is usually enough to stop most people anyway.  pull out a weapon though, and all bets are off.


How about walking away?


----------



## Pooh Bear

Dogbert said:


> Maybe anger management and domestic violence courses should be mandatory *for everybody* going through the school system as underage young people.


I agree. And a lot of domestic violence service providers do go onto schools and teach about it. It's not mandatory that I am aware of, however. There is also a movement now to end bullying so that can help also.


----------



## unbelievable

John Lee said:


> I think women are still far more likely to be in a scenario where they are genuinely under threat of severe harm from domestic violence, but men who are victims do have the problem of having to avoid fighting back. I've been hit by a woman a few times, undeservedly, and hard enough that it made me raging mad, and in those situations the hard part was not that I felt under threat, it was controlling my natural urge to fight back. I did though, have never hit a woman in my life.


There is that and there is also the natural reluctance for most men to call the police and report that they were victims of violence at the hands of a woman. Regardless of what the law has to say about self defense, I'd leave if it were at all possible before smacking a female domestic partner. I wouldn't feel any need or inclination to leave before I'd physically defend myself against a male assailant. I know if I use a strike or hold on a woman, even in self defense, it's likely to leave some mark and I'll likely end up taking the ride. It'd be tough for a man to stand in court at 6 ft, 220 lbs and try to explain how he was in fear of his 5'4, 135 lb unarmed wife. 
Before DV laws changed, giving cops greater authority, we used to go to this same house over and over. Very large American guy used to beat up his Korean wife. She would always say she fell or tripped and would never admit he hit her though he obviously had. The last time we went there, he looked like he'd been hit by a train. His tiny wife beat the everlasting dog snot out of him with some sort of martial arts. He was easily over twice her size but she ran those little feet all over his face and head. She could have done that to him at any time but she had let him punch on her. I guess she was just trying to be an obedient wife. He learned his lesson about hitting women, though.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> So out of my entire post that is all you will respond to?
> 
> *Those are the areas that I want to respond to. The other sections I may not be in disagreement with.*
> 
> War on Women is about an attack on women’s rights all across the board. It is not about domestic violence specifically.
> *No, but Domestic Violence is part of it, and the point is whether DV against women is being minimized which, in this political environment, it is not.*
> 
> 
> And it’s VAWA – Violence Against Women Act, which funds domestic and sexual violence services.*Yes, I got the name right, I just accidentally reversed the V and W in the abbreviation. It's an obvious typo, no need to nitpick. It doesn't make your argument weaker or stronger.*
> The only reason Congress challenged it not too long ago was because they didn’t want to fund it. They claimed it was based on the fact that men did not seem to be included. But if they wanted to know if men were included they could have talked with dv providers. Domestic and sexual violence services are overwhelmingly funded by VAWA and as I have said, at least where I worked, men were included in services. So if you want support for both men and women for dv services you need to make sure that Congress passes funds for VAWA. We could change the name of the Violence Against Women Act but domestic and sexual violence services need to be funded.*So why didn't they? Why didn't they just call it the Domestic Violence act, or something like that? My contention is that because there is a lot of support to stop violence against women, but not the support for men, in part from attempts to minimize men's victimization, such as Little Deer's post and the ridiculous Blog she linked to.
> But the reason I even mentioned this (and other items) is to refute your contention that DV against women is being minimized. In reality, awareness is higher than any time in history. That is why there is a law NOW and not before.*
> 
> Are you kidding with the wife-beater? It’s as offensive as the Jezebel comments are. First of all, it’s classist because it is implying that some “white trash” guy. It’s supposed to be funny but it is making fun of abuse of women. It’s not funny.
> *I'm not saying it is funny, or even appropriate. All I am saying is that there is increased awareness of violence against women that there wasn't in the past....so much so that it is in popular culture, offensive or classist as it may be. Do you think that they would have even mentioned such a thing in the 1960s? Again, the point is not whether this characterization is good or bad, but that awareness about DV against women is higher than any time in history; it is NOT being minimized. That's all these paragraphs and examples are about. It is NOT being minimized, awareness is higher than ever before. *
> 
> The Jezebel article had nothing to do with the question you asked. I answered the question you asked. I do not support what they said because violence is not funny.
> *I didn't say you supported the Jezebel argument. *
> *By the way, you actually DIDN'T answer my question the way you think. (For those playing at home, my question was "Why are such people threatened by the discussion of male victims" and PoohBear's response was to post Emergency Room statistics showing that women are more likely to be killed than men in Intimate Partner Violence--which is true, but isn't really an answer.) But you did answer it by example; essentially providing an illustration of the African American response to the Latino that I used as a comparison.*
> 
> *I just don't understand why you can't see how disparaging those kind of reponses are in this context.*
> 
> Did I ever support the Jezebel article? I've never said that I support what they said.
> *I guess then it is my turn to ask if YOU even read MY post, because the responses that are disparaging are not "I support Jezebel" comments, but rather the "look at these statistics that show women have it much worse" kind of comments (in this thread, the worst by Little Deer and her link) used to minimize the abuse of men; hence, my comparison of the African American trying to shut down the complaints of the Latino. It is still disparaging, and doesn't belong in a thread whose purpose is to show the hypocrisy of Jezebel posters crowing about their abuse of men. You really can't see that?*
> 
> *Their belief in the existence of an overarching "Patriarchy" cannot be proven or disproven. *
> 
> Their? My. Of course, it can be proven. Do you know what patriarchy is? Who has the most power in the society? Why do you think men are embarrassed when their partner is violent towards them? It is because there is an overall assumption that men are in control and women are weak and men who are abused are weak. And men cannot admit to being weak. *That is an INTERPRETATION of the situation, not proof of the existence of an overarching "Patriarchy". It still doesn't negate my more sensible response, which is why not just call out injustices and eliminate them without having to resort to some unprovable construct.*
> 
> I don’t think you even read my post. Oh well. Have a nice day.
> *Of course I read it. Disagreement with your comments does not mean that I didn't read it, only that I think you're not correct. Are you implying that your statements are so persuasive/correct that you believe that the only way I could disagree with them is that I haven't read them?*


----------



## Pooh Bear

John Lee said:


> I think women are still far more likely to be in a scenario where they are genuinely under threat of severe harm from domestic violence, but men who are victims do have the problem of having to avoid fighting back. I've been hit by a woman a few times, undeservedly, and hard enough that it made me raging mad, and in those situations the hard part was not that I felt under threat, it was controlling my natural urge to fight back. I did though, have never hit a woman in my life.


Right. That's another problem. We need to teach kids that you don't hit. I will be teaching my son not to hit people. But I will also make sure that he knows that he not remain in a relationship where someone would hit him. It is unacceptable.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> *Why is it that such people are threatened by any discussion of male victims?*
> 
> I think it’s because women’s experiences are minimized in general and the degree of violence between men and women is much different. This is from the Bureau of Justice:
> 
> In 2008, two of every five female murder victims were killed by an intimate. Among female murder victims for whom the victim/offender relationships were known, 45.3 percent were killed by an intimate whereas only 4.9 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate.
> 
> These are emergency room statistics:
> Male Female
> Spouse or former spouse 1.8% 15.9%
> Other relative 6.6 9.5
> Boyfriend or girlfriend 2.7 20.9
> Other friend 16.5 15.5
> Other acquaintance 8.7 4.9
> Stranger 28.9 14.0
> Not reported 34.8 19.3
> 
> .


I have gone into a more point-by-point to you in my other posting, but this really illustrates my point about how these "women have it worse" responses are demeaning to men who have been victims of violence (which is what this whole thread is about---the Jezebel posters being violent against their boyfriends). You think you answered my question, but you did not. There reason is, you did not complete the explanation of WHY the difference in violence should threaten certain people when talking about male victims.

So.. complete the thought. "The discussion of male victims threaten them because there is a disparity between male and female violence and so...."? (does one of these fit?: )

a) they want men to suffer and don't want to hear about them being victims.
b) they are only concerned with what can happen to them, so don't want to hear about male victims?
c) they think only their agenda is so important, there is no space to talk about others being victimized?
d)they are so involved with women victims, there is no room in their heart to feel for other victims?
e) some other explanation?

So, complete the thought. WHY should the disparity in IPV deaths make these people feel threatened when talking about male victims?

(In other words, does hearing about a Latino's harrassment by immigration authorities and discrimination threaten those who are concerned about African-American suffering by society? Does it minimize it African-American suffering? If I can quote worse statistics of African-American suffering, does that justify being threatened by Latino suffering?)


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> I think it’s because women’s experiences are minimized in general and the degree of violence between men and women is much different. This is from the Bureau of Justice:
> 
> In 2008, two of every five female murder victims were killed by an intimate. Among female murder victims for whom the victim/offender relationships were known, 45.3 percent were killed by an intimate whereas only 4.9 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate.
> 
> These are emergency room statistics:
> Male Female
> Spouse or former spouse 1.8% 15.9%
> Other relative 6.6 9.5
> Boyfriend or girlfriend 2.7 20.9
> Other friend 16.5 15.5
> Other acquaintance 8.7 4.9
> Stranger 28.9 14.0
> Not reported 34.8 19.3


By the way, expressing these statistics as percentages do not NECESSARILY prove your point. In this case, it is true that women are much more likely to be killed in IPV violence then men, but percentages don't necessarily make that point.

For example, just for mathematical illustration, suppose in a certain community, the number of men and women were equal, and an equal number of men and women were killed by IPV. However, let's say that only 100 women were killed by other crimes (during robberies, gang fights, etc.) while 900 men were. The percentages would be:

Women:
100 IPV + 100 street crime = 200 women dead
100 IPV / 200 total = 50% by IPV

Men:
100 IPV + 900 street crime = 1000 men dead
100 IPV / 1000 total = 10% by IPV.


So, here you have an mathematical example where the likelihood of dying by IPV was actually EQUAL for men and women, while using the percentages you could try to falsely portray women as more likely to die from IPV.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your concept; it is not in doubt that women are more likely to be killed by IPV. I'm just saying that your percentages aren't the way to prove it. So, for your statement that 45.3% of women were killed by an intimate while only 4.9% of men were killed by an intimate, if there are 1000 women killed but 10,000 men killed (from more street crime and gang violence), then we are taking about 1000 x 45.3% = 453 women killed by IPV whereas for men the number is 10,000 x 4.9% = 490 men killed by IPV. (Actually more!) So you need the total number to make your statistic meaningful, because it doesn't NECESSARILY make the case in isolation.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't think Wolf1974 was saying the arrest proves anything. I think he was just saying it would be a consequence police being called for ALL forms of Domestic Violence.
> 
> Here's what he posted (I still can't figure out multi-quoting):
> 
> "If men were to every start calling for every thing like being slapped or threatened, throwing things or the all time number one breaking things you would see the numbers on domestic violence even out quickly, perhaps immediately. Men generally take the level of violence to a whole other level so the more grevious offenses will stay with them but domestic violence laws cover a lot more than hitting."
> 
> So, if I am interpreting him correctly, he is saying that in his experience of 14 years of police work, the low-level "slapped, threatened, throwing, breaking things" are committed equally by women and men, but the "grevious offenses" are generally done by men. However, the law doesn't just cover "grevious offenses" but also those lower level incidents, so once men start calling in equal numbers for lower level offenses, the percent of women who are arrested will rise.
> 
> I still don't see how what you responded contradicts this (assuming I am interpreting Wolf1974 correctly). He never says the arrest is the proof. He says it would be the consequence. It's his EXPERIENCE as a police officer (not some arrest statistics) that women do the low-level offenses just as much.


There is something else that is not factored in here. Most women who are abused never call the police. I'm sure that most men do not either. 

So the real numbers of who abuses whom, what the abuse is like, etc. are not really known.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Which "debate"? The initial post about the Jezebel posters gloating about abusing their boyfriends?
> Or about Wolf1974's post (which actually was just a response to mine)?
> 
> I don't think the exact percentage is all that pertinent to this thread; what's more important is the attitude toward male victimization.
> 
> I think the best evidence support that the LOW LEVEL violence is about equal in men and women (only less than 5% difference in the CDC study, as do some other studies), and the even the reliable studies with the lowest numbers say at least 1/3 of the victims are men. However, you have posters such as we have seen in this thread, or that ridiculous Australian Blog that she linked to, which try to minimize male victimization by writing it off to gay couples, or by falsifying the statistics by including non-IPV street violence in the mix to reduce the female perpetrator numbers (like that Australian blogger did).
> 
> Why does all this minimization matter? Because if male victimization is minimzed, you end up with the exact situation you have with the Original Poster---Jezebel posters cackling among themselves about how they abused their boyfriends, but they "deserved it".
> 
> Because if male victimization is minimized, then you have situations like I mentioned a few posts ago--my wife being asked routine DV questions at the hospital (hospitalized for unrelated issues, similar to thyroid surgery, not something that is DV-associated), but no such questions for me when I am hospitalized, because male victimization doesn't even enter into the admitting nurse's mind (even though I know it is a question on their intake form they have to fill out). The ironic thing (which I have been hesitant to get into in an open forum like this), is that I have been the victim of my wife's violence against me on several occasions. (It was not bad enough to hospitalize me, but included things like kicking me in the chest so I fell backwards over a coffee table and hurt my back, or her hitting me with a ceramic planter on the head when she tried to get my cell phone away from me when i videoed her outbreaks. When the police came on one of these occasions, she initially blurted out falsely that I was abusing her--even though I had called the police. Luckily, physical evidence to the contrary supported me, and she instantly recanted and confessed to my version once confronted by the evidence (we were separated by the police for interviews). However, she was not arrested, although I am pretty sure I would have been had it gone the other way. This was mixed in with issues of mental illness and alcohol excess by my wife, and I will say no more about it in a public forum).
> 
> So, although I don't think it's all that critical whether women perpetrate 1/2 of the domestic violence or 1/3 of the violence, or whatever, what is important is that it is NOT rare. Furthermore, this minimizing of male victimization leads to injustices against men (which is what the Jezebel posters were doing), and lack of support for male victims because of a false belief that they are too few/rare to worry about--thus, men are not even asked about DV upon hospitalization like women are. And although these Jezebel-types and their fellow travelers (like the Australian blogger who falsified/twisted data, and Little Deer who linked to the blogger), always start with the obligatory "we don't deny women can abuse sometimes", that comes off as wholly insincere when the rest of the screed is devoted to minimizing the magnitude of male victimization. Why is it that such people are threatened by any discussion of male victims? Why post such ridiculous assertions such as trying to pin it on gay partner violence (really? gay violence leading to 1/4 of all men being victims, according to the CDC?) unless it is specifically to minimize the perception of male victimization. For some reason, there appears to be an intentional effort to minimize the experience of male victims; if not, then why even post the threadjack statistics in the first place in this thread, which is about SELF-ADMITTED perpetrators on Jezebel?


I agree that society needs to start taking any abuse seriously, no matter who the perpetrator is.

As Pooh Bear it can often be very hard to tell who the abuser is and who the victim is. This is a problem. 

So what are the solutions? 

That is what we need to focus on... the solutions.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't agree that women's experiences are minimized. Domestic Violence is everywhere in the media, in politics (everything from War on Women accusations to Violence Against Women Act--WAVA--although, note, no mention of men in the title), in law-enforcement, to even pop culture (the sleeveless undershirt now being called a "wife-beater", implying the widespread DV against women).


Origins of said “wife beater” shirts. The history of the “wife beater” goes back to the Middle Ages, where knights who lost their armor in battles often had nothing but the chain-mail undergarment to protect them. Now, those chain mail undershirts, if you will, were damn strong — even a sword couldn’t get through. Often, when a knight lost their armor and continued to fight successfully, they were referred to as a waif beater (waif, referring to an abandoned or lost individual). Due to the fact that knights who had been abandoned and continued to fight with only the “shirt off their back” (albeit chain mail), they were given this noble title — an abandoned fighter, beating their way through battle.

During 1700’s Europe, of course, the phrase “waif beater” no longer had much meaning due to the fact that there weren’t really knights running around fighting battles in chain-mail undershirts. As a result, the phrase was changed to the similarly sounding “wife beater” and used to refer to husbands who treated their significant others in a less than stellar way.

The trend changed in 1947 in Detroit, Michigan — when police arrested a local man (James Hartford, Jr.) for beating his wife to death. Local news stations aired the arrest and elements of the case for months after — constantly showing a picture of Hartford, Jr. when he was arrested — wearing a dirty tank top with baked bean stains on it…and constantly referring to him as “the” wife beater.

From there, everything snowballed. From then on, men wearing dirty tank-topped undershirts were referred to as people who were “wearing wife-beaters” and the lexicon stuck from that point forward.


Words For Your Enjoyment: Wife Beaters | Paul Davidson Dot Net


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> I agree that society needs to start taking any abuse seriously, no matter who the perpetrator is.
> 
> As Pooh Bear it can often be very hard to tell who the abuser is and who the victim is. This is a problem.
> 
> So what are the solutions?
> 
> That is what we need to focus on... the solutions.


A big step is to make sure that everyone in society is aware that this is not acceptable. 

I that quite a bit of progress has been made in this regard concerning Domestic Violence towards Women. I think that there is still a lot of people who excuse violence towards men, as evidenced by the Jezebel posts which this thread is about ("he deserved it".) We need to increase awareness that ANYONE, even men, can be victims, and that it is not acceptable by ANYONE. No exuses. No "he deserved it".

Let's start by actually being aware of it. For all victims. There are Mandatory Reporters of DV in most states (teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, etc.), but if they are not open to thinking about it, they can't report it. They can't report what they refuse to see. And, with regards to this thread/Original Post, that includes men (as evidenced by how the hospital treated my wife and me differently with regards to DV questions). And take it seriously, otherwise it becomes a source of amusement, as illustrated by the Jezebel posters.


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> Origins of said “wife beater” shirts. The history of the “wife beater” goes back to the Middle Ages, where knights who lost their armor in battles often had nothing but the chain-mail undergarment to protect them. Now, those chain mail undershirts, if you will, were damn strong — even a sword couldn’t get through. Often, when a knight lost their armor and continued to fight successfully, they were referred to as a waif beater (waif, referring to an abandoned or lost individual). Due to the fact that knights who had been abandoned and continued to fight with only the “shirt off their back” (albeit chain mail), they were given this noble title — an abandoned fighter, beating their way through battle.
> 
> During 1700’s Europe, of course, the phrase “waif beater” no longer had much meaning due to the fact that there weren’t really knights running around fighting battles in chain-mail undershirts. As a result, the phrase was changed to the similarly sounding “wife beater” and used to refer to husbands who treated their significant others in a less than stellar way.
> 
> The trend changed in 1947 in Detroit, Michigan — when police arrested a local man (James Hartford, Jr.) for beating his wife to death. Local news stations aired the arrest and elements of the case for months after — constantly showing a picture of Hartford, Jr. when he was arrested — wearing a dirty tank top with baked bean stains on it…and constantly referring to him as “the” wife beater.
> 
> From there, everything snowballed. From then on, men wearing dirty tank-topped undershirts were referred to as people who were “wearing wife-beaters” and the lexicon stuck from that point forward.
> 
> 
> Words For Your Enjoyment: Wife Beaters | Paul Davidson Dot Net


I don't buy it. That explanation sounds bogus to me.

There may have been a guy wearing this shirt that beat his wife in 1947, but I doubt that's the origin of this word. When I was a school kid in the 1960s, that kind of undershirt actually was referred to with an ethnic term--a "D**o T". (D**o being an insulting term for Italians--or Spanish, in some circles). I'm a mixed race son of an immigrant, and I grew up with most of my friends being first or second generation Chicago Catholic immigrants (Italians, Poles, Filipinos, Spanish, Irish, etc.) and even the Italians called it that. Didn't really know any other word for it except maybe "tank top".

My own suspicion (and I admit, no proof, just suspicion), is that as D**o became an unacceptable word to use, it migrated to the group that it still seems to be acceptable in some circles to insult---poor whites who were looked down as people who beat their wives (a topic not even discussed much when I was a kid, although I think Superman did kick the cr*p out of a wife-beater in one of his early comics). Hence, the new term "wife-beater". As I said, no proof, but that seems a more logical explanation to me.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> I don't buy it. That explanation sounds bogus to me.
> 
> There may have been a guy wearing this shirt that beat his wife in 1947, but I doubt that's the origin of this word. When I was a school kid in the 1960s, that kind of undershirt actually was referred to with an ethnic term=-a "D**o T". (D**o being an insulting term for Italians--or Spanish, in some circles). I'm a mixed race son of an immigrant, and I grew up with most of my friends being first or second generation Chicago Catholic immigrants (Italians, Poles, Filipinos, Spanish, Irish, etc.) and even the Italians called it that. Didn't really know any other word for it except maybe "tank top".
> 
> My own suspicion (and I admit, no proof, just suspicion), is that as D**o became an unacceptable word to use, it migrated to the group that it still seems to be acceptable in some circles to insult---poor whites who were looked down as people who beat their wives (a topic not even discussed much when I was a kid, although I think Superman did kick the cr*p out of a wife-beater in one of his early comics). Hence, the new term "wife-beater". As I said, no proof, but that seems a more logical explanation to me.


I was born in 1949. I've heard that them used for that kind of t-shirt my entire life. I have a lot of family in NY/NJ area. That is what they called it. It's not a new term at all.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> A big step is to make sure that everyone in society is aware that this is not acceptable.
> 
> I that quite a bit of progress has been made in this regard concerning Domestic Violence towards Women. I think that there is still a lot of people who excuse violence towards men, as evidenced by the Jezebel posts which this thread is about ("he deserved it".) We need to increase awareness that ANYONE, even men, can be victims, and that it is not acceptable by ANYONE. No exuses. No "he deserved it".
> 
> Let's start by actually being aware of it. For all victims. There are Mandatory Reporters of DV in most states (teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, etc.), but if they are not open to thinking about it, they can't report it. They can't report what they refuse to see. And, with regards to this thread/Original Post, that includes men (as evidenced by how the hospital treated my wife and me differently with regards to DV questions). And take it seriously, otherwise it becomes a source of amusement, as illustrated by the Jezebel posters.


People expressing amusement about abuse is not rare at all. There are kinds of joke about it. that Jezebel webpage does not display anything new.. except it's the first time I've seen a webpage making fun of women abusing men. Usually it's people making fun about men abusing women. There are apparently a good number of people who find abuse amusing no matter who the victims are. 

I doubt that those who find it amusing are going to have their minds changed any time soon. As I said above, when I mentioned this topic on another thread I was told to just not look if it bothered me.

Getting back to things like mandatory reporters.. it's only been in the last few years that people in doctor's offices, hospitals, etc ask if a person is in a safe home environment. I know that I don't get asked that every time I see a doctor, go to the emergency room, etc.

For example, I hurt myself twice recently. The first time I cut my hand pretty badly with a very sharp knife. it took 8 stitches to close up the wound. No one at the doc's office asked anything about whether or not I was safe at home. 

About 4 weeks after I cut my hand, I hurt the back of my other hand. I was packing boxes of a move but have no idea how I got injured. All I know is that I looked at my hand and I had huge bump... like have a baseball on the back of my hand. So I went back and saw the same doc. again no one asked about safety or violence. Here I had a huge bump on my hand, bruises on it. I also had some burses on my arms due to the move. No one at the clinic asked anything to make sure that this huge injury and bruises were not caused by someone abusing me.

So, it's not like women are asked those questions every time they see a doctor or go to a hospital.

If you are concerned that men are not being asked, why not bring it up every time you are not asked. Perhaps if men do this they could raise awareness of the issue.


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> People expressing amusement about abuse is not rare at all. There are kinds of joke about it. that Jezebel webpage does not display anything new.. except it's the first time I've seen a webpage making fun of women abusing men. Usually it's people making fun about men abusing women. There are apparently a good number of people who find abuse amusing no matter who the victims are.
> 
> I doubt that those who find it amusing are going to have their minds changed any time soon. As I said above, when I mentioned this topic on another thread I was told to just not look if it bothered me.
> 
> Getting back to things like mandatory reporters.. it's only been in the last few years that people in doctor's offices, hospitals, etc ask if a person is in a safe home environment. I know that I don't get asked that every time I see a doctor, go to the emergency room, etc.
> 
> For example, I hurt myself twice recently. The first time I cut my hand pretty badly with a very sharp knife. it took 8 stitches to close up the wound. No one at the doc's office asked anything about whether or not I was safe at home.
> 
> About 4 weeks after I cut my hand, I hurt the back of my other hand. I was packing boxes of a move but have no idea how I got injured. All I know is that I looked at my hand and I had huge bump... like have a baseball on the back of my hand. So I went back and saw the same doc. again no one asked about safety or violence. Here I had a huge bump on my hand, bruises on it. I also had some burses on my arms due to the move. No one at the clinic asked anything to make sure that this huge injury and bruises were not caused by someone abusing me.
> 
> So, it's not like women are asked those questions every time they see a doctor or go to a hospital.
> 
> If you are concerned that men are not being asked, why not bring it up every time you are not asked. Perhaps if men do this they could raise awareness of the issue.


Well, except in the instance where my wife is asked about DV by the hospital, but not me, I know for a fact that it is on the nursing intake form on the electronic medical record used by this hospital. So the admitting nurse intentionally skipped it for me (even though she is not supposed to) but a different nurse on a different occasion, but using the same intake form asked my wife.


----------



## Wolfman1968

EleGirl said:


> I was born in 1949. I've heard that them used for that kind of t-shirt my entire life. I have a lot of family in NY/NJ area. That is what they called it. It's not a new term at all.


Maybe so.

The story by that Paul Davidson dot net still sounds bogus, though.
When I google it, the only references I find still go back to him.
Why should I believe him? How do I know he didn't make it all up? Or get it from an unreliable source himself?

Sounds like an urban legend to me.

"Waif beater?"

"James Hartford, Jr.?"

Nah....


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Well, except in the instance where my wife is asked about DV by the hospital, but not me, I know for a fact that it is on the nursing intake form on the electronic medical record used by this hospital. So the admitting nurse intentionally skipped it for me (even though she is not supposed to) but a different nurse on a different occasion, but using the same intake form asked my wife.


As I suggested, in the future perhaps you could ask why the person skips that question. Help to make them aware.

One of my brothers works in a hospital. He's often in the emergency room. I'm going to ask him about how they handle this.

I'm very much aware that some men are victims of abuse. I've helped a couple of guys I know who experienced this get help. So it's an issue I'm familiar with. I had no problem finding local organizations that provided the help they needed. So that's a good thing.

I've also helped several women in this way too.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolfman1968 said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> The story by that Paul Davidson dot net still sounds bogus, though.
> When I google it, the only references I find still go back to him.
> Why should I believe him? How do I know he didn't make it all up? Or get it from an unreliable source himself?
> 
> Sounds like an urban legend to me.
> 
> "Waif beater?"
> 
> "James Hartford, Jr.?"
> 
> Nah....


My point of posting about "wife beaters" is that it's a term that has been used for a long time. It's not some current thing that was created to draw attention to domestic violence.

It was and is considered a humorous term to refer to those to sleeveless t-shirts.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> How about walking away?


What is wrong with what he said? What is wrong with blocking an incoming attack?


----------



## naiveonedave

Pooh - "how about walking away?"

If I said that about a woman who was being abused, egad.


----------



## vellocet




----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> What is wrong with what he said? What is wrong with blocking an incoming attack?


Violence is violence right? Why not just walk away and choose not to engage with that person anymore?


----------



## Pooh Bear

naiveonedave said:


> Pooh - "how about walking away?"
> 
> If I said that about a woman who was being abused, egad.


No. I wouldn't suggest anyone use violence. And I wouldn't suggest anyone accept violent behavior either. Neither men or women should be hitting, emotionally abusing, degrading another human being. Is that so hard to believe?


----------



## naiveonedave

Pooh Bear said:


> No. I wouldn't suggest anyone use violence. And I wouldn't suggest anyone accept violent behavior either. Neither men or women should be hitting, emotionally abusing, degrading another human being. Is that so hard to believe?


No, but men are abused and those abused men should be treated the same as an abused women. Your posts imply that the men should behave different because they are men.


----------



## Fozzy

vellocet said:


>


When did Daniel Radcliffe get dreads?


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ok, Wolfman, I do not agree with the Jezebel article so you can stop bringing it up. As Ele says in another post, people are always making fun of violence and there is also a lot of people making fun of violence against women as well. The “wifebeater” that you seem to think is a good educational about domestic violence (news flash – it isn’t) is making fun of violence against women. 

You are blaming the wrong people for ignoring violence against men. You seem to want to blame the women’s rights movement. Actually the reason men can’t come forward is because society degrades them for it. Men are supposed to be he-mans who control their wives and kids. Are you telling me that doesn’t exist? How many times have you heard “be a man.” You won’t hear that from a feminist. You hear it from male friends, coaches, etc. Mostly other men. People will give you a BS line that “be a man” really is talking about being “responsible” or something along those lines. BS. It’s telling men they need to dominate. If not, you get the ultimate insult of being a woman. Don’t be a p*ssy. If a woman is stronger in the relationship or even an equal in a relationship, men are made fun of for being “whipped.” How can men come forward in an environment where they are expected to dominate? I think you need to start looking in places other than the women’s rights movement and change the way society views men.
So, complete the thought. 

*WHY should the disparity in IPV deaths make these people feel threatened when talking about male victims?
*

I don’t know. There is concern among feminists because white men are taking on a “victim” status about many things, not just dv, without ever really having recognized their privilege. Or analyzing the society they live in, which you demonstrated by your dismissal of the term “patriarchy.” The “victim” status seems to be in response to the fact that women are gaining more power in the society and women becoming equal is threatening. You guys have had control for a pretty long time. This seems to be the backlash. 

No feminist you will talk to encourages violence. You keep referring back to the Jezebel article as if it were serious. It was tongue in cheek. Not funny at all and not appropriate. However, violence is just not something that feminism has ever encouraged. In fact, sometimes we have gone too far the other way in claiming that women are perfectly peaceful. I don’t agree with that but some people believe it and have believed it. I think the way to make these changes is to start talking about it. Talk about your experience. Don’t make fun of your male friends for weakness. Get involved in organizations that work to end violence. I think it is fantastic that you want to end violence.

*A big step is to make sure that everyone in society is aware that this is not acceptable. *

Completely agree.

*Mandatory Reporters of DV *

Mandatory Reporters do not report adult dv or sexual assault. They report child abuse, abuse against seniors and the disabled.


----------



## Pooh Bear

naiveonedave said:


> No, but men are abused and those abused men should be treated the same as an abused women. Your posts imply that the men should behave different because they are men.


Really? Where have you seen that in my posts? Because I have never said that.


----------



## Marduk

Men being abused by women has the added wrinkle of shame...

Ashamed to report, ashamed to admit, pressure to laugh it off (self-imposed or not)...


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> Violence is violence right?


Sure, but when done to defend oneself, its a little different. 

And if violence is violence, please tell us, why aren't you decrying the aggressor in the situation?




> Why not just walk away and choose not to engage with that person anymore?


Is that what you tell women?

And sometimes you can't just walk away. You get followed.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Pooh - "how about walking away?"
> 
> If I said that about a woman who was being abused, egad.


It's said about women all the time. if a person has a route to get away, they need to take it. It's something I learned when living with an abusive husband.

When women come here complaining about being abused, I tell them that as soon as they can tell that it's going to escalate get the hell out of there. It takes two.

Now my ex figured out that I'd get out of there so he started pushing me into a corner and blocking me so I could not get away. That's where blocking and fighting back becomes a valid response.


----------



## Deejo

Really isn't much here to discuss, unless someone is even remotely trying to suggest that women are consistently as violent, or capable of committing as grave a physical injury as men ... which I just ain't buyin'.

Should we all make better choices than violence?

We absolutely should.

Deep down, if you are my partner and decide that you get to take a couple of shots at me because you do not fear reprisal?

You're in for a very big and unpleasant surprise.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> No, but men are abused and those abused men should be treated the same as an abused women. Your posts imply that the men should behave different because they are men.


Where did she say that men should behave different in response to violence by a woman and then women should respond to violence from a man?


----------



## Marduk

Society is where it is, though...

My first wife once freaked out and started slapping me in the face. I pushed her back down into her chair, so I could get up and walk away from her. I did it gently, I didn't strike her, and I did it so I could leave.

She threatened to call the cops. Thankfully, she didn't, because a couple years later when we were divorced I was at a party with one and asked him what would have happened.

He said it wouldn't have mattered that she was hitting me, they would have defaulted to I'm the dangerous one because I'm a man, and stronger than her, so I really wasn't in any danger -- she was. So, off to jail I would have went, and likely got a restraining order keeping me out of my own home to boot.

And, this likely would have happened even if I was the one that called the cops if she would have said it all came down with me being the aggressive one.

So, buyer beware. There's a ton of stigma and pressure on the man to downplay and just submit to the whole thing.

Not crying victim here -- we are just at the place we are at in society.


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> Men being abused by women has the added wrinkle of shame...
> 
> Ashamed to report, ashamed to admit, pressure to laugh it off (self-imposed or not)...


Women have also been ashamed to report DV. Ashamed AND afraid of further violence. That's one of the reasons women's shelters and hotlines and other support programs were developed. Men ought to start doing those kinds of things for men who have been abused as well, to help start removing that stigma and shame. Keeping abuse hidden and tacitly ignored by society is one of the biggest weapons abusers have.


----------



## vellocet

I wouldn't be scared to report it. If my x-wife had slapped me, I'd have been doing the happy dance while dialing the local police station


----------



## vellocet

marduk said:


> She threatened to call the cops. Thankfully, she didn't, because a couple years later when we were divorced I was at a party with one and asked him what would have happened.
> 
> He said it wouldn't have mattered that she was hitting me, they would have defaulted to I'm the dangerous one because I'm a man, and stronger than her, so I really wasn't in any danger -- she was.


That's a load of crap. However, if when she slapped you that YOU were the one that called the cops, its should be different. And if you wanted to press charges and the cops refused, then time to lawyer up and sue the police for failing to serve and protect you.


----------



## EleGirl

norajane said:


> Women have also been ashamed to report DV. Ashamed AND afraid of further violence. That's one of the reasons women's shelters and hotlines and other support programs were developed. Men ought to start doing those kinds of things for men who have been abused as well, to help start removing that stigma and shame. Keeping abuse hidden and tacitly ignored by society is one of the biggest weapons abusers have.


I agree. 

Most domestic violence against both women and men is never reported. I'd venture to guess it's as high as 90% not reported even when it's against a women.

I did not call the police on my ex. Why? Because I was ashamed and felt that somehow I was to blame. When I finally realized that I was not to blame, I just started to leave the area when I could tell he was escalating. It did not stop all of the violence. But it did stop most of it. 

There is help for men who are victims of abuse. I know that there are places here where I live that offer help to both men and women. I've volunteered at shelters for victims of abuse that had men staying there with their child as well.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> The “victim” status seems to be in response to the fact that women are gaining more power in the society and women becoming equal is threatening. You guys have had control for a pretty long time. This seems to be the backlash.


To be fair, there are feminists (My wife is a good example) who are deeply disturbed by pop-culture's portrayal of women exercising power in the complete absence of legal, moral and ethical responsibility. 

I mentioned earlier on this thread that the Jezebel article would have sent her (My wife) through the roof, because the idea that it is okay to strike a man for reasons other than self defense is one manifestation of this trend.


----------



## EleGirl

vellocet said:


> That's a load of crap. However, if when she slapped you that YOU were the one that called the cops, its should be different. And if you wanted to press charges and the cops refused, then time to lawyer up and sue the police for failing to serve and protect you.


One of the reasons that dv is seldom reported is that often the abuse stops just short of visible/provable physical injury.

It sounds like there was none in the situation that marduk posted about. So how does anyone prove that abuse has happened in these cases? It's his word against hers.

Personally, I think that in cases like this be two people should be separated and both of them dealt with. Maybe not criminally but mandatory counseling and anger management.


----------



## unbelievable

We can say violence is violence and, technically, that is correct. We don't live in a society without bias, though, and reality is reality. I've been assaulted by men on my police job and had the judge tell me in open court that being assaulted was just part of the job as he dismissed that charge against the guy. Note that just like every other state in the Union, we have specific criminal statutes about striking peace officers and they carry heavy penalties. 
If that's what a cop can expect, what are the odds that most civilian men would get a higher form of justice in court if they were assaulted by a woman? If I get called to your house and I have reason to believe your old lady was the primary aggressor, I'll happily hook her up and charge her. She still goes to court and a judge or jury will do what they are going to do. You might get lucky and get an unbiased judge or a jury full of unbiased saints. I don't like the odds of that happening, so I would go out of my way to avoid having to use force against a female domestic partner.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, there are feminists (My wife is a good example) who are deeply disturbed by pop-culture's portrayal of women exercising power in the complete absence of legal, moral and ethical responsibility.


I think that you brought this up before. You mentioned that your wife was upset at Hollywood portrayals of women, such as female cops, who do this. I find it interesting that your wife gets so upset about it since there are a lot of films showing men who do the exact same thing. They are usually portayed as good men, wanting to do the right thing, and how cross the line in doing it. So do the ends justify the means? This is a very common theme in actions films.

Does it upset her as much when men are portrayed this way? Or does she think that women should just be more lawful and nicer?



ocotillo said:


> I mentioned earlier on this thread that the Jezebel article would have sent her (My wife) through the roof, because the idea that it is okay to strike a man for reasons other than self defense is one manifestation of this trend.


I'm not real thrilled at the Jezebel article and some of the responses. I think that making fund of abuse and violence is just not funny.

What I find odd though is that for the most part the guys around here do not seem to find a problem with making jokes making fun of rape and violence against women.

So why the double standard? I'm not implying that you are one of these guys, I'm about 99.99% sure you are not. So I guess I'm asking the question in a general sense.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pooh Bear said:


> Ok, Wolfman, I do not agree with the Jezebel article so you can stop bringing it up.
> 
> *Actually the thread is ABOUT the Jezebel article. Look at the OP. I keep bringing it up to stay on track, and minimize threadjack.*
> 
> Ele says in another post, people are always making fun of violence and there is also a lot of people making fun of violence against women as well. The “wifebeater” that you seem to think is a good educational about domestic violence (news flash – it isn’t) is making fun of violence against women.
> *I don't think it's "good education" at all. Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely used it as one of MANY examples to refute your contention that DV against women is minimized; it is an example of how DV against women is being discussed more than ever. if you're so fixated on it, then drop it, and just use the other examples...and more. There's plenty. It doesn't change my assertion that awareness of DV against women is at an all-time high.*
> 
> You are blaming the wrong people for ignoring violence against men. You seem to want to blame the women’s rights movement. *Didn't mention women's rights movement at all, I mentioned Jezebel, posters in this thread, their links, and people like them. Are you saying that Jezebel IS the women's right's movement, or that the biased rant in Little Deer's "manosphere" link[ is the women's rights movement? Because these are the people who ACTUALLY ARE minimizing violence against men. That's what the link was all about. That's what the Jezebel post was all about./B]
> 
> Actually the reason men can’t come forward is because society degrades them for it. Men are supposed to be he-mans who control their wives and kids. Are you telling me that doesn’t exist? How many times have you heard “be a man.” You won’t hear that from a feminist. You hear it from male friends, coaches, etc. Mostly other men. People will give you a BS line that “be a man” really is talking about being “responsible” or something along those lines. BS. It’s telling men they need to dominate. If not, you get the ultimate insult of being a woman. Don’t be a p*ssy. If a woman is stronger in the relationship or even an equal in a relationship, men are made fun of for being “whipped.” How can men come forward in an environment where they are expected to dominate? I think you need to start looking in places other than the women’s rights movement and change the way society views men.
> There are certainly those elements in society, but the Jezebel posters, Little Deer and her link, etc. ALSO bear responsibility. And that's what the thread is about, since that's the OP.
> 
> 
> So, complete the thought.
> I didn't but it seems to escape you for some reason. I don't know why. (and FWIW, that comment doesn't really make sense following what you wrote above it)
> 
> WHY should the disparity in IPV deaths make these people feel threatened when talking about male victims?
> 
> 
> I don’t know.
> Then you DIDN'T answer my question as you claimed. I don't know isn't the answer, it just says you don't have the answer.
> 
> There is concern among feminists because white men are taking on a “victim” status about many things, not just dv, without ever really having recognized their privilege. Or analyzing the society they live in, which you demonstrated by your dismissal of the term “patriarchy.” The “victim” status seems to be in response to the fact that women are gaining more power in the society and women becoming equal is threatening. You guys have had control for a pretty long time. This seems to be the backlash.
> That's all BS. None of that justifies minimizing DV against men. It's just an attempt to justify hypocrisy. I'm sure those who have discriminated against women have their justifications as well, bad as they may be. Wrong is wrong. And worshipping at the altar of some patriarchial oppression construct seems to be at the root of the justficiation for this minimizing of DV against men.
> And still, no comment of my comparison of minimizing DV against men with the African American demeaning the Latino's experience because he feels that African-Americans had it worse. That comparison says why that paragraph above does not justify minimizing DV against men
> 
> No feminist you will talk to encourages violence.
> Sure they do. See below. "If they deserve it".
> 
> You keep referring back to the Jezebel article as if it were serious. It was tongue in cheek.
> No, it was their actual confessions. More importantly, there was clearly the tone that is was not as bad as violence against women, AND that the boyfriends "deserved it." See it all the time.
> 
> Not funny at all and not appropriate. However, violence is just not something that feminism has ever encouraged.
> sure they do. Just look at the OP. Just look at the minimization by the Austrialian link that Little Deer posted.
> 
> In fact, sometimes we have gone too far the other way in claiming that women are perfectly peaceful. I don’t agree with that but some people believe it and have believed it. I think the way to make these changes is to start talking about it. Talk about your experience. Don’t make fun of your male friends for weakness. Get involved in organizations that work to end violence. I think it is fantastic that you want to end violence.
> I want to end violence against everyone, I don't minimize like Jezebel.
> 
> A big step is to make sure that everyone in society is aware that this is not acceptable.
> 
> Completely agree.
> 
> Mandatory Reporters of DV
> 
> Mandatory Reporters do not report adult dv or sexual assault. They report child abuse, abuse against seniors and the disabled.Mostly true, depends on the state, but there is a lot of overlap with those groups.*


----------



## naiveonedave

Pooh Bear said:


> Really? Where have you seen that in my posts? Because I have never said that.


the lack of right of self defense pretty much equals that too me. Sometimes you just are not able to 'walk away'.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> I find it interesting that your wife gets so upset about it since there are a lot of films showing men who do the exact same thing.


Is it really the same thing? 

I would say that in a crime drama, the audience _probably_ understands that beating the location of a kidnap victim out of the suspect is illegal. But if the kidnap victim's life hangs in the balance (Because air, water, food, etc. are running out.) then the audience still feels the moral scales are made to balance.

It's an altogether different thing if the protagonist is depicted as breaking the law or crossing an ethical line simply to advance their career, exert their authority, respond to an emotional slight or some other morally questionable reason and it's even worse if a party other than the perpetrator is threatened or harmed in the process. 



EleGirl said:


> Does it upset her as much when men are portrayed this way? Or does she think that women should just be more lawful and nicer?


I guess that's probably part of it, but at the same time, I have to agree with her that screen writers really haven't been terribly kind to women in this regard. 

The Scarlet O'Hara mentality (Scarlet consistently slaps anyone and everyone who pisses her off) has no place in an egalitarian society, but it's still very much alive and well on television. 



EleGirl said:


> So why the double standard? I'm not implying that you are one of these guys, I'm about 99.99% sure you are not. So I guess I'm asking the question in a general sense.


I would say that stamping these attitudes out at an individual level is one of the hardest thing to do and one of the last things to go.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> Women have also been ashamed to report DV. Ashamed AND afraid of further violence. That's one of the reasons women's shelters and hotlines and other support programs were developed. Men ought to start doing those kinds of things for men who have been abused as well, to help start removing that stigma and shame. Keeping abuse hidden and tacitly ignored by society is one of the biggest weapons abusers have.


Agreed. What I said wasn't meant to say that women don't go through shame or social stigma, just to say that men do, in a different way perhaps.


----------



## Marduk

vellocet said:


> That's a load of crap. However, if when she slapped you that YOU were the one that called the cops, its should be different. And if you wanted to press charges and the cops refused, then time to lawyer up and sue the police for failing to serve and protect you.


All I can tell you was what I was told...

If she said boo, I'd be in jail for at least the night. 

Otherwise, the cops on the scene would have been suspended, perhaps without pay.

That's what this guy said that I knew quite well, and the other cops around him nodded.

Not a lawyer. Just saying to be careful.

I'm in Canada so the whole "press charges" thing is moot, if that changes anything.


----------



## that.girl

In my state, if a domestic violence call is made to the police, somebody is spending 24 hours in jail. If the police can't determine who the aggressor is, both spouses will be taken in. 

I've heard of many meth-addled couples spending the night in separate cells because they both had bruises!


----------



## CuddleBug

This is 2015, women are equals, can do whatever they want and I think its great and about time.

Mrs.CuddleBug has a tendency to hit me when she gets mad. It's like an instinctive reaction on her part. I have talked to her about that and she says she will try and stop doing it........hasn't happened yet. So when she hits me, and its been like this for a long time now, I hit her back. Not man hard hitting but hard enough that she gets the message she can't hit me and get away with it. When I do this, she stops and says, ow. I tell her, you hit me and now you get back what you give. That stops her hitting for quite the while actually because talking doesn't do anything.

Actions speak louder than words.

Now I have never instigated and assaulted my wife or any woman for that matter. Not cool considering men are generally much stronger than the ladies. Just not cool in my books.


----------



## notmyrealname4

CuddleBug said:


> This is 2015, women are equals, can do whatever they want and I think its great and about time.
> 
> Mrs.CuddleBug has a tendency to hit me when she gets mad. It's like an instinctive reaction on her part. I have talked to her about that and she says she will try and stop doing it........hasn't happened yet. So when she hits me, and its been like this for a long time now, I hit her back. Not man hard hitting but hard enough that she gets the message she can't hit me and get away with it. When I do this, she stops and says, ow. I tell her, you hit me and now you get back what you give. That stops her hitting for quite the while actually because talking doesn't do anything.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> Now I have never instigated and assaulted my wife or any woman for that matter. Not cool considering men are generally much stronger than the ladies. Just not cool in my books.


^^^This isn't sustainable.

She needs to know, once and for all, that she can't hit you!

You hit her back, she stops hitting for "quite the while". But will start hitting you again at some point.

Just sharing my viewpoint, CuddleBug. You've got to stop that cycle.

Is she verbally able to tell you what's making her so angry that she has to descend to physical violence?


----------



## As'laDain

Pooh Bear said:


> How about walking away?


not always possible.


----------



## As'laDain

Pooh Bear said:


> Right. That's another problem. We need to teach kids that you don't hit. I will be teaching my son not to hit people. But I will also make sure that he knows that he not remain in a relationship where someone would hit him. It is unacceptable.


you go ahead and teach your son not to hit.

meanwhile, my daughter just competed in her first tournament...


----------



## vellocet

As'laDain, she is a doll.

And by being in the martial arts, you aren't teaching people to hit, as in being the aggressor anyway.

Hitting to defend oneself is perfectly acceptable, but only to the point where self defense would stop and the defender would become the aggressor.

When I taught my karate class, I told the kids that if I ever hear of them using this to bully anyone, they will be swiftly kicked out of class.


----------



## Marduk

vellocet said:


> As'laDain, she is a doll.
> 
> And by being in the martial arts, you aren't teaching people to hit, as in being the aggressor anyway.
> 
> Hitting to defend oneself is perfectly acceptable, but only to the point where self defense would stop and the defender would become the aggressor.
> 
> When I taught my karate class, I told the kids that if I ever hear of them using this to bully anyone, they will be swiftly kicked out of class.


All of my kids know how, when, and why to hit.

I won't say that they always listen to it, but they know.

In my view, being a pacifist means violence is a choice that you reject... not being unable to be violent, but choosing not to be.

And there is a time and a place for everything. The sword that kills, and the life-giving sword.

And all that.

The enemy is aggression. Aggression takes many forms, only one is violence. How we deal with it helps to define us.

And we all have this demon.


----------



## As'laDain

vellocet said:


> As'laDain, she is a doll.
> 
> And by being in the martial arts, you aren't teaching people to hit, as in being the aggressor anyway.
> 
> Hitting to defend oneself is perfectly acceptable, but only to the point where self defense would stop and the defender would become the aggressor.
> 
> When I taught my karate class, I told the kids that if I ever hear of them using this to bully anyone, they will be swiftly kicked out of class.


yep, exactly. i have been practicing an obscure martial arts since i was about six. 

the discipline was to always look for a way to walk away from a fight... but if you cannot, then fight!

Tae Kwan Do is far less dangerous than the martial arts i practice, and i wont start teaching her my art until she is older. kinda like hapkido, its too dangerous for a child to be trying. i can teach her the "foot work", which comes from a dance, but none of the techniques. not until she is old enough. 

im no stranger to reality. at some point in her life, she will have to fight. nearly everyone will.


----------



## Wolf1974

As'laDain said:


> you go ahead and teach your son not to hit.
> 
> meanwhile, my daughter just competed in her first tournament...


So happy to see something like this. I also have been teaching my daughters to defend themselves. Personally I think everyone who learn to


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> Sure, but when done to defend oneself, its a little different.
> 
> And if violence is violence, please tell us, why aren't you decrying the aggressor in the situation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell women?
> 
> And sometimes you can't just walk away. You get followed.


What would you suggest I say? Good idea. Beat the h*ll out of that person. If I told a woman to do that you would be having a fit. But that is not who I am. I don't believe in violence. And I truly believe that if someone becomes violent you get out of the situation and call the police. If someone is corning you, I guess you do what you can to get out of that situation. But ultimately, you don't choose violence.


----------



## Pooh Bear

naiveonedave said:


> the lack of right of self defense pretty much equals that too me. Sometimes you just are not able to 'walk away'.


If you have to defend yourself to get out of a situation, you do what you can. But if someone becomes violent and you can get out of the situation that is the best option. I will never support violence. Sorry. If you want me to say that if someone hits you hit them right back that is not the way it works for me. But I sure as h*ll would not allow someone to hit me. I just would not allow them in my life anymore.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> Society is where it is, though...
> 
> My first wife once freaked out and started slapping me in the face. I pushed her back down into her chair, so I could get up and walk away from her. I did it gently, I didn't strike her, and I did it so I could leave.
> 
> She threatened to call the cops. Thankfully, she didn't, because a couple years later when we were divorced I was at a party with one and asked him what would have happened.
> 
> He said it wouldn't have mattered that she was hitting me, they would have defaulted to I'm the dangerous one because I'm a man, and stronger than her, so I really wasn't in any danger -- she was. So, off to jail I would have went, and likely got a restraining order keeping me out of my own home to boot.
> 
> And, this likely would have happened even if I was the one that called the cops if she would have said it all came down with me being the aggressive one.
> 
> So, buyer beware. There's a ton of stigma and pressure on the man to downplay and just submit to the whole thing.
> 
> Not crying victim here -- we are just at the place we are at in society.


I think, unfortunately, people like easy. So the police go to a house, they don't want to really have to sort out who the real abuser is. It gets really complicated for people to try to figure that out. Not to mention, domestic violence calls can be really dangerous, so they probably just want to arrest someone and get out.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, there are feminists (My wife is a good example) who are deeply disturbed by pop-culture's portrayal of women exercising power in the complete absence of legal, moral and ethical responsibility.
> 
> I mentioned earlier on this thread that the Jezebel article would have sent her (My wife) through the roof, because the idea that it is okay to strike a man for reasons other than self defense is one manifestation of this trend.


What are you referring to? Like fictional characters or something in real life?


----------



## CuddleBug

intheory said:


> ^^^This isn't sustainable.
> 
> She needs to know, once and for all, that she can't hit you!
> 
> You hit her back, she stops hitting for "quite the while". But will start hitting you again at some point.
> 
> Just sharing my viewpoint, CuddleBug. You've got to stop that cycle.
> 
> Is she verbally able to tell you what's making her so angry that she has to descend to physical violence?



I find it interesting that women can almost get away with anything but men cannot.

Yes, I have told her many times over the many years, stop the hitting when you get mad or annoyed. It doesn't sink in until I return what she dished out. Then it stops.

I am defending myself against Mrs.CuddleBug's instinctive hitting tendencies, yet I have never hit her when I get mad or annoyed.

She probably thought it was fun. Women getting away with it.....no consequences.

I do defend myself, hit her back but not man hard hitting. Almost play hitting and now I'm to stop it and break the cycle?! 

Is that a bad joke???

Women wanted to be treated as equals and that literally means equals and in all things, yes?

That means physical too. You can't just take the icing off the cake and leave the cake and cherry pick.

My wifee is a stronger woman compared to most and she could beat up many women with ease. She takes after her dad, who is a big guy, 6ft 3 inches at 250+ lbs. I am 6 ft 2 inches at 220+ lbs. Mrs.CuddleBug is 5ft 9 at 190 lbs ish, down from 240 lbs ish. She is physically very strong for a woman.

Everyone's situation is different and this works for us.

I would be a ***** of a guy if I let her continue, lets talk about it more and she gets away with it......that's a joke.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Is it really the same thing?
> 
> I would say that in a crime drama, the audience _probably_ understands that beating the location of a kidnap victim out of the suspect is illegal. But if the kidnap victim's life hangs in the balance (Because air, water, food, etc. are running out.) then the audience still feels the moral scales are made to balance.
> 
> It's an altogether different thing if the protagonist is depicted as breaking the law or crossing an ethical line simply to advance their career, exert their authority, respond to an emotional slight or some other morally questionable reason and it's even worse if a party other than the perpetrator is threatened or harmed in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's probably part of it, but at the same time, I have to agree with her that screen writers really haven't been terribly kind to women in this regard.
> 
> The Scarlet O'Hara mentality (Scarlet consistently slaps anyone and everyone who pisses her off) has no place in an egalitarian society, but it's still very much alive and well on television.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that stamping these attitudes out at an individual level is one of the hardest thing to do and one of the last things to go.


I kind of find it disturbing in general that entertainment has moved to evil people as these hero characters. I started watching House of Cards and it just disturbs me too much. I can't do it. Everyone on there is pretty evil, men and women. And Game of Thrones. There are some good characters but it is such a cut throut environment all the time. Ick. I have also never understood our fascination with the mafia. They're evil people. Why do we have such a love affair with them?


----------



## ConanHub

Because of my overwhelming, furious violence, my sister lived and had five children.

Six souls in exchange for one act of blind fury. Good exchange.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Just saying.


----------



## CuddleBug

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, there are feminists (My wife is a good example) who are deeply disturbed by pop-culture's portrayal of women exercising power in the complete absence of legal, moral and ethical responsibility.
> 
> I mentioned earlier on this thread that the Jezebel article would have sent her (My wife) through the roof, because the idea that it is okay to strike a man for reasons other than self defense is one manifestation of this trend.



This is exactly what I mean. :iagree::iagree:


----------



## Pooh Bear

CuddleBug said:


> This is 2015, women are equals, can do whatever they want and I think its great and about time.
> 
> Mrs.CuddleBug has a tendency to hit me when she gets mad. It's like an instinctive reaction on her part. I have talked to her about that and she says she will try and stop doing it........hasn't happened yet. So when she hits me, and its been like this for a long time now, I hit her back. Not man hard hitting but hard enough that she gets the message she can't hit me and get away with it. When I do this, she stops and says, ow. I tell her, you hit me and now you get back what you give. That stops her hitting for quite the while actually because talking doesn't do anything.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> Now I have never instigated and assaulted my wife or any woman for that matter. Not cool considering men are generally much stronger than the ladies. Just not cool in my books.


That's not ok. No one deserves to be hit.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Is it really the same thing?
> 
> I would say that in a crime drama, the audience _probably_ understands that beating the location of a kidnap victim out of the suspect is illegal. But if the kidnap victim's life hangs in the balance (Because air, water, food, etc. are running out.) then the audience still feels the moral scales are made to balance.
> 
> It's an altogether different thing if the protagonist is depicted as breaking the law or crossing an ethical line simply to advance their career, exert their authority, respond to an emotional slight or some other morally questionable reason and it's even worse if a party other than the perpetrator is threatened or harmed in the process.


So your wife would be ok with it if a female character did something unethical or against the law as long as it was to ultimately do something good, like save the life of a hostage?



ocotillo said:


> I guess that's probably part of it, but at the same time, I have to agree with her that screen writers really haven't been terribly kind to women in this regard.
> 
> The Scarlet O'Hara mentality (Scarlet consistently slaps anyone and everyone who pisses her off) has no place in an egalitarian society, but it's still very much alive and well on television.


I think that the Scarlet O’Hara character was done perfectly to depict a woman in that particular circumstance. However, I agree that screen writers seem to love the that sort of female character. 



ocotillo said:


> I would say that stamping these attitudes out at an individual level is one of the hardest thing to do and one of the last things to go.


I agree.


----------



## Pooh Bear

As'laDain said:


> you go ahead and teach your son not to hit.
> 
> meanwhile, my daughter just competed in her first tournament...


Cool. What does that have to do with the post? Tae Kwon Do is a sport. I am actually going to put my son in it when he is three because it is supposed to help with focus and discipline. I don't want him to be one of those boys misdiagnosed with ADD because he is being a boy. I am hoping it will help. Unless, of course, he has ADD which is entirely possible. His Dad has it. But ADD babies are supposed to be pretty fussy and so far that is not him at all. So hopefully not.


----------



## CuddleBug

Pooh Bear said:


> That's not ok. No one deserves to be hit.


I've joked about wife abuse to the guys at the shop and how she hits me when annoyed and mad. The guys all think its funny but when I tell Mrs.CuddleBug, she gets upset. You'd think it would sink in with her.

She can pick me up on her back, walk around and do a squat!!!

She is a strong woman and not a flower and that's probably part of it.

But I am a much stronger guy so I never instigate or assault her. I never have in 15+ years of marriage.

If you don't defend yourself, you are asking for it.

Just because a woman does something, doesn't mean she can get away with it.


----------



## Pooh Bear

CuddleBug said:


> I find it interesting that women can almost get away with anything but men cannot.
> 
> Yes, I have told her many times over the many years, stop the hitting when you get mad or annoyed. It doesn't sink in until I return what she dished out. Then it stops.
> 
> I am defending myself against Mrs.CuddleBug's instinctive hitting tendencies, yet I have never hit her when I get mad or annoyed.
> 
> She probably thought it was fun. Women getting away with it.....no consequences.
> 
> I do defend myself, hit her back but not man hard hitting. Almost play hitting and now I'm to stop it and break the cycle?!
> 
> Is that a bad joke???
> 
> Women wanted to be treated as equals and that literally means equals and in all things, yes?
> 
> That means physical too. You can't just take the icing off the cake and leave the cake and cherry pick.
> 
> My wifee is a stronger woman compared to most and she could beat up many women with ease. She takes after her dad, who is a big guy, 6ft 3 inches at 250+ lbs. I am 6 ft 2 inches at 220+ lbs. Mrs.CuddleBug is 5ft 9 at 190 lbs ish, down from 240 lbs ish. She is physically very strong for a woman.
> 
> Everyone's situation is different and this works for us.
> 
> I would be a ***** of a guy if I let her continue, lets talk about it more and she gets away with it......that's a joke.


I would never hit my husband. This is about your wife, not women in general. You don't deserve to be hit. I'm sorry that you are experiencing that.


----------



## CuddleBug

Pooh Bear said:


> I would never hit my husband. This is about your wife, not women in general. You don't deserve to be hit. I'm sorry that you are experiencing that.



Its not a big deal and no apology necessary. It's just the way Mrs.CuddleBug has always been, a stronger woman.

I could be on the computer, she comes in and gets annoyed because I am on the computer and hits my ear hard with her hand and fingers. Just the way she is, instinctive I'd say. Yet I have never done that to her. Could be part of her way releasing the daily stresses of life without realizing it? I see it as play fighting because I'm a guy and she is a stronger woman.


----------



## As'laDain

my daugheter is going to grow up being hit. she will be slapped, whacked, struck. 

all part of the practice we call martial arts. 

the issue i see is that most people seem to call this kind of thing "abuse". why? because it hurts?. 

but here is the funny thing... my daughter already expects me to strike her in the head. she asks me to to strike her so that she can practice blocking. and i couldnt be more proud of her. 

im sure it is the pride that i show in her that causes her to continue the excersises.... and i love to cater to that pride. she is my whole world, after all. 


i understand the difference. when i was young, i had the good fortune to have a yakara(teacher) who taught me the difference between reacting to pain and experiencing pain. ill teach my daughter this. 

and if the time comes, she will be ready.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*And there is a time and a place for everything. The sword that kills, and the life-giving sword.*

I don't agree. Self-defense is appropriate but all other forms of violence are unacceptable. If we as a society stopped accepting violence, then it would lower significantly. We are a very violent society and we choose to accept that. Until we decide that it is compleley unacceptable, then it won't stop.


----------



## CuddleBug

Pooh Bear said:


> *And there is a time and a place for everything. The sword that kills, and the life-giving sword.*
> 
> I don't agree. Self-defense is appropriate but all other forms of violence are unacceptable. If we as a society stopped accepting violence, then it would lower significantly. We are a very violent society and we choose to accept that. Until we decide that it is compleley unacceptable, then it won't stop.


Agreed.:iagree:


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Because of my overwhelming, furious violence, my sister lived and had five children.
> 
> Six souls in exchange for one act of blind fury. Good exchange.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> Just saying.


Are you talking about self-defense, Conan? I think if violence was the only option that was the only option.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> *And there is a time and a place for everything. The sword that kills, and the life-giving sword.*
> 
> I don't agree. Self-defense is appropriate but all other forms of violence are unacceptable. If we as a society stopped accepting violence, then it would lower significantly. We are a very violent society and we choose to accept that. Until we decide that it is compleley unacceptable, then it won't stop.


Violence isn' solely based in our society. It's based on us as biological beings. Their will always be violence and the use of it to extort and victimize the weak.......always.


----------



## EleGirl

Pooh Bear said:


> What would you suggest I say? Good idea. Beat the h*ll out of that person. If I told a woman to do that you would be having a fit. But that is not who I am. I don't believe in violence. And I truly believe that if someone becomes violent you get out of the situation and call the police. *If someone is corning you, I guess you do what you can to get out of that situation.* But ultimately, you don't choose violence.


If you agree that a person who is cornered and violently attacked can use violence to save themselves, then I don't think you can say that you are against all violence. It sounds like you are against violence when there are other ways to avoid the violence.

I can give an example of what I think the guys here are talking about.

A guy I know was married to an abusive woman. She did things like pull knives on him when he was holding their year old baby. The left her for obvious reasons.

I got a call from her one day. She had gone to where he was living with his brother and his brother's wife. She was crying and said that he threw her on the ground and she thought her tail bone was broken. So I went over there with all ready to help her out. 

There were other family members there who told the rest of the story. Out of nowhere she went nuts and started screaming. She jumped on his back with her legs wrapped around him and her arms around his neck and head. She was screaming and trying to gouge his eyes out.

His natural reaction (as would be anyone's) was to get her off him. So he was able to get her unwrapped from him and she fell on the floor hurting her tail bone. she was also bruised from him getting her off of him. 

Thank goodness there were a lot of witnesses. He did not press charges her. When she called me, her plan was to call the police to have him arrested. What a witch.


----------



## As'laDain

Pooh Bear said:


> *And there is a time and a place for everything. The sword that kills, and the life-giving sword.*
> 
> I don't agree. Self-defense is appropriate but all other forms of violence are unacceptable. If we as a society stopped accepting violence, then it would lower significantly. We are a very violent society and we choose to accept that. Until we decide that it is compleley unacceptable, then it won't stop.


i have seen people lose their ****. people who normaly dont do so. 

the ONLY thing i have seen that stops someone from violence is the understanding that their own violence will be met with the same, if not greater, violence. 

i wish this were not true. but i cannot help that.


----------



## Pooh Bear

As'laDain said:


> my daugheter is going to grow up being hit. she will be slapped, whacked, struck.
> 
> all part of the practice we call martial arts.
> 
> the issue i see is that most people seem to call this kind of thing "abuse". why? because it hurts?.
> 
> but here is the funny thing... my daughter already expects me to strike her in the head. she asks me to to strike her so that she can practice blocking. and i couldnt be more proud of her.
> 
> im sure it is the pride that i show in her that causes her to continue the excersises.... and i love to cater to that pride. she is my whole world, after all.
> 
> 
> i understand the difference. when i was young, i had the good fortune to have a yakara(teacher) who taught me the difference between reacting to pain and experiencing pain. ill teach my daughter this.
> 
> and if the time comes, she will be ready.


I still don't understand what that has to do with the discussion. It's a sport, like football, or wrestling. I suppose someone could take issue with martial arts, football, and wresting. But they are sports. Although martial arts is pretty good self defense also, I know.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolf1974 said:


> Violence isn' solely based in our society. It's based on us as biological beings. Their will always be violence and the use of it to extort and victimize the weak.......always.


We do have a neocortex. There can be very peaceful societies. We are just not one of them.


----------



## unbelievable

Violence isn't an issue in my home but I work these cases all the time. Some folks, men and women, are living in what amounts to a combat zone. I don't know how they manage to stay sane. Home should be a refuge of peace from the craziness of the world. I wish I had a magic wand to wave and make everything right for these folks. I don't, but I do have handcuffs and I'll cheerfully slap them on anyone who harms one of my citizens. They fit women as well as men. They fit violent folks and they fit folks who lie about being victims of violence. Get pissed at home and feel like hitting someone? Call the police. We'll come over and you can swing at us. Your wife or husband doesn't get paid to deal with "crazy". We do.


----------



## EleGirl

CuddleBug said:


> I find it interesting that women can almost get away with anything but men cannot.
> 
> Yes, I have told her many times over the many years, stop the hitting when you get mad or annoyed. It doesn't sink in until I return what she dished out. Then it stops.
> 
> I am defending myself against Mrs.CuddleBug's instinctive hitting tendencies, yet I have never hit her when I get mad or annoyed.
> 
> She probably thought it was fun. Women getting away with it.....no consequences.
> 
> I do defend myself, hit her back but not man hard hitting. Almost play hitting and now I'm to stop it and break the cycle?!
> 
> Is that a bad joke???
> 
> Women wanted to be treated as equals and that literally means equals and in all things, yes?
> 
> That means physical too. You can't just take the icing off the cake and leave the cake and cherry pick.
> 
> My wifee is a stronger woman compared to most and she could beat up many women with ease. She takes after her dad, who is a big guy, 6ft 3 inches at 250+ lbs. I am 6 ft 2 inches at 220+ lbs. Mrs.CuddleBug is 5ft 9 at 190 lbs ish, down from 240 lbs ish. She is physically very strong for a woman.
> 
> Everyone's situation is different and this works for us.
> 
> I would be a ***** of a guy if I let her continue, lets talk about it more and she gets away with it......that's a joke.


Be careful. I know a woman who used to say that this is the way she and her husband interacted. She said that they thought it was funny. 

Well one day she hit him with a telephone.. you know the type that we used to use with land lines. She killed him accidently. She went to prison.

Has the hitting between you and your wife escalated at all over the years?


----------



## Pooh Bear

unbelievable said:


> Violence isn't an issue in my home but I work these cases all the time. Some folks, men and women, are living in what amounts to a combat zone. I don't know how they manage to stay sane. Home should be a refuge of peace from the craziness of the world. I wish I had a magic wand to wave and make everything right for these folks. I don't, but I do have handcuffs and I'll cheerfully slap them on anyone who harms one of my citizens. They fit women as well as men. They fit violent folks and they fit folks who lie about being victims of violence. Get pissed at home and feel like hitting someone? Call the police. We'll come over and you can swing at us. Your wife or husband doesn't get paid to deal with "crazy". We do.


It is sad.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pooh Bear said:


> We do have a neocortex. There can be very peaceful societies. We are just not one of them.


certainly entitled to your opinion. That is not the world I have seen. And unfortunately it's getting worse


----------



## norajane

CuddleBug said:


> Its not a big deal and no apology necessary. It's just the way Mrs.CuddleBug has always been, a stronger woman.
> 
> *I could be on the computer, she comes in and gets annoyed because I am on the computer and hits my ear hard with her hand and fingers. Just the way she is, instinctive I'd say.* Yet I have never done that to her. Could be part of her way releasing the daily stresses of life without realizing it? I see it as play fighting because I'm a guy and she is a stronger woman.


What? That's physical abuse. You aren't there to be her punching bag for when she wants to release stress. 

It's not play fighting. Reverse the genders and ask if it's play fighting. It's not.


----------



## EleGirl

CuddleBug said:


> Its not a big deal and no apology necessary. It's just the way Mrs.CuddleBug has always been, a stronger woman.
> 
> I could be on the computer, she comes in and gets annoyed because I am on the computer and hits my ear hard with her hand and fingers. Just the way she is, instinctive I'd say. Yet I have never done that to her. Could be part of her way releasing the daily stresses of life without realizing it? I see it as play fighting because I'm a guy and she is a stronger woman.


If you see it as play fighting, then maybe it is.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Wolf1974 said:


> certainly entitled to your opinion. That is not the world I have seen. And unfortunately it's getting worse


I think everyone should learn and practice meditation and somatic experiencing. I think we would have a much different world. Although some people have trouble with the ability to meditate. So not sure.


----------



## Pooh Bear

EleGirl said:


> If you see it as play fighting, then maybe it is.


Or he could be downplaying it. Victims of abuse do that all the time. Not to analyze your marriage, Cuddlebug. But you seem to be somewhat disturbed by it.


----------



## notmyrealname4

CuddleBug said:


> I find it interesting that women can almost get away with anything but men cannot.
> 
> *No. Women cannot "get away with anything":scratchhead:. Your wife is "getting away" with it; because you guys keep perpetuating the same cycle.*
> 
> Yes, I have told her many times over the many years, stop the hitting when you get mad or annoyed. It doesn't sink in until I return what she dished out. Then it stops.
> 
> *Since you've told her "many times" over years; she's very disrespectful. I get it, you give her a taste of her own medicine. Then she waits a little while; then does it again. She sounds sneaky and mean. Do you think she "forgot" that you told her not to? If it's being going on for years; she knows full well what she is doing. In other words, she does it on purpose to hurt you and disrespect your wishes.*
> 
> I am defending myself against Mrs.CuddleBug's instinctive hitting tendencies, yet I have never hit her when I get mad or annoyed.
> 
> *You are doing the right thing.*
> 
> She probably thought it was fun. Women getting away with it.....no consequences.
> 
> *I can't even begin to think of her motivations. "Fun" doesn't come to mind. "Redirected anger" maybe? She won't tell you in words what bothers her about you, life in general, your relationship etc. Instead she engages in this annoying, painful, rude behavior. Once again "women getting away with it ... no consequences", isn't particularly pertinent to your dilemma. Focus on your wife and why she is doing this.*
> 
> I do defend myself, hit her back but not man hard hitting. Almost play hitting and now I'm to stop it and break the cycle?!
> 
> Is that a bad joke???
> 
> *I was being sympathetic to you. Encouraging you to break the cycle, so you and your wife aren't hitting each other. What I mean is; counseling; since she obviously won't listen to you. You've been having this same conversation for years; and she won't change.*
> 
> Women wanted to be treated as equals and that literally means equals and in all things, yes?
> 
> That means physical too. You can't just take the icing off the cake and leave the cake and cherry pick.
> 
> *Yes, but I really think you should just consider your wife and why she keeps doing this. She's acting like a child. An aggressive, angry child.*
> 
> My wifee is a stronger woman compared to most and she could beat up many women with ease. She takes after her dad, who is a big guy, 6ft 3 inches at 250+ lbs. I am 6 ft 2 inches at 220+ lbs. Mrs.CuddleBug is 5ft 9 at 190 lbs ish, down from 240 lbs ish. She is physically very strong for a woman.
> 
> Everyone's situation is different and this works for us.
> 
> I would be a ***** of a guy if I let her continue, lets talk about it more and she gets away with it......that's a joke.
> 
> *I NEVER suggested that you let her continue and get away with it. The opposite, really.
> 
> If you feel she just enjoys physical roughhousing and horseplay; why not have pillow fights or wrestling with her? Perhaps that would be a playful, fun way for her to "fight" you.
> 
> But I don't think so. The way she's going about this just seems a bit too mean spirited. That hitting your ear hard when you're at the computer. I don't think that's meant to be for fun.
> *


----------



## Thundarr

Everyone can complain and gripe about which gender is being abused more all you want but you're missing the point. Abuse is about a person assaulting another person and every case is unique and it's always wrong. I'm not ever hitting my wife and she better the h3ll not hit me. Men and women who stay in abusive relationships are victims of themselves moreso than they are of the spouse. That's the sad truth. It's sad because they slowly start to think they deserve it or they have no grasp of holding others accountable for their actions.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> What are you referring to? Like fictional characters or something in real life?


Largely fictional characters yes, although there are a few exceptions in semi-historical works.

To elaborate a little bit; As women attain greater power in society, there *is* going to be greater scrutiny in how that power is exercised. This is not sour grapes or whining; This is the way it should be.

However the entertainment a culture produces is a reflection of attitudes within that culture and cultural attitudes don't seem to be falling in line with reality. And this does worry feminists thinkers, movers and shakers because portraying women as unfit to exercise power responsibly is not a good thing and does not help feminism even a little bit.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Largely fictional characters yes, although there are a few exceptions in semi-historical works.
> 
> To elaborate a little bit; As women attain greater power in society, there *is* going to be greater scrutiny in how that power is exercised. This is not sour grapes or whining; This is the way it should be.
> 
> However the entertainment a culture produces is a reflection of attitudes within that culture and cultural attitudes don't seem to be falling in line with reality. And this does worry feminists thinkers, movers and shakers because portraying women as unfit to exercise power responsibly is not a good thing and does not help feminism even a little bit.


Unfortunately the entertainment industry has a lot of bad messages. You really have to be thoughtful when watching it.


----------



## As'laDain

Pooh Bear said:


> I still don't understand what that has to do with the discussion. It's a sport, like football, or wrestling. I suppose someone could take issue with martial arts, football, and wresting. But they are sports. Although martial arts is pretty good self defense also, I know.


you keep harping on martial arts being sports...
how do you not see how it is relative? you want to put your son in martial arts for the benefit of focus and discipline, but would you prevent him from fighting if someone started punching him in the face?

i think we have two different perspectives on violence...


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> What would you suggest I say? Good idea. Beat the h*ll out of that person. If I told a woman to do that you would be having a fit.


There is a difference between beating the hell out of that person and doing what is necessary to fend someone off. So no, would not be having a fit if you told a woman that. Its SELF DEFENSE. 

Beating the hell out of someone isn't self defense. That is the point you become the aggressor.

Getting a couple of hits in to get someone off of you is not beating the hell out of someone.




> But that is not who I am. I don't believe in violence.


Well, if someone ever steps to you and starts wailing on you, just sit there and take it then.




> And I truly believe that if someone becomes violent you get out of the situation and call the police.


I completely agree, if that's possible. But if someone starts beating on you, its not that simple, unless you just want to wait until the beating is over. Hey, if you want to take that beating, that's your choice.




> If someone is corning you, I guess you do what you can to get out of that situation. But ultimately, you don't choose violence.


Then we are in agreement. I always advise, and especially when I taught my class, to walk away if possible.


----------



## vellocet

As'laDain said:


> my daugheter is going to grow up being hit. she will be slapped, whacked, struck.
> 
> all part of the practice we call martial arts.


And when she is an adult, I ALMOST feel sorry for the guy that might decide to try to hit her. He might not have a nutsack left.


----------



## SamuraiJack

The Jezebel article is just further proof that humans, in general, can and do suck.

If you want to get an open eyed, unbiased opinion of how men are perceived in the US…just call a local social services branch and ask ( as a man) about emergency shelter and what to do if you are being abused.

Listening to them tell you there are NO resources available for men will let you know EXACTLY where you stand on the subject.


----------



## Pooh Bear

As'laDain said:


> you keep harping on martial arts being sports...
> how do you not see how it is relative? you want to put your son in martial arts for the benefit of focus and discipline, but would you prevent him from fighting if someone started punching him in the face?
> 
> i think we have two different perspectives on violence...


Nothing would prevent him from doing that. If someone started punching him in the face and he had to use Tae Kwon Do to get out of the situation to call the police and file assualt charges then that is what he has to do. Would I want him to bully all the other kids using Tae Kwon Do? Absolutely not. 

My thing is you don't meet violence with violence unless absolutely necessary. If someone punches me in the arm am I justified in punching them back? No. But I would make it really clear that behavior is unacceptable and would probably reconsider hanging out with that person again. For me, violence is last resort. You have no other option than to use violence. I think that is what they teach in marial arts anyway, right? You can get good enough you can kill someone. Martial arts is about learning self-control, not about trying to control others with the skills you have.


----------



## Pooh Bear

As'laDain said:


> i have seen people lose their ****. people who normaly dont do so.
> 
> the ONLY thing i have seen that stops someone from violence is the understanding that their own violence will be met with the same, if not greater, violence.
> 
> i wish this were not true. but i cannot help that.


An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Gandhi


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Gandhi


Shows how smart he was. An eye for an eye leaves everyone with one eye. Unless someone takes two eyes.


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> There is a difference between beating the hell out of that person and doing what is necessary to fend someone off. So no, would not be having a fit if you told a woman that. Its SELF DEFENSE.
> 
> Beating the hell out of someone isn't self defense. That is the point you become the aggressor.
> 
> Getting a couple of hits in to get someone off of you is not beating the hell out of someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if someone ever steps to you and starts wailing on you, just sit there and take it then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree, if that's possible. But if someone starts beating on you, its not that simple, unless you just want to wait until the beating is over. Hey, if you want to take that beating, that's your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement. I always advise, and especially when I taught my class, to walk away if possible.


I think we are in agreement. I think the way I interpreted the post was that if someone gets violent with you, you get violent right back. I think if someone is being violent there are many times ways you can get out of the situation or de escalate the situation without resorting to violence yourself. But if there is no other choice, then that is all you have. I just don't think that that should be the first line of defense unless the person has you in a situation where there is no other choice.


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> Shows how smart he was. An eye for an eye leaves everyone with one eye. Unless someone takes two eyes.


Ha, ha. I think that was the point. You will eventually lose two eyes because you just keep living an eye for an eye.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> So your wife would be ok with it if a female character did something unethical or against the law as long as it was to ultimately do something good, like save the life of a hostage?



Yes. As long as the writers have placed something of equal or greater moral weight on the other side of the scales, she's okay. 

What really irritates her is a genre of television show that she calls "Turpitude with Attitude" (Grey's Anatomy was a good example) where everybody is misbehaving.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> I think we are in agreement. I think the way I interpreted the post was that if someone gets violent with you, you get violent right back.


If someone actually assaults me, I'm going to respond. I will walk away if possible BEFORE it gets to that point.




> I think if someone is being violent there are many times ways you can get out of the situation or de escalate the situation without resorting to violence yourself.


At that point the situation has already escalated. I think maybe you are referring to de-escalating the situation BEFORE violence can occur. Is so, I completely agree.

I am never going to start a fight and definitely don't want to get into one. But I'm not going to sit there and get beat on.


----------



## Q tip

Lessons from the Marines. I was in such good shape, I would just run two blocks. The bloke chasing me would be tired. Easy pickins. 

Thing is, when you know how to fight, you hardly ever end up fighting. You've now got nothing to prove. You know what to look for and avoid the trouble. Not worth the aggravation.

A girl going after me? Simple - just block and back away. Is she wont stop, I'd just block harder. It would never happen though. 

- I'm such a luvable well balanced dude. Just ask my parole officer.


----------



## As'laDain

Pooh Bear said:


> An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Gandhi


yep, and tolerance is consent. 

if i cannot escape, i will not consent. 


sometimes i could escape, but i would be an irresponsible coward if i did.


----------



## Dogbert

It's not the fight that I dread but the cinematic drama that comes from it. So, barring no way out, I avoid fights like the plague


----------



## Jung_admirer

I have no issue with decisively ending any fight which you did not start. Almost sounds like a mantra...


----------



## doubletrouble

My W hit me after D-Day. I guess she was mad that she and OM didn't work out, so I was the closest target. 

I never have hit her, and she's ashamed now that she hit me. She left her first marriage after being sent to the hospital for the 3rd time by that asshat. 

I told wife #1 that, if she can hit me, and this is an equal relationship, I can hit her, too. She stopped that sh!t (although I never hit her and never would have; at least she could see the logic).


----------



## vellocet

doubletrouble said:


> My W hit me after D-Day. I guess she was mad that she and OM didn't work out, so I was the closest target.


Oh man, I WISH my x-wife would have hit me on Dday or anytime after. Her ass would have went to jail and I could have used that for custody.


----------



## Wolf1974

vellocet said:


> If someone actually assaults me, I'm going to respond. I will walk away if possible BEFORE it gets to that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point the situation has already escalated. I think maybe you are referring to de-escalating the situation BEFORE violence can occur. Is so, I completely agree.
> 
> I am never going to start a fight and definitely don't want to get into one. But I'm not going to sit there and get beat on.




yep as I have instructed my daughters. DO NOT start a fight. walk away if you can but stand up for yourself. IF they touch you....level them. Then when you are taken to the principles office fold your arms and anything they ask you repeat this phrase.....call my father. And I will come for you and so long as you are defending yourself you will NOT be in trouble with me.

They are very clear of my expectations lol


----------



## Cletus

Pooh Bear said:


> Nothing would prevent him from doing that. If someone started punching him in the face and he had to use Tae Kwon Do to get out of the situation to call the police and file assualt charges then that is what he has to do. Would I want him to bully all the other kids using Tae Kwon Do? Absolutely not.


Taekwondo, like all martial arts, is a combat skill. It's modern emphasis in American culture may be for self defense, but make no mistake as to its origins, which are to make you a better killing machine than your opponent. 



> My thing is you don't meet violence with violence unless absolutely necessary. If someone punches me in the arm am I justified in punching them back?


Yes, you are justified. You may choose to be the better person and walk away, but you are not unjustified. And sometimes, you are REQUIRED to return the insult, even if you have other options. 

I suspect you've never had to deal with a bully. It's been a long time, but I have. Eighth grade. A fellow classmate spent a week shoving me in the halls, pushing my head into the drinking fountain, you name it. I "walked away" for that entire week until one day when I decided to stop walking away. After bloodying each others faces in a good ol' fashioned fist fight, he threw an arm over my shoulder and tried to be my best buddy. Which he never was, but that was the last time I was bullied by anyone in that school. I am convinced to this day that the pacifist nuns allowed the fight that they knew had to happen. I have other such stories from grade school.

I could have kept walking away the entire school year. But he needed a blood offering, and at some point I had to respond. Sometimes aggression needs a stronger response than simply turning your back, or that aggression moves on to the next victim, and the next, and the next. 

I feel every bit as strongly about that as you do that violence is never acceptable unless you have no other choice. America failed to enter WWII for a very long time because of the arguments of people who believed that we had other options.


----------



## Dogbert

Cletus said:


> America failed to enter WWII for a very long time because of the arguments of people who believed that we had other options.


And because America, during the last year of WW1, witnessed first hand the horrific scenes of the first modern war where millions of people died under new instruments of war. The first tanks, the first fighter planes, and the first use of chemical warfare via mustard gas. We wanted no part of another "European" clash of empires that started with the terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo.


----------



## Cletus

Dogbert said:


> And because America, during the last year of WW1, witnessed first hand the horrific scenes of the first modern war where millions of people died under new instruments of war. The first tanks, the first fighter planes, and the first use of chemical warfare via mustard gas. We wanted no part of another "European" clash of empires that started with the terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo.


That's sort of the point, isn't it? The evil that took over Germany in 1933 didn't care that we didn't want to be a part of another European war. In fact, he counted on it. 

That's why the term "appeasement" has such a negative connotation today. Ignoring some evil is the right thing to do, but there will always be evil that requires a more thorough approach. Walking away is sometimes more immoral that fighting.


----------



## Cletus

Regarding the topic of discussion - 

Hitting my wife in the arm as retaliation in the first year of our relationship was exactly the right solution to the problem. She learned that it wouldn't accomplish anything useful, that I wouldn't allow it, and that she would ultimately suffer if she continued to do it. She understood immediately and agreed that she was wrong.

The lesson took about 30 seconds and lasted 30 years, so far. I suppose I could have walked away and awaited the next offense, called the police, have her spend the night in jail for the same effect. But who wants to argue that was the better choice here?


----------



## jld

Cletus said:


> Regarding the topic of discussion -
> 
> Hitting my wife in the arm as retaliation in the first year of our relationship was exactly the right solution to the problem. *She learned that it wouldn't accomplish anything useful, that I wouldn't allow it, and that she would ultimately suffer if she continued to do it. * She understood immediately and agreed that she was wrong.
> 
> *The lesson took about 30 seconds and lasted 30 years,* so far. I suppose I could have walked away and awaited the next offense, called the police, have her spend the night in jail for the same effect. But who wants to argue that was the better choice here?


And she has been having _extremely _vanilla sex with you for the same 30 years. 

Hmm.


----------



## Thundarr

Pooh Bear said:


> My thing is you don't meet violence with violence unless absolutely necessary. If someone punches me in the arm am I justified in punching them back? No. But I would make it really clear that behavior is unacceptable and would probably reconsider hanging out with that person again. For me, violence is last resort. You have no other option than to use violence.


It's much more complicated than don't meet violence with violence. No I don't think I'd retaliate violently if my wife hit me because I'd injure her quickly. But let a grown man put his hands on me and that will be met with violence. The notion of "turn the other cheek" goes against everything I believe in. We have to defend our selves and I can never get past that core principle.


----------



## that.girl

jld said:


> And she has been having _extremely _vanilla sex with you for the same 30 years.
> 
> Hmm.


That's not fair. There's no reason to think one has anything to do with the other.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> And she has been having _extremely _vanilla sex with you for the same 30 years.
> 
> Hmm.


That's like saying because people eat more ice cream when it's hot and more crimes happen when it's hot then ice cream must cause crimes. Of course that's not true. The correlation you're drawing is empty.


----------



## As'laDain

sometimes it is flat out irresponsible to avoid conflict. 

for instance, someone is drunk and is about to drive his car. you should stop him, even violently if thats what it takes.


----------



## Thundarr

As'laDain said:


> *sometimes it is flat out irresponsible to avoid conflict. *
> 
> for instance, someone is drunk and is about to drive his car. you should stop him, even violently if thats what it takes.


It's absolutely devastating to not defend ourselves when necessary. It's viewed by those around us as weak and that's a fact no matter how much the no-violence guys want to ignore it. Years back I remember this jackarse who was part of a group of bullies hitting on my wife at a club. He didn't take the warning so once he tried to step in between my wife (gf then) and I on the dance floor, he met unconcious land for a few minutes. Yes his table full of thugs came out swinging but it was broken up quickly but really the outcome didn't matter as much as the message. That table of d!cks were made to leave the club while me and my wife continued our evening. Now what would have been the outcome of me not defending myself and my wife? Do you think she would feel safe with me? No she wouldn't. Do you think she would respect my actions? No she wouldn't. Do you think my value as a man would have lowered in her eyes? Yes it would have.


----------



## Q tip

Dogbert said:


> And because America, during the last year of WW1, witnessed first hand the horrific scenes of the first modern war where millions of people died under new instruments of war. The first tanks, the first fighter planes, and the first use of chemical warfare via mustard gas. We wanted no part of another "European" clash of empires that started with the terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo.


Started by Princep (sp). He died in prison btw, a few years later.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Largely fictional characters yes, although there are a few exceptions in semi-historical works.
> 
> To elaborate a little bit; As women attain greater power in society, there *is* going to be greater scrutiny in how that power is exercised. This is not sour grapes or whining; This is the way it should be.
> 
> However the entertainment a culture produces is a reflection of attitudes within that culture and cultural attitudes don't seem to be falling in line with reality. And this does worry feminists thinkers, movers and shakers because portraying women as unfit to exercise power responsibly is not a good thing and does not help feminism even a little bit.


This is a very good point. What the entertainment industry is doing, I think, is to mirror the attitudes that are wide spread in society. The attitude that women are unfit to exercise power is still pretty wise spread, even here in the USA.

I have often heard people complain about women in positions of power/authority who do the exact same thing all the males on their same level do. But somehow it's bad when a woman does it. But when the men do it.. well that's ok.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> This is a very good point. What the entertainment industry is doing, I think, is to mirror the attitudes that are wide spread in society. The attitude that women are unfit to exercise power is still pretty wise spread, even here in the USA.
> 
> I have often heard people complain about women in positions of power/authority who do the exact same thing all the males on their same level do. But somehow it's bad when a woman does it. But when the men do it.. well that's ok.


Huh?

As a guy that works for a woman who works for a woman - and respects them both...

I just don't see that.


----------



## EleGirl

Pooh Bear said:


> I think if someone is being violent there are many times ways you can get out of the situation or de escalate the situation without resorting to violence yourself.


I agree that deescalating if at all possible and/or getting out of Dodge are the preferred responses to anything that is escalating to violence or even to actual violence.

However, one thing that I thing is being over looked in this conversation is that most of us are not trained in things like martial arts. We react instinctively when violence is used against us. Post people will strike back if someone physically assaults them. That is a knee jerk, natural reaction. I think it would be wrong to come down on a person who has not had ongoing training in something like martial arts for doing what is natural.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Huh?
> 
> As a guy that works for a woman who works for a woman - and respects them both...
> 
> I just don't see that.


I did not say that everyone has the attitude that women cannot handle positions of power and authority. I said that the attitude does exist.

For example, when Obama and Hillary were facing off for the nomination, I was on a political forum. Most of the men on the forum very clear that they would never vote for any woman for president. Their take on it was that no woman could handle the position. I was pretty surprised by that as I thought we'd come further as a society.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> And she has been having _extremely _vanilla sex with you for the same 30 years.
> 
> Hmm.


That's so wrong and so offensive it's almost worth earning my first ban... almost but not.

If you want anecdotes: It wasn't when I was first married, but nearly 5 years into my marriage. Same lesson taught. 

My wife and I have a very active sex life. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other.


----------



## FormerVictim

larry.gray said:


> That's so wrong and so offensive it's almost worth earning my first ban... almost but not.
> 
> If you want anecdotes: It wasn't when I was first married, but nearly 5 years into my marriage. Same lesson taught.
> 
> My wife and I have a very active sex life. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other.


It's what she does.


----------



## larry.gray

FormerVictim said:


> It's what she does.


Hence the not worth it. I initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and explained why much of what she says is so offensive to others. She ignored so I just presume it's intentional now.


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> And she has been having _extremely _vanilla sex with you for the same 30 years.
> 
> Hmm.


Ok, you're going to have to finish that thought. I want to see how the two are related. At the time, she wasn't having any sex with me at all. We were not yet married.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> I did not say that everyone has the attitude that women cannot handle positions of power and authority. I said that the attitude does exist.
> 
> For example, when Obama and Hillary were facing off for the nomination, I was on a political forum. Most of the men on the forum very clear that they would never vote for any woman for president. Their take on it was that no woman could handle the position. I was pretty surprised by that as I thought we'd come further as a society.


Many attitudes exist. 

Many people said they'd never vote for a black president, too. 

The times they are a changin.


----------



## doubletrouble

vellocet said:


> Oh man, I WISH my x-wife would have hit me on Dday or anytime after. Her ass would have went to jail and I could have used that for custody.


Well we were very young and didn't have kids, so that wasn't a factor. 

SHE was the one who originally brought up the whole equality concept, to which I readily agreed. It's only logical. 

But apparently she didn't, at the time, think it applied to her.


----------



## Marduk

larry.gray said:


> Hence the not worth it. I initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and explained why much of what she says is so offensive to others. She ignored so I just presume it's intentional now.


I don't think it was.

I think what she was trying to do was pose the possability of a dynamic being set up that led to a lack of openness in the bedroom...

But I'll leave that to her. I'm assuming good intentions.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> Ok, you're going to have to finish that thought. I want to see how the two are related. At the time, she wasn't having any sex with me at all. We were not yet married.


Maybe she wanted rough sex? &#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I don't think it was.
> 
> I think what she was trying to do was pose the possability of a dynamic being set up that led to a lack of openness in the bedroom...
> 
> But I'll leave that to her. I'm assuming good intentions.


Well, thank you, marduk. But you know me better than larry, too.

And if Cletus asks me nicely, I will consider sharing my thoughts with him.


----------



## vellocet

Here is a question out of curiosity.

Ladies, if you were to slap a man, hit him, whatever, what would be your reaction/response to him if he said.

"You get that one for free....next time, I hit back"


----------



## ConanHub

I would say "Hit me all you want. I'm going to have sex with you everytime you do."

Wait... I actually did say that... &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

EleGirl said:


> For example, when Obama and Hillary were facing off for the nomination, I was on a political forum. Most of the men on the forum very clear that they would never vote for any woman for president. Their take on it was that no woman could handle the position. I was pretty surprised by that as I thought we'd come further as a society.


Feminists should detest Obama. Hillary would be finishing her second term if not for him.

She'd have been a better one too


----------



## chillymorn

It seems to me that women get a free pass to hit men in most situations.

if you call a woman a c--t and she slaps your face you deserved it if she calls you a d--k and you slap her face you go to jail.

its on of societies huge double standards. because the vast majority of women are physically weaker they get the free pass to use violence. 

I know many friends who have told me that their wives have assaulted them if you call the police after your wife hit you and there are no marks ....and even if there are marks most likely they will do nothing as a matter of fact they might ask you to leave even though she was the aggressor. BUT if a woman calls the police no matter what marks or no mark you will be leaving.

equal rights is kind of an oxymoron.

while I believe in equal rights I realize that because of the inherent differences in men and women the way equality is a sliding scale.

women in the military .......they are not on the front lines or do not qualify for special opts, not too many women fighter pilots etc etc. 

women on the road crew most of the one I see are holding the flags instead of being in the ditch or operation the back hoe.

women police officers. Women fireman .

funny how when I had surgery a woman nurse shaved me .....now there are a few male nurses and that would never happen the other way. Hi my name is bob your nurse I'm here to shave your vaj vaj for you hysterectomy. I don't think so!!!!!!!

no mater how you slice it total equality is a tall order so what we end up with is a slanted form of equality when the men take most of the risks and the women get most of the benefits.

you know the woman holding the flag is making as much as the man in the ditch. etc,etc,etc


----------



## that.girl

vellocet said:


> Here is a question out of curiosity.
> 
> Ladies, if you were to slap a man, hit him, whatever, what would be your reaction/response to him if he said.
> 
> "You get that one for free....next time, I hit back"


As a kid, my dad taught me three things about violence -

If someone hits you, defend yourself. 
Don't hit first. 
If you do hit first, expect to be hit back. 

So I'd be cool with that scenario. But that's just me.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*but make no mistake as to its origins, which are to make you a better killing machine than your opponent. *

Yes. But that is not what it has to be used for now. Heck, martial arts doesn’t matter anymore if you have gun. Guns are much more effective as a military strategy.

*Yes, you are justified. You may choose to be the better person and walk away, but you are not unjustified. And sometimes, you are REQUIRED to return the insult, even if you have other options. *

This is about maintaining status. It is not about self-defense. This is what men are taught that you have to maintain your status. If you are defending yourself that is not about status. It is about protecting yourself until you can get out of the situation.

*I suspect you've never had to deal with a bully.*

You would suspect wrong. But I am not going to share that.

*Eighth grade. A fellow classmate spent a week shoving me in the halls, pushing my head into the drinking fountain, you name it. I "walked away" for that entire week until one day when I decided to stop walking away. After bloodying each others faces in a good ol' fashioned fist fight, he threw an arm over my shoulder and tried to be my best buddy. Which he never was, but that was the last time I was bullied by anyone in that school. *

I’m sorry you went through that, Cletus.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Thundarr said:


> It's much more complicated than don't meet violence with violence. No I don't think I'd retaliate violently if my wife hit me because I'd injure her quickly. But let a grown man put his hands on me and that will be met with violence. The notion of "turn the other cheek" goes against everything I believe in. We have to defend our selves and I can never get past that core principle.


It's a status thing with men. If men stopped thinking about status and starting working to just build a peaceful society we would have more peace. I am not saying that women are superior at peace necessarily but we don't have that status thing. If somebody hits me my first thought is not that I have regain my status by punching back. My first thought is what can I do to get out of this situation safely. And if a woman is hitting a man it is double humiliating because women are supposed to be weaker and men are supposed to dominate women.


----------



## Pooh Bear

EleGirl said:


> I agree that deescalating if at all possible and/or getting out of Dodge are the preferred responses to anything that is escalating to violence or even to actual violence.
> 
> However, one thing that I thing is being over looked in this conversation is that most of us are not trained in things like martial arts. We react instinctively when violence is used against us. Post people will strike back if someone physically assaults them. That is a knee jerk, natural reaction. I think it would be wrong to come down on a person who has not had ongoing training in something like martial arts for doing what is natural.


Definitely. I mean the reality is if I were in that situation, I don't know how I would really react. But if you are feeling threatened physically, that is self-defense, right?


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> Many attitudes exist.
> 
> Many people said they'd never vote for a black president, too.
> 
> The times they are a changin.


Yup. They just keep changing.


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> Here is a question out of curiosity.
> 
> Ladies, if you were to slap a man, hit him, whatever, what would be your reaction/response to him if he said.
> 
> "You get that one for free....next time, I hit back"


I wouldn't hit a man. Or a woman. I never have and I never will. I won't even spank my son.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> I wouldn't hit a man. Or a woman. I never have and I never will. I won't even spank my son.


But *if* ya did? That was the question.


----------



## vellocet

that.girl said:


> As a kid, my dad taught me three things about violence -
> 
> If someone hits you, defend yourself.
> Don't hit first.
> If you do hit first, expect to be hit back.
> 
> So I'd be cool with that scenario. But that's just me.


And you know what, I'd probably have said that if I hadn't first had her thrown in jail(if she had hit me), but it would just be me saying it to let her know I'm not going to put up with it.

It would have to be pretty bad for me to have needed to hit back. But I do think in a lot of cases a little physical restraining is in order, pushing away, etc.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*if you call a woman a c--t and she slaps your face you deserved it if she calls you a d--k and you slap her face you go to jail.*

Why are you calling a woman a c—t? Do you recognize that that is abuse too? I agree that women have “gotten a free pass” to a certain extent on some forms of physical abuse. Of course, if a woman kills her abusive partner she will spend a lot more time in prison than a abusive man who kills his partner. However, slapping, throwing things by a woman has been seen as funny. I think it is to demean men. You’re supposed to be the dominate one and if your wife is abusing you then you are not a real man. Those attitudes need to change. 

*women in the military .......they are not on the front lines or do not qualify for special opts, not too many women fighter pilots etc etc. 

women on the road crew most of the one I see are holding the flags instead of being in the ditch or operation the back hoe.

women police officers. Women fireman .*

Have you ever thought that these things are sexist assumptions about women’s abilities?


----------



## that.girl

vellocet said:


> But I do think in a lot of cases a little physical restraining is in order, pushing away, etc.


I agree. But i think it's very foolish for anyone, male or female, to think they can strike another person without retaliation. 

I have five brothers. I don't expect some magical immunity to violence because of my genitalia. I expect to get back what I give.


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> But *if* ya did? That was the question.


No. I would expect him to say that is unacceptable behavior and it better not happen again or I will end this relationship.


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> Well, thank you, marduk. But you know me better than larry, too.
> 
> And if Cletus asks me nicely, I will consider sharing my thoughts with him.


How about i just beat it out of you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> *if you call a woman a c--t and she slaps your face you deserved it if she calls you a d--k and you slap her face you go to jail.*
> 
> Why are you calling a woman a c—t?


I don't think he is or did. Its a comparison on what would happen if either gender calls the other a name, and either one slaps the other...one goes to jail, the other is said to have deserved it.




> Do you recognize that that is abuse too?


I agree it can be seen as abuse if a man calls a woman a c**t (although I'm sorry, I would have reserved the right to call my x-wife that after finding out she f***d other men, but I didn't call her that)

But if its abuse to call a woman a name like that, then by consistency, it would be abuse to call a man a name like that.

I know, I know. The C word, for whatever reason, somehow carries more weight. Why is that?


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> Maybe she wanted rough sex? ��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, that's it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> No. I would expect him to say that is unacceptable behavior and it better not happen again or I will end this relationship.


That's not what I asked. I asked what if he said that in response to her hitting him? Not what you expect him to say.


----------



## Thundarr

Pooh Bear said:


> It's a status thing with men. If men stopped thinking about status and starting working to just build a peaceful society we would have more peace. I am not saying that women are superior at peace necessarily but we don't have that status thing. If somebody hits me my first thought is not that I have regain my status by punching back. My first thought is what can I do to get out of this situation safely. And if a woman is hitting you it is double humiliating because women are supposed to be weaker and men are supposed to dominate women.


Letting people attack you will make society much less peaceful place and it will demoralize you in the process. I can't stand violence and I avoid it so it takes a lot to get me there. If someone significantly weaker than me were to hit me then I think I would restrain their arms or something but if a man starts pushing me around then my first reaction is to feel threatened and defend myself. That's happened 3 times in my 46 years. I feel justified in doing so on each of those ocasions and have always taught my sons to not let anyone bully them around. There's a big difference between looking for trouble and having a hair trigger versus just not letting people assault you. If you want people to stop trying to start trouble then make sure they find it when they push you into a corner otherwise they'll do it again.

I've never hit a woman and have never acted like wanted to. I didn't try to intimidate my ex wife when I caught her cheating and I didn't jump on the OM. That's because I don't like violence. It's only these rare occasions where some stranger has decided to look tough for their friends and target me as a person to push around. That doesn't put me in F*L*IGHT mode and I'm glad it doesn't.


----------



## jld

Cletus said:


> How about i just beat it out of you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 That should not make me laugh, but it did.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*But if its abuse to call a woman a name like that, then by consistency, it would be abuse to call a man a name like that.*

It is. It's emotional abuse. I was only focusing on the first example he gave because it was exactly the same example just reversed genders.


----------



## Pooh Bear

vellocet said:


> That's not what I asked. I asked what if he said that in response to her hitting him? Not what you expect him to say.


You're setting this up so that you can get someone who will say the man should not say he will hit a woman but it is not ok for a woman to hit a man. I am not sure what person would say that. The question is flawed. If either person is someone who feels entitled to hit another person, there is something wrong about that. So I guess I will pass on this question anymore.


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> It's a status thing with men. If men stopped thinking about status and starting working to just build a peaceful society we would have more peace. I am not saying that women are superior at peace necessarily but we don't have that status thing. If somebody hits me my first thought is not that I have regain my status by punching back. My first thought is what can I do to get out of this situation safely. And if a woman is hitting a man it is double humiliating because women are supposed to be weaker and men are supposed to dominate women.


Don't agree with the gender divide there. I've seen plenty of men just look confused or shocked after being hit and I've seen a lot of women go thermonuclear after being hit.

Mrs. Conan has, and will, kick serious ass if someone hits her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Bad things happen when you don't stop a bad guy. Law enforcement don't use harsh language to stop someone from harming them or others.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Don't agree with the gender divide there. I've seen plenty of men just look confused or shocked after being hit and I've seen a lot of women go thermonuclear after being hit.
> 
> Mrs. Conan has, and will, kick serious ass if someone hits her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course, there are individual responses in the moment. We all have a fight, flight, or freeze response. Your wife sounds like she has a fight response, whereas I have a freeze response. Maybe the guys who look confused or shocked have a freeze response. Depends on what they do after you see the shocked look. However, there is still that gender divide also where men have to maintain a certain status. Women are not required to do that. Women are not expected to dominate.


----------



## ConanHub

I agree completely Pooh and am part of it. I actually lose respect for men that won't stand their ground. Not as much for women but women that don't back down really trip.my trigger!&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

Let the record show that my wife gets turned on by the c-word.

It was an amazing discovery. Then again I've never said that to her in attack or in an abusive way.


----------



## ConanHub

jaquen said:


> Let the record show that my wife gets turned on by the c-word.
> 
> It was an amazing discovery. Then again I've never said that to her in attack or in an abusive way.


Kink is strange, no?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> However, there is still that gender divide also where men have to maintain a certain status. Women are not required to do that. Women are not expected to dominate.


Is that a necessarily a bad thing? Maybe it depends on how you look at it?

I would agree that most men recognize a clear line beyond which you push another man and you're going to have a real, honest to goodness fight on your hands.

On one hand, you could look upon it as a status thing, but on the other hand, only terminally stupid people strike the first blow, especially in an armed society, where the bigger and stronger you are, the more viable the other person's claim of self defense becomes. 

If you read through the comments following the Jezebel article, there are apparently a lot of other people who don't seem to understand this legal boundary at all.

(i.e. We have the right to express our opinions. We do not have the right to hit anyone if their opinion is offensive.)


----------



## SamuraiJack

I blame romance culture for the horrible double standards that go to each sex.
My wife was a “romantic”. I put up with it because it is a major component in romantic love. 
Check any romance novel…someone is going to get hit and its almost always the male.
Actually if you look at nearly any romantic story there will be some sort of abuse, name calling, shutting out, mild physical punishment.
It’s not ‘love’ without the burning passion that you can’t control…right?
The people who endorse this mindset, I call “The Walking Disney”.

I finally got sick of it after she announced.
I told the next time she hit me, I was going to hit her back. 
That I had been patient and my patience was officially gone. 
She just looked at me and said something about hitting women.

Later in our breakup I sat down and tried to recall as clearly as I could all the times she had hit me. 
It came out to just over 40 times in 16 years. 
When I confronted her about her abusive behavior she decided that “was just her behaving badly.”

Physical abuse is an externalization of a lack of respect.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Is that a necessarily a bad thing? *

I think it is. Because it is more important to dominate than to compromise or find solutions. So many problems in society are due to the fact that people are trying to dominate each other. Violence is about domination too.


----------



## ConanHub

Can't violence be about resisting domination as well?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> *Is that a necessarily a bad thing? *
> 
> I think it is. Because it is more important to dominate than to compromise or find solutions. So many problems in society are due to the fact that people are trying to dominate each other. Violence is about domination too.


Come on. 

I've seen enough cat fights to know the ladies aren't all sweetness and light when it comes to conflict. 

And seen the outcomes of female hierarchies in action. And all that starts at an early age just like with boys. The only difference is that boys have more fights with physical violence, but the girls become experts at social and emotional violence at an early age, too. 

We're primates that have social hierarchies. Dominance is part of what we do. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I'm saying that it's part of who we are as a species, and although the genders may vary how it's expressed, we all play the game.


----------



## jld

Yes, girls can be really mean.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> Can't violence be about resisting domination as well?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Defintely. I think it can stem from powerlessness in response to domination. But ultimately it doesn't solve the problem. I side much more with MLK and Gandhi who did not sit by and stand for their communities being dominated. They found a peaceful way to resist. But what if everyone stopped trying to dominate period. No one would have to fight back. We would share power.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I've sen enough cat fights to know the ladies aren't all sweetness and light when it comes to conflict. *

Did I say that they are?

*We're primates that have social hierarchies. Dominance is part of what we do. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I'm saying that it's part of who we are as a species, and although the genders may vary how it's expressed, we all play the game.*

But we have a neocortex and we can think things through and think, huh, maybe this isn't the best way to interact. That argument that we are just animals is only half true. We are - but we are also thinking animals. We can use our mind to think through and change behavior.


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> *I've sen enough cat fights to know the ladies aren't all sweetness and light when it comes to conflict. *
> 
> Did I say that they are?
> 
> *We're primates that have social hierarchies. Dominance is part of what we do. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I'm saying that it's part of who we are as a species, and although the genders may vary how it's expressed, we all play the game.*
> 
> But we have a neocortex and we can think things through and think, huh, maybe this isn't the best way to interact. That argument that we are just animals is only half true. We are - but we are also thinking animals. We can use our mind to think through and change behavior.


My point is that I think we're thinking animals, not rational minds that just happen to occupy meat. 

Our brain exists because it made us more reproductively successful, not because it's good or wise or kind.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> My point is that I think we're thinking animals, not rational minds that just happen to occupy meat.
> 
> Our brain exists because it made us more reproductively successful, not because it's good or wise or kind.


Yes. People make that argument. But does evolutionary survival necessarily transfer over into our societies? A sort of social darwinism? We also need each other for survival. Does that require that we dominate each other?


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> So many problems in society are due to the fact that people are trying to dominate each other.


I actually don't disagree with this and if you're a philosophical pacifist, I understand and respect that. I was asking more of a pragmatic than a philosophical question.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> I actually don't disagree with this and if you're a philosophical pacifist, I understand and respect that. I was asking more of a pragmatic than a philosophical question.


But it's not just about philosophy for me. It translates into action and how we treat other. If a person becomes aware of how he or she interacts with others within the society and change how he or she interacts, things change. I think there is a lot of evidence that that can happen.


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. People make that argument. But does evolutionary survival necessarily transfer over into our societies? A sort of social darwinism? We also need each other for survival. Does that require that we dominate each other?


Require? I'm not sure. 

But it obviously worked so far. 

Again, I'm not calling it moral or just. But this stuff is like sexuality - it's bigger and stronger and older than your neocortex. To deny it is to be controlled by it in my way of thinking. 

Tribalism is an interesting and successful strategy. How applicable it is to modern life or what we want to be is another question.


----------



## Thundarr

Pooh Bear said:


> Defintely. I think it can stem from powerlessness in response to domination. But ultimately it doesn't solve the problem. I side much more with MLK and Gandhi who did not sit by and stand for their communities being dominated. They found a peaceful way to resist. But what if everyone stopped trying to dominate period. No one would have to fight back. We would share power.


I happily take the gender difference on this one. Sure I've scrapped but that has been very rare and with strangers. Based on my observations, women are just mean to each other often and age doesn't seem to change it. Show me a work environment with mostly women and I'll show you a place with pot stirring, daily passive aggressive slams, and hurtful gossip. Men don't do this. We just work and generally get along and then we leave work and forget about it. Not only do we not do it but we don't notice it when it's happening.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> Require? I'm not sure.
> 
> But it obviously worked so far.
> 
> Again, I'm not calling it moral or just. But this stuff is like sexuality - it's bigger and stronger and older than your neocortex. To deny it is to be controlled by it in my way of thinking.
> 
> Tribalism is an interesting and successful strategy. How applicable it is to modern life or what we want to be is another question.


Yes require. That's what you're arguing. That for evolutionary survival we are required to dominate each other in our societies. We wouldn't survive otherwise.


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes require. That's what you're arguing. That for evolutionary survival we are required to dominate each other in our societies. We wouldn't survive otherwise.


What I'm saying is that it was an adaptive strategy that aided our collective reproductive success as a genus for millions of years. 

Whether that strategy is still applicable today is another question. 

I couldn't tell you if we would have survived without it. How could I?


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> But it's not just about philosophy for me. It translates into action and how we treat other. If a person becomes aware of how he or she interacts with others within the society and change how he or she interacts, things change. I think there is a lot of evidence that that can happen.


Again, not disagreeing. Let me illustrate the distinction I'm drawing:

I have periodic problems with coyotes. There are times I don't dare let my wife's little terrier off of a leash. It could be torn to shreds before I could do anything about it.

I'm philosophically opposed to the use of traps and poisons to deal with coyotes. There's too much collateral damage with poison and traps are too cruel in my opinion. I would never use either myself. Pragmatically speaking though, I can't deny that both of those methods work after a fashion.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that it was an adaptive strategy that aided our collective reproductive success as a genus for millions of years.
> 
> Whether that strategy is still applicable today is another question.
> 
> I couldn't tell you if we would have survived without it. How could I?


I'm sure there are lots of really smart people arguing over that. Lots of research.


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> You're setting this up so that you can get someone who will say the man should not say he will hit a woman but it is not ok for a woman to hit a man.


No, I'm wanting to know if there is any double standards. So far I'm pleased to find out, there is not. But only one lady responded so far.




> I am not sure what person would say that. The question is flawed. If either person is someone who feels entitled to hit another person, there is something wrong about that. So I guess I will pass on this question anymore.


What do you mean what person would say that. Its been said in movies, and even by one person in this thread.

I know you really want to avoid the question, and its not flawed. Its real simple. If a man gave a woman a free lick in, but then said "hit me again and I hit back", what would you say? Its real simple.

If you say its his right to say that and is issuing a simple warning, then great. If you would say he is in the wrong by saying that, then why given he isn't the aggressor?

But I can see why you want to pass on the question. You don't want to admit that it is a man's right to hit back if a woman starts hitting him, while saying nothing about consequences for her as the aggressor. And no, telling her "hit me again, and I'll leave you" is not a consequence. Defending oneself against her would be. Having her thrown in jail would also be.

But I'll drop it. I know why you don't want to answer the question...and I don't blame you.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Have you heard about Robert Sapolsky and his study of monkeys marduk? It's amazing.

Warrior Baboons Give Peace a Chance by Robert M. Sapolsky — YES! Magazine


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> Have you heard about Robert Sapolsky and his study of monkeys marduk? It's amazing.
> 
> Warrior Baboons Give Peace a Chance by Robert M. Sapolsky — YES! Magazine


I have now!

Thanks for this. Reading now.


----------



## Marduk

Just finished. Agree with the article... just because it's in our nature to have aggression, doesn't mean that it can't be changed.

My point is that an outright denial of it and purely using reason to wrestle with it is likely doomed.

Now, if we could just give TB to all the aggressive people...

But, remember aggression itself isn't bad. If steered to positive ends.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> Just finished. Agree with the article... just because it's in our nature to have aggression, doesn't mean that it can't be changed.
> 
> My point is that an outright denial of it and purely using reason to wrestle with it is likely doomed.
> 
> Now, if we could just give TB to all the aggressive people...
> 
> But, remember aggression itself isn't bad. If steered to positive ends.


Sapolsky is fascinating. He has done studies on stress. He wrote a book called Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers. It is on my to read list. Apparently wild animals don't hold in trauma the way humans do. Animals release it right after the terrifying event if they don't die from it. Peter Levine has also looked at humans and trauma. He created a therapuetic technique called somatic experiencing where people release trauma.Levine also talks about the third response to a threat which is a freeze response. The three types of response to threat are fight, flight, or freeze. Really interesting stuff.


----------



## ConanHub

Not an evolutionary thinker here but believe violence is necessary as well as righteous sometimes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Pooh Bear said:


> Sapolsky is fascinating. He has done studies on stress. He wrote a book called Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers. It is on my to read list. Apparently wild animals don't hold in trauma the way humans do. Animals release it right after the terrifying event if they don't die from it. Peter Levine has also looked at humans and trauma. He created a therapuetic technique called somatic experiencing where people release trauma.Levine also talks about the third response to a threat which is a freeze response. The three types of response to threat are fight, flight, or freeze. Really interesting stuff.


I dunno about that. 

Beaten dogs sure seem traumatized.


----------



## Pooh Bear

marduk said:


> I dunno about that.
> 
> Beaten dogs sure seem traumatized.


Right. They're domesticated animals. I am talking about wild animals. I'm not the expert though. You should read sapulsky or levine.


----------



## EleGirl

Pooh Bear said:


> Right. They're domesticated animals. I am talking about wild animals. I'm not the expert though. You should read sapulsky or levine.


If you take a wild animal, cage it and mistreat it.. it will suffer trauma. There is plenty of proof of that .

I think that the issue with wild animals sluffing off trauma is that it happens in the wild. Not so much in captivity.


----------



## Pooh Bear

EleGirl said:


> If you take a wild animal, cage it and mistreat it.. it will suffer trauma. There is plenty of proof of that .
> 
> I think that the issue with wild animals sluffing off trauma is that it happens in the wild. Not so much in captivity.


Yeah. It makes perfect sense that that changes when we interfere with their natural processes.


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> *women in the military .......they are not on the front lines or do not qualify for special opts, not too many women fighter pilots etc etc. .*
> 
> Have you ever thought that these things are sexist assumptions about women’s abilities?


There are women fighter pilots. Quite a few of them. At many of the tasks needed to be a fighter pilot they do excel. They just don't do well at dog fighting. A man can pull 2G more than a woman. It's a physiology based thing; pulling high G's is done by contracting all of the muscles in the body hard and the far greater muscle mass of a very fit man can't be approached by a woman without heavy doses of steroids. 

However.... dog fighting is a rare event for a fighter pilot. Most kills are one side getting the drop on the other.


----------



## Pooh Bear

larry.gray said:


> There are women fighter pilots. Quite a few of them. At many of the tasks needed to be a fighter pilot they do excel. They just don't do well at dog fighting. A man can pull 2G more than a woman. It's a physiology based thing; pulling high G's is done by contracting all of the muscles in the body hard and the far greater muscle mass of a very fit man can't be approached by a woman without heavy doses of steroids.
> 
> However.... dog fighting is a rare event for a fighter pilot. Most kills are one side getting the drop on the other.


You're right larry. There is not discrimination against women at all in the workforce. I was mistaken.


----------



## doubletrouble

When my W was hitting me (on D-Day), at some point I got tired of it. I thought she would see the futility of it. I was feeling a bruise forming, so the next time she drew back to hit me, I grabbed her wrists and held her so she couldn't strike. She struggled; I gripped tighter. She got madder, but she couldn't hit me. 

Later she pointed to bruises on her wrists, saying I had hit her. I said no, I stopped you from continuing to hit me. Once she cooled down, she agreed, and self-shamed about hitting me in the first place. 

Had I been her first husband, she would've been in the hospital. I'm a foot and a half taller than her, more than double her weight, and I was mad. But I'm not wired to be able to hit a woman, wasn't raised that way, wouldn't hit her, ever, but I will defend myself.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> You're right larry. There is not discrimination against women at all in the workforce. I was mistaken.


:scratchhead:

Breaking out the strawman again? 

All I was saying is that there are indeed women fighter pilots - and that there is ONE aspect where there is still a physiological difference between genders that can cause problems for women who do. Also that the difference isn't stopping them.


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


Link please. I would comment if I saw it. I don't read every thread.

Do you have any other horse to ride on this board except for seeing gender issues any way you can and spewing forth?


----------



## vellocet

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


Nope wasn't aware of it. Please post the link and I'll chime in.

"Apparently abuse only matters if its happening to men".
Wrong, I'm sure we haven't seen it. So you know what you can do with this bs comment.


----------



## vellocet

larry.gray said:


> Link please. I would comment if I saw it. I don't read every thread.


Nah, you just don't care about women abuse. Only when it happens to men

But interesting enough, I pose a question, and she wouldn't answer it. So we can look for that other thread and chime in on whatever SOB tries to justify abusing his wife.

But I posted the question and she refuses to answer it because that would be admitting that the woman is an abuser when she is the aggressor.


----------



## vellocet

Ah, I think I know the thread of which she speaks. If it is the right thread, then unless there is a specific post of some guy I'm missing, if she is referring to the original poster, it wasn't a matter of "abuse" nor was it directed at specifically a man or a woman.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/11800345-post82.html <-- Is this the thread Pooh? If so, you made the OP's intentions what you wanted it to be.

If its not the thread, then which one is it? Or was it a specific post that we may have missed?


----------



## that.girl

I think she's talking about "i don't know what i need" in Considering Divorce or Separation. Guy is explaining why it's okay that he slaps his "incompetent" wife.


----------



## vellocet

that.girl said:


> I think she's talking about "i don't know what i need" in Considering Divorce or Separation. Guy is explaining why it's okay that he slaps his "incompetent" wife.


I'll try to find it.


----------



## larry.gray

Since I'm not divorcing nor dealing with somebody close who is, I don't read that forum much.


----------



## vellocet

that.girl said:


> I think she's talking about "i don't know what i need" in Considering Divorce or Separation. Guy is explaining why it's okay that he slaps his "incompetent" wife.


My searching skills must be lacking. How about an assist?


----------



## that.girl

Not sure how well i can link from mobile. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/showthread.php?t=242890

I dont know what I need?


----------



## vellocet

Ok, that explains it. I rarely go into the divorce and separation section.

So I went ahead and put my 2 cents in.


----------



## Cletus

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


It only matters to me in threads that I'm following. Am i now to be held responsible for the one's which i am not?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that.girl

I may be wrong about the thread she was referencing, as she hasn't pointed out the thread herself.


----------



## Thundarr

that.girl said:


> I may be wrong about the thread she was referencing, as she hasn't pointed out the thread herself.


You're correct that.girl. I'm removing my comment since it's speculation.


----------



## DoF

I think what our society has forgotten over the years is WHY EXACTLY is it that men have physically abused women for so long, for SO Many years.

In general, I tend to always think there is a GOOD reason for EVERYTHING.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that men SHOULD beat women, not at all.

But at the same time, we now also see the other side of the spectrum. Women using the laws against us and sticking it to us.

PERHAPS, that's what has gotten them to "abuse" part to begin with? 

I don't know, just saying.

Louis CK explains it better, fast forward to 7min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VnAKGFo-rM


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


Are you familiar with the term, "Needless Bifurcation?" 

I suspect that a lot of us, "Sneak" TAM during the work day and simply don't have time to read everything. (Especially the more depressing sections...)

Could you link to the thread?


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


I was one of the first responders and told him divorce was an option but not abuse. I told him that his situation would not improve without professional help.

I just checked and I am still penis positive.

Did you miss it?


----------



## doubletrouble

Pooh Bear said:


> Are you guys aware that there is a thread where a guy is justifying abusing his wife? Not one of you is over there telling him his behavior is unacceptable. Apparently abuse only matters if it is happening to men.


Nope, not aware. Had I been reading it, I'd say the same things I am saying here.


----------



## doubletrouble

Found that thread. Wow.


----------



## vellocet

Yes, I posted on it too. Wow indeed.

Now as far as why we are posting over there, because someone here didn't think we men would jump the sh*t of a man who hits women....I don't expect reciprocation from her in this thread. 

And that's fine, but lets not wag the dog any longer with any of this, "none of you men are speaking out against a man that hits a woman in another thread" crap. Because we will prove you wrong every time.


----------



## Thundarr

vellocet said:


> And that's fine, but lets not wag the dog any longer with any of this, "none of you men are speaking out against a man that hits a woman in another thread" crap. Because we will prove you wrong every time.


It was a silly assumption on her part. Confirmation bias 101.


----------



## larry.gray

FWIW, I did not respond to, call out, nor acknowledge the misogynist rant of the day.

I just reported it.


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> I know in my country and in the USA that many many women die each year at the hands of an intimate partner or ex partner and Something should be done about it.


Something *is* done about it!

It is a crime. Men who do this are put in jail. We teach our kids to not hit girls and we socially ostracize women beaters. We have bent our legal system to give significant benefit of the doubt to women on domestic violence encounters (though gamers are going to game the system)

So...what ELSE do you want us to do? Shock collars for all men that women are allowed to have universal remotes to them?

Men permanently having their hands wrapped in bubble wrap?


Jeez.


----------



## larry.gray

larry.gray said:


> FWIW, I did not respond to, call out, nor acknowledge the misogynist rant of the day.
> 
> I just reported it.


And now the knuckle dragger is banned and the only evidence left is EleGirl quoting some of the milder parts of the now deleted rant


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> Something *is* done about it!
> 
> It is a crime. Men who do this are put in jail. We teach our kids to not hit girls and we socially ostracize women beaters. We have bent our legal system to give significant benefit of the doubt to women on domestic violence encounters (though gamers are going to game the system)
> 
> So...what ELSE do you want us to do? Shock collars for all men that women are allowed to have universal remotes to them?
> 
> Men permanently having their hands wrapped in bubble wrap?
> 
> 
> Jeez.


Not enough is done about it. Many other countries have fantastic programs that help reduce the rates of women and children being murdered drastically.

I want for women and children to be safe from men who stalk them and kill them. I don't think women and children should have to run and hide from their abuser.


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> Not enough is done about it. Many other countries have fantastic programs that help reduce the rates of women and children being murdered drastically.
> 
> I want for women and children to be safe from men who stalk them and kill them. I don't think women and children should have to run and hide from their abuser.


Go ahead and define what thse fantastic programs are.

Define what 'enough' is while you are at it.

As a person who doesn't like women or children being abused or murdered, I'm interested.

But I want to see the price tag first.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> Go ahead and define what thse fantastic programs are.
> 
> Define what 'enough' is while you are at it.
> 
> As a person who doesn't like women or children being abused or murdered, I'm interested.
> 
> But I want to see the price tag first.


Far more money needs to put towards ending and even more importantly preventing violence. At what costs someone's life? Not just when talking about domestic violence, however that is the topic at hand. 

This article is about America however I first read of the success of similar programs in a Nordic country a few years ago (cannot recall the country nor find the article at the moment).

Can Wearable Technology Prevent Murders? | Co.Exist | ideas + impact

And this one
http://ctmirror.org/2013/09/04/gps-ankle-bracelets-reduce-domestic-violence-injuries-connecticut/


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> Far more money needs to put towards ending and even more importantly preventing violence. At what costs someone's life? Not just when talking about domestic violence, however that is the topic at hand.
> 
> This article is about America however I first read of the success of similar programs in a Nordic country a few years ago (cannot recall the country nor find the article at the moment).
> 
> Can Wearable Technology Prevent Murders? | Co.Exist | ideas + impact
> 
> And this one
> GPS ankle bracelets reduce domestic violence injuries in Connecticut | The CT Mirror




I thought so. Your security comes at the cost of my rights.

Because the number of women who can and will cite fake abuse statistics is pretty high. Get the right judge, and suddenly I got a ankle bracelet and a presumption of guilt.

Hmm.

Pass.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> Something *is* done about it!
> 
> It is a crime. Men who do this are put in jail. We teach our kids to not hit girls and we socially ostracize women beaters. We have bent our legal system to give significant benefit of the doubt to women on domestic violence encounters (though gamers are going to game the system)
> 
> So...what ELSE do you want us to do? Shock collars for all men that women are allowed to have universal remotes to them?
> 
> Men permanently having their hands wrapped in bubble wrap?
> 
> 
> Jeez.


Really? Because apparently you can hit a woman, knock her out cold, and have it all on tape and only end up with a requirement that you get counseling. Not much of a message that DV is unacceptable.


----------



## Cletus

Tall Average Guy said:


> Really? Because apparently you can hit a woman, knock her out cold, and have it all on tape and only end up with a requirement that you get counseling. Not much of a message that DV is unacceptable.


If that particular victim had decided to press charges, I'm sure more than counseling would have been involved. The hit-ee has to also consider it a crime. Witness the legal status of MMA.


----------



## larry.gray

Cletus said:


> If that particular victim had decided to press charges, I'm sure more than counseling would have been involved. The hit-ee has to also consider it a crime. Witness the legal status of MMA.


I was a juror on a case where the wife didn't want to press charges. She was a hostile witness to the process. Her husband beat the crap out of her in front of their kids. 

IIRC, he ended up serving 5+ years on it. Unanimous verdict, regardless of gender too.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> I thought so. Your security comes at the cost of my rights.
> 
> Because the number of women who can and will cite fake abuse statistics is pretty high. Get the right judge, and suddenly I got a ankle bracelet and a presumption of guilt.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Pass.


Ahhh right. Why then has this program been so successful in reducing violence and deaths.? 

The evidence has to be there and there has to be a risk involved. These men are repeat offenders I believe. 

Pity you don't think of it terms of the rights of women and children to be safe from harm. 

But no let's make sure violent sadistic abusers feel good about themselves. 

As for the false claims pffft it's very difficult to get enough proof. But don't let the truth get in the way of good poor menz story.


----------



## naiveonedave

*LittleDeer* said:


> Ahhh right. Why then has this program been so successful in reducing violence and deaths.?
> 
> The evidence has to be there and there has to be a risk involved. These men are repeat offenders I believe.
> 
> Pity you don't think of it terms of the rights of women and children to be safe from harm.
> 
> But no let's make sure violent sadistic abusers feel good about themselves.
> 
> As for the false claims pffft it's very difficult to get enough proof. But don't let the truth get in the way of good poor menz story.


just because it works, doesn't make it not violate due process, etc. Using that logic, we should make it okay for mandatory strip searches leaving the mall, just to catch those pesky shop lifters.

and yes, women use these type of laws to game the system, to think otherwise is incredibly naive.


----------



## chillymorn

Wives Also Kill Husbands--Quite Often 

by Alan M. Dershowitz I goggled wives murdering husbands verse husbands murdering wives. It came up with a bunch of hit and the most interesting one was women are more likely to kill their children the men and the stats on who kill who are much closer than you would imagine.


if you watch any forensic shows .....I know its tv but I am amazed at how many women kill their husbands. slow and methodical. I guess if you poison someone its not violence so no need to account for it.


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> Ahhh right. Why then has this program been so successful in reducing violence and deaths.?
> 
> The evidence has to be there and there has to be a risk involved. These men are repeat offenders I believe.
> 
> Pity you don't think of it terms of the rights of women and children to be safe from harm.
> 
> But no let's make sure violent sadistic abusers feel good about themselves.
> 
> As for the false claims pffft it's very difficult to get enough proof. But don't let the truth get in the way of good poor menz story.


Okay.

IIRC, you are married. Maybe you have a son. Certainly a nephew or two. Go out right this minute and put a GPS recorder on his ankle! You are PROTECTING him from any kind of nonsensical charges where he wasn't where he says he was. It will also make him constantly mindful about what he is and is not allowed to do. It will virtually assure he is never a rapist, particularly if you add a VAR to the deal.

Do you think he will thank you? 

Because you are doing the exact same thing I am: picking winners and loser of 'the civil rights balancing act'. You are saying men deserve to have theirs taken away.

Except in this case, an accusation or a restraining order is now sufficient to treat a man like he is an actual criminal.

And read this sentence again:



> As for the false claims pffft it's very difficult to get enough proof.


So what you are saying is, since evidence is difficult to get, we should just take the word of one person over another. Since if we dont' have proof, that is what we are left going with.

There is a Lion in Venice where a man would write down an accusation against his neighbor and throw it into the mouth of the statue...and that person disapeared and was questioned. Not nicely.

That is the exact same attitude. Some animals are more equal than other animals. And it's gender biased. Cause a woman would NEVER lie.

Like Sabrina Erdely and Jackie of UVA fame. Like that Duke stripper.

If you keep suggesting that a woman's word is better than a man's word, you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in these cases. Cause most of the women I've met have lied to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe little things. Maybe big. But I've caught most of them lying...so I do not have the confidence in your gender you do. (That men also lie is irrelvent. Unlike you, I am not asserting some superior honesty in men to penalize women)


It is telling that that cop who had that clipping had it for a few decades. Policing and the laws have changed quite a bit since then.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD, I'm not sure you understand how it all goes down. But anyway, if my son turns out, jebus forbid, to be a woman beater and stalker then yes I would want him monitored. By your logic no one should go to jail either because they have civil rights. 

If a man breaks the law and beats up a woman and is at high risk of stalking her and doing it again or worse killing her, then her rights to live safely should trump the criminals rights to do as they please, which happen to often include breaking the law by further beating or killing. 

I am not saying since evidence is difficult to get that we should just believe anything. I am saying the cases that do go to court usually have a lot of evidence. Therefore the person wearing the anklet is very definitely deserving of wearing it. 

All it does is stop him from stalking and killing her or beating her. He can still live his life. 

So many women and children cannot live their lives for fear of being harmed. 

The fact that you would rather protect an abuser speaks volumes. And is quite frankly alarming.


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> JCD, I'm not sure you understand how it all goes down. But anyway, if my son turns out, jebus forbid, to be a woman beater and stalker then yes I would want him monitored. By your logic no one should go to jail either because they have civil rights.
> 
> If a man breaks the law and beats up a woman and is at high risk of stalking her and doing it again or worse killing her, then her rights to live safely should trump the criminals rights to do as they please, which happen to often include breaking the law by further beating or killing.
> 
> I am not saying since evidence is difficult to get that we should just believe anything. I am saying the cases that do go to court usually have a lot of evidence. Therefore the person wearing the anklet is very definitely deserving of wearing it.
> 
> All it does is stop him from stalking and killing her or beating her. He can still live his life.
> 
> So many women and children cannot live their lives for fear of being harmed.
> 
> The fact that you would rather protect an abuser speaks volumes. And is quite frankly alarming.


No. I am not about 'protecting abusers'.

I am against stating that one person has greater civil rights than another person.

Cause guess what? If you gather lots of evidence about a DV person, guess where he goes (IF the woman will testify against him) He goes to jail. And I am pretty sure a person in jail is no threat to a woman's life.

But he gets out...and..?

Did he turn his life around? Maybe. Maybe not. But here is the thing: HE PAID HIS PRICE. That is how the system works. You want to advocate for longer jail sentences for abusers? Fine. Want to mandate a death penalty for abusers? Fine.

You want to take a man who paid his lump of mud and treat him like pond scum forever? 

Well...we got some debating to do.

And my hesitation isn't so much for a CRIMINALIZED person. It is that the push will be 'anyone who gets a restraining order against him will be tagged like an animal'. That is not up for debate NOW...but I can see that coming.

It is that slippery slope that women seem to constantly find "Think of the children. Think of the women!" I.E. they matter more than anyone else.

Since I am 'anyone else' I got a problem with this.

This is like that 'affirmative consent' law, where men are essentially criminalized if, when asked, a woman does anything except jump up and down saying 'YES YES YES...I'm glad he f***ed me and I don't have a single regret!"

Except the cutting of male rights in now outside of the courts...where they have almost no legal effective legal protections.

Cause everyone is thinking of the women...but no one is thinking of their sons.


----------



## JCD

Let me suggest a civil rights experiment for you Little Deer.

Go to Radio Shack or Walmart and pick up a voice activated recorder which has 168 hours of memory. It shouldn't cost much.

Then...put the batteries in, and carry it around with you for a week, never turning it off. 

Try to live you normal life. See how many times you hesitate to say something or to go somewhere which you would normally not hesitate to go if you were unmonitored.

You SAY it will have no effect on anyone's life. Try living like that for a week.

Then lecture me on how benign it is.


----------



## chillymorn

So many women and children cannot live their lives for fear of being harmed. 

so many is a pretty vague comment.

I don't think that the whole of society should lose basic human rights for the few who fall into this category. 

I mean really statistically speaking are we talking about 1%,5%,10%

the price of living in a free society is the ugliness that comes along with it.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> Let me suggest a civil rights experiment for you Little Deer.
> 
> Go to Radio Shack or Walmart and pick up a voice activated recorder which has 168 hours of memory. It shouldn't cost much.
> 
> Then...put the batteries in, and carry it around with you for a week, never turning it off.
> 
> Try to live you normal life. See how many times you hesitate to say something or to go somewhere which you would normally not hesitate to go if you were unmonitored.
> 
> You SAY it will have no effect on anyone's life. Try living like that for a week.
> 
> Then lecture me on how benign it is.



If I break the law and harm people I deserve to punished for that. Personally I have no need for it because I've never beaten anyone up, I've never stalked anyone and I've never tried killing my spouse or ex. 

So if someone breaks the law are you saying they should have all their rights? Or is it only men and women who do things you decide are worthy of punishment and what type of punishment? 

It is a type of punishment given to men who have broken the law, particularly those who have done it before and have shown they are Lin a high risk category of killing their spouse or ex. 

Please tell me why they the offenders who have broken the law should have more rights then their ex wives or girlfriends or children who have been on the receiving end of vicious attacks?

I find it unbelievable and scary that some would protect the law breakers rights over the persons who needs to be protected. But screw them they're only women and children right?


----------



## naiveonedave

*LittleDeer* said:


> So if someone breaks the law are you saying they should have all their rights? Or is it only men and women who do things you decide are worthy of punishment and what type of punishment?
> 
> 
> I find it unbelievable and scary that some would protect the law breakers rights over the persons who needs to be protected. But screw them they're only women and children right?


It is just that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. Like,how our legal system is based on that principle.

Once convicted, toss the key away, but until then, the accusor should not have more rights than the accused.


----------



## DoF

It seems like many of you don't understand American society.

America is more of a "do whatever and don't get caught" vs "don't do illegal stuff to begin with".

It's in bedded in our culture. From politicians to business to people......

It's the American way.

Think about it, entities/people that do the worst crimes hardly ever get punished or face consequences. Look at Enron, Bush......Corporations.......many of them get away with just about ANYTHING. They don't go BY LAWS. They do whatever and throw money/lawyers at the problem to wiggle out.

Meanwhile, we have tons of people being arrested and going to jail for pot possession.

In America, justice is "for sale". Those with money buy justice, and those without money suffer from it.

Accept the facts, it's easier that way.


----------



## larry.gray

This isn't the poltics board Dof. It dilutes your point too, naming a specific president loses 50% of those you're trying to sway. Now if you said the lawlessness of Obama, you get the other 50%.

This isn't the invitation to more political posturing to argue who of the last two are the most lawlesss: suffice it to say just that it is a DEEP divide.


----------



## chillymorn

naiveonedave said:


> It is just that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. Like,how our legal system is based on that principle.
> 
> Once convicted, toss the key away, but until then, the accusor should not have more rights than the accused.


wish I could like this a million times!


----------



## Cletus

*LittleDeer* said:


> As for the false claims pffft it's very difficult to get enough proof. But don't let the truth get in the way of good poor menz story.


The safest thing we could do for women would be to execute all male babies at birth, or realistically after we've allowed them to grow to puberty in pens where we can harvest their sperm.

And I mean that. If women's safety is the only consideration, we would do well to completely eliminate men from society. 

Clearly efficacy isn't the only metric we use to decide if a course of action is worth the doing. In the case of an ankle bracelet, I would hope that at a minimum a restraining order signed by a judge is in place before we start shackling men who have not yet been convicted of a crime.


----------



## GTdad

Cletus said:


> If women's safety is the only consideration, we would do well to completely eliminate men from society.


Maybe, but for the fact that women in lesbian relationships are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women in heterosexual relationships, according to the CDC and a woman's advocacy group.

Now THERE'S a conundrum, eh Little Deer?


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> If I break the law and harm people I deserve to punished for that. Personally I have no need for it because I've never beaten anyone up, I've never stalked anyone and I've never tried killing my spouse or ex.
> 
> So if someone breaks the law are you saying they should have all their rights? Or is it only men and women who do things you decide are worthy of punishment and what type of punishment?
> 
> It is a type of punishment given to men who have broken the law, particularly those who have done it before and have shown they are Lin a high risk category of killing their spouse or ex.
> 
> Please tell me why they the offenders who have broken the law should have more rights then their ex wives or girlfriends or children who have been on the receiving end of vicious attacks?
> 
> I find it unbelievable and scary that some would protect the law breakers rights over the persons who needs to be protected. But screw them they're only women and children right?



Do you know the heart of every offender? Do you? One hundred percent?

How many domestic violence offenders are recidivists? How many stop? How do you tell the one from the other?

YOU, Little Deer, have lied to someone. You have stolen from someone. Maybe it wasn't much, but it happened. It's the human condition.

So...should I treat you as a liar and a thief for the rest of your life based on a single act? If you get punished for breaking your curfew, should you constantly be grounded 'just in case' or is the punishment ever allowed to end?

Greg beats his wife. He gets thrown in jail for his 2-5 years. He gets out. Yes, he has a felony record and he can't own a gun but THAT'S IT! He did wrong. He was punished.

Now, if Greg goes hunting his family immediately, maybe we lower the burden of proof a bit for him. Make avoidance of his family as part of his parole conditions.

But honestly, you are missing the point. You are, once again, advocating that women and children are more important. When you hold that standard (they are more important than criminals...now they are more important than Dad's ability to afford an apartment...now they are so important that if ANYONE thinks he is a danger to them, he needs to be slapped with a GPS anklet. And since we can't trust the abused women to make that call, maybe we use the handy dandy unbiased opinion of a feminist to make that call...)

There is a slippery slope here.

I once again challenge you to try to live that life with the VAR for a week. When we put a invisible fence around our house to keep the dog in, I shocked myself and I had my kids semi voluntarily shock themselves with so they know what they were willing to inflict on the dog. (Wife is more important than all that. She eschewed...kind of like you)

Yes, the dog still got the collar...but it was a learning experience for all of us.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Cletus said:


> If that particular victim had decided to press charges, I'm sure more than counseling would have been involved. The hit-ee has to also consider it a crime. Witness the legal status of MMA.


The victim cooperating is needed because there are no other witnesses.

Here, we have the video tape leading up to and showing him knocking her out.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> Cause guess what? If you gather lots of evidence about a DV person, guess where he goes (IF the woman will testify against him) He goes to jail. And I am pretty sure a person in jail is no threat to a woman's life.


Actually, they tend to get counseling and the like. Even a videotape is useless.



> This is like that 'affirmative consent' law, where men are essentially criminalized if, when asked, a woman does anything except jump up and down saying 'YES YES YES...I'm glad he f***ed me and I don't have a single regret!"


You should read up about that affirmative consent is actually about. It is not criminalizing men.


----------



## naiveonedave

Tall Average Guy said:


> You should read up about that affirmative consent is actually about. It is not criminalizing men.


I have, it is. It puts all the onus on a man to prove that consensual sex was consensual. That is guilty before proven innocent, not the other way around.


----------



## vellocet

Just imagine the hornets nest that would have been opened up if the title was



> *Have You Ever Beat Up A Girlfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have*



Sorry, but I'm not seeing the outrage that I expected....or maybe I really shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

naiveonedave said:


> I have, it is. It puts all the onus on a man to prove that consensual sex was consensual. That is guilty before proven innocent, not the other way around.


By "affirmative consent" definition, I've been raped many times. She takes it upon herself to go down on me, or takes my pants off and climbs on top while I lay there.

Honestly, I think it's pretty stupid really. Because even after giving consent, a participant may withdraw it at any time... so you haven't really solved anything. Saying "yes" doesn't mean you can't at any time then say "no"... so ultimately, resistance is still required imo.


----------



## Forest

Have we broken into cases where interventions have taken place, warnings sound like claxons, and danger is obviously close at hand, but it is all ignored by a female that chooses to return to her abuser?

What to do there?

In the Ray Rice case, his wife has been instrumental in minimizing the assault and pushing to have the charges resolved without a trial. He was indicted for a felonious assault, that could have sent him to prison, then received his deferred sentence through a pre-trial program. A sweetheart deal, for sure, but I cannot imagine that happening without the full support of his wife.

You other option? Send it to trial, with his wife crying on the stand in his behalf? Both stink. His "maleness" was way down the list on why he got the deal. Behind, "wife won't cooperate-hostile" "big time star athlete" "more lawyers than John Gotti", and "news media will make life hell".


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Forest said:


> You other option? Send it to trial, with his wife crying on the stand in his behalf? Both stink. His "maleness" was way down the list on why he got the deal. Behind, "wife won't cooperate-hostile" "big time star athlete" "more lawyers than John Gotti", and "news media will make life hell".


How about a system that does not take DV nearly as seriously as we like to pretend it does?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

naiveonedave said:


> I have, it is. It puts all the onus on a man to prove that consensual sex was consensual. That is guilty before proven innocent, not the other way around.


Again, please look into what it really means, not what you favorite media source tells you it means.


----------



## vellocet

Tall Average Guy said:


> Again, please look into what it really means, not what you favorite media source tells you it means.


So a guy and gal get drunk, have sex, no consent was given.

Both of them say they didn't give consent and both say they were sexually assaulted.

Who do you think is going to get put in jail?


----------



## vellocet

And here we have a thread about women beating men.

How did it get turned around on men yet once again?


----------



## As'laDain

according to the army, my wife and i rape each other on a regular basis. 

cuz, you know, you cant give consent if you have had anything to drink. 

if they both want it before they get drunk, does it count as consensual non-consent?

it works for BDSM, does it work for alcohol?


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> Again, please look into what it really means, not what you favorite media source tells you it means.


It means that if his date has one drink (1) he opens himself up to a rape charge since consent is not available if she is 'intoxicated' (such a fine vague word...)

It means that in every single instance in the sexual act, he needs to determine if she in thought, word or deed withdraws consent no matter where he happens to be in the cycle of coitus. Anything less than instant withdrawal is grounds for rape.

She needs to be cold stone sober and she needs to SAY 'yes, I want to have sex with you.' (He is allowed to assume nothing)

AND...if there is any question about consent, anyone can make a report to the college authorities (there is at least one story where a stridently feminist professor brought up charges the GIRL DID NOT WANT MADE, on her own to run the guy off campus. She succeeded, btw)

The college authorities who are not investigators, who are not lawyers and who are not judges, start determining what they will do with him (she will get all the coddling and grief counseling she wants. They'll probably have a candle vigil for her)

They will outline all the horrible horrible things that will happen if this gets input into the system....OR...maybe he can go somewhere else for a semester. Anywhere else.

Appeals? What do they look like, a court? He can sue and that's it and he is going to have just as hard a time getting evidence for him as a rape victim has. He has to prove she said yes. Do you think he carries a VAR with him (college men...I am offering a discount on these fine discreet VARs with lapel mikes for your dating convenience...for a low $99 per. Cheap when compared to lost tuition!)

So instead of thinking of a rosy wonderful way that this MIGHT work in Utopia...think of all the ways it can go wrong. Because they are many.


----------



## Forest

So, it looks like to be safe, the best course of action would be to film every moment of every encounter with the opposite sex, and keep a library until the statutes run.

That could raise all kinds of other problems, though. Well, maybe kids will wait till marriage now, just to avoid prison.


----------



## naiveonedave

Tall Average Guy said:


> Again, please look into what it really means, not what you favorite media source tells you it means.


I have read the proposed policies and laws ad naseum to help protect my teenage boys. I don't take my bill of rights as lightly as you do. We disagree, primarily on right to be presumed innocent. Sorry won't be attacked for believing that.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

vellocet said:


> So a guy and gal get drunk, have sex, no consent was given.
> 
> Both of them say they didn't give consent and both say they were sexually assaulted.
> 
> Who do you think is going to get put in jail?


What does this have to do with affirmative consent? How are the results different now than they were without it?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> It means that if his date has one drink (1) he opens himself up to a rape charge since consent is not available if she is 'intoxicated' (such a fine vague word...)


That was there prior to affirmative consent.



> It means that in every single instance in the sexual act, he needs to determine if she in thought, word or deed withdraws consent no matter where he happens to be in the cycle of coitus. Anything less than instant withdrawal is grounds for rape.


That was there as well.



> She needs to be cold stone sober and she needs to SAY 'yes, I want to have sex with you.' (He is allowed to assume nothing).


Not true.



> AND...if there is any question about consent, anyone can make a report to the college authorities (there is at least one story where a stridently feminist professor brought up charges the GIRL DID NOT WANT MADE, on her own to run the guy off campus. She succeeded, btw)


That was there prior to affirmative consent.



> The college authorities who are not investigators, who are not lawyers and who are not judges, start determining what they will do with him (she will get all the coddling and grief counseling she wants. They'll probably have a candle vigil for her)


That was there prior to affirmative consent.



> They will outline all the horrible horrible things that will happen if this gets input into the system....OR...maybe he can go somewhere else for a semester. Anywhere else.


That was there prior to affirmative consent.



> Appeals? What do they look like, a court? He can sue and that's it and he is going to have just as hard a time getting evidence for him as a rape victim has. He has to prove she said yes. Do you think he carries a VAR with him (college men...I am offering a discount on these fine discreet VARs with lapel mikes for your dating convenience...for a low $99 per. Cheap when compared to lost tuition!)


That was there prior to affirmative consent.



> So instead of thinking of a rosy wonderful way that this MIGHT work in Utopia...think of all the ways it can go wrong. Because they are many.


That was there prior to affirmative consent.

What affirmative consent is about is getting rid of "she did not say no" as a defense. It prevents guys from preying on falling down drunk girls and saying she never said no, so it was not rape. 

You really need to get your facts straight. None of the rest of your issues have anything to do with it. They are all problems already in the system. No issues with trying to address and fix these. But wrapping yourself up in the cloak of victimhood is unbecoming of a man.


----------



## vellocet

Tall Average Guy said:


> What does this have to do with affirmative consent?


If you have to ask, never mind. Just ignore the question for obvious reasons.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

naiveonedave said:


> I have read the proposed policies and laws ad naseum to help protect my teenage boys. I don't take my bill of rights as lightly as you do. We disagree, primarily on right to be presumed innocent. Sorry won't be attacked for believing that.


Who said I take it lightly? As noted, affirmative consent has nothing to do with that.

But keep on playing the victim. Unfortunately, men are getting better at that every day.


----------



## ocotillo

As'laDain said:


> ...it works for BDSM, does it work for alcohol?


There's a layperson's misconception in BDSM circles that contracts make things legal. (An idea that appears in Fifty Shades Of Grey)


----------



## naiveonedave

Tall Average Guy said:


> What affirmative consent is about is getting rid of "she did not say no" as a defense. It prevents guys from preying on falling down drunk girls and saying she never said no, so it was not rape.
> 
> You really need to get your facts straight. None of the rest of your issues have anything to do with it. They are all problems already in the system. No issues with trying to address and fix these. But wrapping yourself up in the cloak of victimhood is unbecoming of a man.


all she has to do is retract. These laws add nothing, except make it incredibly easy to arrest a man, guility or not, and this tosses his life into chaos. He will likely be expelled from college (almost for sure), lose his job if employeed in a large company, etc. WITH NO DUE PROCESS. 

The fact that you questioned Vellocet, implies you have not read any of these laws or policies. Rape is abhorrent, but it should not be treated any different than any other crime in the US.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

naiveonedave said:


> all she has to do is retract. These laws add nothing, except make it incredibly easy to arrest a man, guility or not, and this tosses his life into chaos. He will likely be expelled from college (almost for sure), lose his job if employeed in a large company, etc. WITH NO DUE PROCESS.


She could have done that before. 



> The fact that you questioned Vellocet, implies you have not read any of these laws or policies.


Really, challenging an assumption implies ignorance? That speaks of group think from an echo chamber. But if he does not want to address a question when challenged, it sure implies he does not have the background either.



> Rape is abhorrent, but it should not be treated any different than any other crime in the US.


I agree. But if it is not asking to much, perhaps we can do it for both the accused and the victim.


----------



## vellocet

Tall Average Guy said:


> You should read up about that affirmative consent is actually about. *It is not criminalizing men.*





Tall Average Guy said:


> What affirmative consent is about is getting rid of "she did not say no" as a defense. It prevents guys from preying on falling down drunk girls and saying she never said no, so it was not rape.






> You really need to get your facts straight.


 :slap:

So it isn't criminalizing men. But wait, it is.

Which "fact" do you want to choose here? Pick one and please stick with it.

So here again, this is what I was getting at with my question.

If you have 2 drunk people that have sex, neither of them consented, if there is a complaint, who do you think is going to jail? Who do you think is going to be branded the criminal?


----------



## naiveonedave

Tall Average Guy said:


> She could have done that before.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, challenging an assumption implies ignorance? That speaks of group think from an echo chamber. But if he does not want to address a question when challenged, it sure implies he does not have the background either.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But if it is not asking to much, perhaps we can do it for both the accused and the victim.


OK, TAG - muder is way worse. BUT WE DON"T DO A D&*MN THING ABOUT IT. WE DON"T DO A THING. We don't change the laws to violate basic rights for worse crimes, so why are we doing it for any crimes. Purely a man hating law.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Tall Average Guy said:


> What affirmative consent is about is getting rid of "she did not say no" as a defense. It prevents guys from preying on falling down drunk girls and saying she never said no, so it was not rape.
> 
> You really need to get your facts straight. None of the rest of your issues have anything to do with it. They are all problems already in the system. No issues with trying to address and fix these. But wrapping yourself up in the cloak of victimhood is unbecoming of a man.


Actually, you're the one confused. California penal code defines a man having sex with a woman who is so intoxicated that she is incapable of resisting, as the crime of rape. Why should civil, educational policy be rewritten to accommodate something that is already criminal? Rather than worry that she will encounter her rapist in class, a victim under your scenario can simply call the police and have her rapist imprisoned for several years.

So, your support for the California law obviously doesn't have anything to do with protecting "falling down drunk girls." For some other reason, you support a policy that would turn almost all sexual behavior into a civil offense worthy of forfeiting one's education. Why?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

One of the interesting things about the new law is that, while it is obviously intended to require men obtaining consent from women, it isn't written that way. It is written in a manner that is gender neutral.

In other words, if a man and woman meet on campus, go back to one's flat, and have sex with the man asking for permission every step of the way, just as the legislators intended, if the woman only gave her consent to each step and didn't obtain the man's consent, she is guilty of the civil offense of sexual assault and should be expelled.

I wonder if any Black Knights will be willing to seduce a woman who supports the bill, only to accuse her of raping him? I imagine at least one will. And the college, if it insists on due process and common sense, will be opening itself up to a Title IX lawsuit.


----------



## As'laDain

ocotillo said:


> There's a layperson's misconception in BDSM circles that contracts make things legal. (An idea that appears in Fifty Shades Of Grey)


then what do the contracts do? if there is a standing agreement that the woman wants her man to just "take her", even if she is screaming no, and the agreement does not make it legal for him to do so, then what is it for?

in that case, the consentual sexual practice itself would be illegal. 

just like when my wife and i drink together, if our agreement is that we both want to have sex after we drink a few drinks, and yet we are not legally permitted to give consent after we drink, then what is the point of prior consent?

affirmative consent is at full work in BDSM when they actually hash out an agreement, or "contract". 
it does not prevent one or both partners changing their mind half way through, but if the agreement is followed to the letter, then what is the crime?

affirmative consent is great for eliminating confusion, and i agree that consent cannot be given by someone who is already completely wasted, but the way the army explains it, consent is null and void once we start drinking. which, in my opinion, is taking it too far. 

it means we arent allowed the freedom to conduct ourselves the way we both agree that we want.


----------



## vellocet

Yup, this is what it will end up coming to folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk


----------



## ocotillo

As'laDain said:


> then what do the contracts do?


In impersonal relationships where the dominant is being paid for their services, I would guess that a contract would probably indemnify them to some extent against civil claims stemming from minor injuries.

I would guess that contracts probably also serve a purpose as a prop in the scenario. --Sort of a mental form of handcuffs or soft rope if you will. 



As'laDain said:


> If there is a standing agreement that the woman wants her man to just "take her", even if she is screaming no, and the agreement does not make it legal for him to do so, then what is it for?


A good rule of thumb for laypersons is that basic human rights can't be negotiated away by private agreement. Contract law does not trump criminal law and usury does not become legal just because someone has agreed in writing to pay an illegal interest rate. 

When it comes to taking a woman who's screaming, "No," (Because she likes it that way..) a lot ultimately comes down to how well you know each other and how much you trust each other. 





As'laDain said:


> ...just like when my wife and i drink together, if our agreement is that we both want to have sex after we drink a few drinks, and yet we are not legally permitted to give consent after we drink, then what is the point of prior consent?


--Not an attorney, but I think one thing that gets blurred in these discussions is disparity of intoxication as a criteria for prosecution. If two people get buzzed together and then have sex, that's drunken sex. If one person is stone, cold sober and the other person is staggering, unable to dial a cell phone drunk, then that's a big, big problem. 

I also don't believe that the rules of affirmative consent really extend into marriage because of the presumption of consent in marriage. With a few obvious exceptions, a stranger has to tell you, "Yes" if they're willing and with a few obvious exceptions, your spouse has to tell you, "No" if they're not.


----------



## Retribution

By requiring an affirmative consent for sex to be not rape, it turns the act of sex into something more of a clinical activity to be done under the express approval of our "loving and caring" governments. It also still has a "his word vs. her word" which creates it's own problem. What do we do about that? I know, since we're being ridiculous about what is required to have sex not be rape, let's require a form that needs to be filled out, in triplicate, and then submitted to the state and federal governments. The government Rape Watch Department will then contact you in 10-21 business days and let you know if the forms were filled correctly, and consent has been officially given. Consent is good for 1 hour after the time noted in the form, and can be rescinded at any time. If intercourse occurs at any point before approval of the form, then charges can be pressed against the party who initiated. Initiation forms can be acquired online or at any District Court. (For the reading impaired this is hyperbole, and I recognize it. I'm using it to make a point)

I understand that rape victims need power. I know one who never pressed charges because she was afraid of seeing her abuser in court, and she was afraid of him retaliating. I don't however see a point in giving that power *in a way that can easily abuse the rights of the accused*, which Affirmative Consent does. If it is to be done, then this is certainly not the best way.

The way the Affirmative Consent law is written, then most adults are rapists and are guilty of sexual assault...including women. In the hands of an angry lover or somebody who just regrets having sex (not equating this to rape, and I can't believe I have to spell this out for those who like to draw conclusions too quickly into what I wrote) this can cause a lot of destruction to somebody who really acted with no malicious intent. It's just a bad idea.

Edit: I noticed vellocet posted pretty much what I just wrote. I miss the Chappelle Show.


----------



## vellocet

Me: Can I touch your breast

Her: Yes

Me: Can I take your clothes off?

Her: Yes

Me: Can I do the dive?

Her: Yes

Me: Can I penetrate?

Her: Yes

2 Minutes later

Me: Can I continue to have sex with you?

Her: Yes

2 Minutes later

Me: Can I turn you over?

Her: Yes

Me: Can I keep going?

Her: Yes


Really? Is this what it is going to come to? Consent every step of the way?

What the F is the matter with when in the heat of the moment it up to the person NOT wanting to do something to say when its not ok?


----------



## JCD

vellocet said:


> Me: Can I touch your breast
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> Me: Can I take your clothes off?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> Me: Can I do the dive?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> Me: Can I penetrate?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> 2 Minutes later
> 
> Me: Can I continue to have sex with you?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> 2 Minutes later
> 
> Me: Can I turn you over?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> Me: Can I keep going?
> 
> Her: Yes
> 
> 
> Really? Is this what it is going to come to? Consent every step of the way?
> 
> What the F is the matter with when in the heat of the moment it up to the person NOT wanting to do something to say when its not ok?



Note: She never got a yes from HIM.

I do hope a few legalistic a-holes run some cases to mess up the lives of a few girls. (there are always a few of them around)

Because the presumption is that they guy is guilty without a yes (because saying 'no' is so bloody hard) even if she is responding positively.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

vellocet said:


> So it isn't criminalizing men. But wait, it is.
> 
> 
> Which "fact" do you want to choose here? Pick one and please stick with it.


It is not criminalizing men, it is criminalizing behavior.



> So here again, this is what I was getting at with my question.
> 
> If you have 2 drunk people that have sex, neither of them consented, if there is a complaint, who do you think is going to jail? Who do you think is going to be branded the criminal?


And my point remains that affirmative consent does not change who gets charged in this scenario?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

naiveonedave said:


> OK, TAG - muder is way worse. BUT WE DON"T DO A D&*MN THING ABOUT IT. WE DON"T DO A THING. We don't change the laws to violate basic rights for worse crimes, so why are we doing it for any crimes. Purely a man hating law.


Actually, we change the laws all the time for different crimes. We alter the mind set for different charges. We have changed laws to note that being drunk does not prevent a murder charge for driving a vehicle. We have changed the age of consent.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Actually, you're the one confused. California penal code defines a man having sex with a woman who is so intoxicated that she is incapable of resisting, as the crime of rape. Why should civil, educational policy be rewritten to accommodate something that is already criminal? Rather than worry that she will encounter her rapist in class, a victim under your scenario can simply call the police and have her rapist imprisoned for several years.


Perhaps to make sure their policies conform with the law?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

> I do hope a few legalistic a-holes run some cases to mess up the lives of a few girls. (there are always a few of them around)


And you wonder why women fear men's rights groups. Disgusting.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Rather than worry that she will encounter her rapist in class, a victim under your scenario can simply call the police and have her rapist imprisoned for several years.


Actually, I do think schools should be required to report this stuff to the police right away. One of the big problems is that too many of them sweep it under the rug, by ignoring it or quietly kicking folks off campus. They are not equipped to investigate and should leave it to the professionals.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, I do think schools should be required to report this stuff to the police right away. One of the big problems is that too many of them sweep it under the rug, by ignoring it or quietly kicking folks off campus. They are not equipped to investigate and should leave it to the professionals.


That is a legitimate fix.

That gives rights to the accused AND the victim.

That isn't anywhere near what they did.

Why didn't they do it that way?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, I do think schools should be required to report this stuff to the police right away. One of the big problems is that too many of them sweep it under the rug, by ignoring it or quietly kicking folks off campus. They are not equipped to investigate and should leave it to the professionals.


Police and prosecutors must operate under set rules giving the accused due process. Also, the standard of proof for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. All of that is completely contrary to the affirmative consent law and the movement behind it.

Also, people arguing against mandatory reporting laws state that women will be less likely to discuss their allegations if they know that the police will be notified. That may, or may not, be true. But I think that women know how to contact police if they want to pursue charges.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Tall Average Guy said:


> Perhaps to make sure their policies conform with the law?


The old policies already conformed with the criminal law. The new law isn't about closing a loophole. It's about redefining sexual assault into something entirely new. What used to be universally acknowledged as consensual sex is now being defined as non-consensual. At least on campuses. The legislators know better than to try to redefine consensual sex for the rest of the California public. For now.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Tall Average Guy said:


> And you wonder why women fear men's rights groups. Disgusting.


Interesting. One one hand, we have cases like "Jackie" from UVA inventing a rape hoax. And we have people with national platforms argue that it doesn't matter. We should still do away with due process for men and treat allegations as proof. On the other hand, we have some MRAs with much less exposure musing about hypothetical Black Knights hoisting feminists by their own petards. And one random internet commentator actually state that he hopes it happens. And it's the women who should be worried.


----------



## Cletus

The problem I have with active consent is that it puts the burden of obtaining consent on the person lacking the knowledge of when or where that consent is needed. Without a definition of which specific acts or behaviors require consent, a person is left with insufficient knowledge to fulfill the law.

Is it OK to touch your face? How about your shoulder? Your elbow? What about your butt? Your knees? You genitalia? Not only do I not implicitly know when I have your consent, since I am required to ask, I also don't necessarily know when I am even supposed to obtain that consent. With no definition of when consent must be obtained, even the most courteous and law-abiding young man could cross the line and never know because the young lady is no longer required to request he not do something. 

My auto mechanic and I have an active consent arrangement. He has to ask permission to do work on my vehicle above and beyond that to which we have already agreed. The criteria by which he determines if he should ask is simple and well understood - if it adds to the price of the job, ask. 

I will _never_ support an active consent law that does not also define in excruciating detail when precisely I am required to obtain consent. Anything short of that is legally useless.


----------



## Retribution

Cletus said:


> The problem I have with active consent is that it puts the burden of obtaining consent on the person lacking the knowledge of when or where that consent is needed. Without a definition of which specific acts or behaviors require consent, a person is left with insufficient knowledge to fulfill the law.
> 
> Is it OK to touch your face? How about your shoulder? Your elbow? What about your butt? Your knees? You genitalia? Not only do I not implicitly know when I have your consent, since I am required to ask, I also don't necessarily know when I am even supposed to obtain that consent. With no definition of when consent must be obtained, even the most courteous and law-abiding young man could cross the line and never know because the young lady is no longer required to request he not do something.
> 
> My auto mechanic and I have an active consent arrangement. He has to ask permission to do work on my vehicle above and beyond that to which we have already agreed. The criteria by which he determines if he should ask is simple and well understood - if it adds to the price of the job, ask.
> 
> I will _never_ support an active consent law that does not also define in excruciating detail when precisely I am required to obtain consent. Anything short of that is legally useless.


Good points, all. I have to add though that when we make these changes it also creates the problem of educating everyone as to the nature of the changes. I know that ignorance of the law is often no excuse, but as a society we'd owe it to the citizens to make sure that those who were at risk of being prosecuted know why. This adds to the severity of making changes in law. It should always be well thought out and never as part of a political move to gain votes, as is often the case. I'm not referring to consent law specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case here.

I'm a libertarian at heart, and as such, I feel that the government needs to keep their noses out of so much of our business. This law certainly puts them in our bedrooms more than I'd care for. Not for the first time I'm happy to not be a resident of California.


----------



## Thundarr

There's a distinction that some are missing. This law mandates university policies but it isn't criminal law. In other words universities can't convict anyone so this isn't about jail or sex offender registries.


----------



## Cletus

Thundarr said:


> There's a distinction that some are missing. This law mandates university policies but it isn't criminal law. In other words universities can't convict anyone so this isn't about jail or sex offender registries.


No, in fact it's worse. The university can take some pretty draconian measures in response to an accusation which the accused has no real means to challenge. There's no legal protection because he isn't in the criminal or civil court systems. At least he would have to be convicted by a judge and/or jury to wind up on a sex offender registry, and one could argue at that point that under our legal system the punishment was deserved.


----------



## vellocet

JCD said:


> Note: She never got a yes from HIM.


Ya, well, HE doesn't matter  Even though he was asking to proceed further, it wasn't a definite "YES" from him


----------



## Thundarr

Cletus said:


> No, in fact it's worse. The university can take some pretty draconian measures in response to an accusation which the accused has no real means to challenge. There's no legal protection because he isn't in the criminal or civil court systems. At least he would have to be convicted by a judge and/or jury to wind up on a sex offender registry, and one could argue at that point that under our legal system the punishment was deserved.


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

I think the wording needs tweaked. But even as it stands, I don't see where the bill's actually wording gives draconian measures to universities or takes away appeal options. It's clear that the bill was created to prevent passed out or falling down drunk women from being a target for sex. Of course arguments are made that these women shouldn't be passed out or incoherent around guys. Well ok then the same goes for guys. If some dude gets wasted around his buddys and wakes up with his rear end hurting then without this law, he apparently consented :smthumbup:. So think of all the college dudes this bill is helping out because now they don't have to worry about being violated.


----------



## vellocet

Tall Average Guy said:


> It is not criminalizing men, it is criminalizing behavior.


Men's behavior, thus making the man a criminal. So yes, criminalizing men.




> And my point remains that affirmative consent does not change who gets charged in this scenario?


Uh huh, that's why you said its about MEN and their behavior.

I won't hold my breath that a woman would ever be charged under this, even if a man issues a complaint.

But here you are, sidestepping the question again. I'll ask it one more time:

If you have 2 drunk people that have sex, neither of them consented, if there is a complaint, who do you think is going to jail? Who do you think is going to be branded the criminal?

If you sidestep this question again, the only logical conclusion is you are blowing smoke about the "facts" you are wanting everyone else to get straight.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Interesting. One one hand, we have cases like "Jackie" from UVA inventing a rape hoax. And we have people with national platforms argue that it doesn't matter. We should still do away with due process for men and treat allegations as proof. On the other hand, we have some MRAs with much less exposure musing about hypothetical Black Knights hoisting feminists by their own petards. And one random internet commentator actually state that he hopes it happens. And it's the women who should be worried.


And those folks who say that "Jackie" did not not matter were also disgusting. I have called that out as well.

But I note no one else had any problem with it here. Funny how the only concern is about what women do and say to poor oppressed men. If you want to convince others, you can't let that kind of crap go. Unless you agree with it.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

vellocet said:


> If you sidestep this question again, the only logical conclusion is you are blowing smoke about the "facts" you are wanting everyone else to get straight.


I am confused why not answering a question that can't meaningfully be answer and that does not address my point (and refusing to explain how it is relevant) is blowing smoke.


----------



## vellocet

Why don't you want to answer the question?


----------



## Thundarr

vellocet said:


> If you have 2 drunk people that have sex, neither of them consented, if there is a complaint, who do you think is going to jail? Who do you think is going to be branded the criminal?
> 
> If you sidestep this question again, the only logical conclusion is you are blowing smoke about the "facts" you are wanting everyone else to get straight.


I'm not TAG but I'll give my thought. For starters no one can go to jail because universities cannot prosecute. But that aside, universities can evoke penalty so I'll answer for the part they can do. He said / she said should come down to no action unless there are witnesses. But we should remember that universities prefer to keep the reports and violations down so maybe this law will push them to do one thing that will help all involved. They should come down hard on underage drinking and drinking on school grounds and coed dorms.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Thundarr said:


> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
> 
> I think the wording needs tweaked. But even as it stands, I don't see where the bill's actually wording gives draconian measures to universities or takes away appeal options.


It basically gives all the power to the schools and no due process to the accused. Many schools bar the accused from being represented by legal counsel. Most prevent the accused from interviewing the witnesses before the hearing, or from cross examining them during the hearing. And sure, you can appeal. And your appeal goes back to the body that just handed down the decision. It's the legal equivalent of asking, "Are you sure?" So good luck getting a decision reversed.



> It's clear that the bill was created to prevent passed out or falling down drunk women from being a target for sex. Of course arguments are made that these women shouldn't be passed out or incoherent around guys. Well ok then the same goes for guys. If some dude gets wasted around his buddys and wakes up with his rear end hurting then without this law, he apparently consented :smthumbup:. So think of all the college dudes this bill is helping out because now they don't have to worry about being violated.


Falling down drunk women and men are already protected by a much more harsh criminal rape statute. What I don't understand is the movement to say that rape is such a problem that we should stop trying to imprison rapists and simply make sure that they don't have college degrees. That makes no sense.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Tall Average Guy said:


> And those folks who say that "Jackie" did not not matter were also disgusting. I have called that out as well.


Great. That makes you unusual among those who support affirmative consent laws.



> But I note no one else had any problem with it here. Funny how the only concern is about what women do and say to poor oppressed men. If you want to convince others, you can't let that kind of crap go. Unless you agree with it.


I assume you're talking about MRAs discussing how the law could blow up in the face of women. While I don't support someone filing a false rape charge in order to make a political point, I don't even think that would be necessary. What woman, even in a passionless negotiation that constitutes affirmative consent, will think to obtain consent from the man? Hardly any. So, there will be no lying required. The Black Knight can simply run over to the Dean of Sex Policing the next day and tell the absolute truth that his sexual partner didn't obtain his consent.

As the affirmative consent supporters are fond of pointing out, we're not talking about throwing a woman in jail. We're simply discussing the minor inconvenience of denying her a college degree. So what's the harm, really? If it means one less "rapist" on our college campuses, is there any cost too high?


----------



## Thundarr

BronzeTorpedo said:


> It basically gives all the power to the schools and no due process to the accused. Many schools bar the accused from being represented by legal counsel. Most prevent the accused from interviewing the witnesses before the hearing, or from cross examining them during the hearing. And sure, you can appeal. And your appeal goes back to the body that just handed down the decision. It's the legal equivalent of asking, "Are you sure?" So good luck getting a decision reversed.
> 
> 
> Falling down drunk women and men are already protected by a much more harsh criminal rape statute. What I don't understand is the movement to say that rape is such a problem that we should stop trying to imprison rapists and simply make sure that they don't have college degrees. That makes no sense.


I'd like to see more verbiage added to the law regarding it's intent because you make some good points.

One thing I'm not sure about though is the already protected part. Sexual assaults on campus' is so much higher than the general population and schools have not protected their student body. One reason is that it's egg on their face so they rugsweep it to keep the school's good name. The law does address that.


----------



## GTdad

Thundarr said:


> I'd like to see more verbiage added to the law regarding it's intent because you make some good points.
> 
> One thing I'm not sure about though is the already protected part. Sexual assaults on campus' is so much higher than the general population and schools have not protected their student body. One reason is that it's egg on their face so they rugsweep it to keep the school's good name. The law does address that.


I guarantee you that we don't rugsweep it, if for no other reason than to save ourselves from the Title IX lawsuits, which along with pregnancy discrimination suits really, really tend to piss off juries.


----------



## Cletus

Thundarr said:


> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
> 
> I think the wording needs tweaked. But even as it stands, I don't see where the bill's actually wording gives draconian measures to universities or takes away appeal options.


These are the kinds of outcomes this bill will facilitate. 

College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> And you wonder why women fear men's rights groups. Disgusting.


When women's rights groups consistantly support laws which specfically penalize one gender (hint: not their own) they got no kick coming.

Mens rights groups didn't push for this law. They are kicking AGAINST this law inflicted upon them.

That the women may have to reap what they sow (because of the gender neutral nature they had to put as a hand wave to fairness) would be karma calling.

And you can be as disingenuous as you want, which only detracts from your honesty: this is primarily aimed at men and will never, short of these legalistic a-holes, ever be aimed at women and any charges brought agaist women ("She gave me a hummer while I slept and my GF found out and now we're broken up") will be ignored...because hey, men can't be raped by women. They always want it, amiright?

This is a disgusting law, that is true.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> And those folks who say that "Jackie" did not not matter were also disgusting. I have called that out as well.


What exactly did you 'call out' about Jackie?

But in Duke and the UVA case, the university did NOT do any investigation and just started throwing rulings around like a Committee of Public Safety in Revolutionary France, where innocence was not a defense.

This was also before affirmative consent. I submit affirmative consent, which MANDATES that these politicized hacks take up these issues (and not the cops) is going to make things worse...and all you are doing is saying 'no it won't' without providing any um...evidence.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am confused why not answering a question that can't meaningfully be answer and that does not address my point (and refusing to explain how it is relevant) is blowing smoke.



Answer the question!

Two people...both drunk. Both engage in PUBLIC sex. Neither got consent. It is witnessed and reported.

Who gets punished? Who gets a walk?

Because by your own biases, everything you've said is against men and protecting women.

So we actually know how this goes. You just don't want to admit it.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> One thing I'm not sure about though is the already protected part. Sexual assaults on campus' is so much higher than the general population and schools have not protected their student body. One reason is that it's egg on their face so they rugsweep it to keep the school's good name. The law does address that.


RAPES are lower on campus than in the general population. It's been established by the BOJ.

As far as 'sexual assaults', if you mean drunken kids flirting outrageously and someone getting into a bit of grab ass...yeah, that's probably a bit higher on campus because kids off campus are actually monitored more by parents and grown ups.

But that is the issue: 'sexual assault' has been expanded to stealing kisses and grab ass.

Do you think 'he stole a kiss' is justification for a march on the Bursar or a candle vigil? No? But dress that up with the phrase 'sexual assault' and who can be FOR sexual assault?

And you get to make up bogus 'one in five' stats.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Tall Average Guy said:


> And you wonder why women fear men's rights groups. Disgusting.


You are awesome. So refreshing to see posts from someone with a voice of reason. Thank you.


----------



## JCD

So, Little Deer. Let me ask you a question which you will refuse to answer.

If a woman does not get an affirmative consent from a man before sex, should she be treated like a rapist?


----------



## As'laDain

ocotillo said:


> In impersonal relationships where the dominant is being paid for their services, I would guess that a contract would probably indemnify them to some extent against civil claims stemming from minor injuries.
> 
> im not talking about prostitution. im talking about intimate couples who want to try something outside of their comfort zone, who arent sure how they will react to the fantasy being played out, so they write up a contract so that everyone involved knows exactly what behavior is expected and consented to.
> 
> 
> I would guess that contracts probably also serve a purpose as a prop in the scenario. --Sort of a mental form of handcuffs or soft rope if you will.
> exactly. but it also defines what behavior is expected.
> 
> 
> A good rule of thumb for laypersons is that basic human rights can't be negotiated away by private agreement. Contract law does not trump criminal law and usury does not become legal just because someone has agreed in writing to pay an illegal interest rate.
> agreed. but i think you would be hard pressed to name the basic human right negotiated away by a woman who says "i want to scream noooo! the next time we have sex, and i dont want you to stop unless i say jellybelly!"
> 
> When it comes to taking a woman who's screaming, "No," (Because she likes it that way..) a lot ultimately comes down to how well you know each other and how much you trust each other.
> and just as important, knowing exactly what is expected and consented to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Not an attorney, but I think one thing that gets blurred in these discussions is disparity of intoxication as a criteria for prosecution. If two people get buzzed together and then have sex, that's drunken sex. If one person is stone, cold sober and the other person is staggering, unable to dial a cell phone drunk, then that's a big, big problem.
> 
> my wife and i have been in that exact situation with each other, and neither of us felt violated. could we have cried rape on each other? probably, but we both went into it(prior to drinking) with a plan and agreement to have sex. gotta say though... drunk sex is not as good as tipsy sex. from either side of the coin
> 
> I also don't believe that the rules of affirmative consent really extend into marriage because of the presumption of consent in marriage. With a few obvious exceptions, a stranger has to tell you, "Yes" if they're willing and with a few obvious exceptions, your spouse has to tell you, "No" if they're not.
> 
> that would make sense, but, alas, in the army, they are pushing affirmative consent for married couples as well. which i find all fine and dandy, if not for that thing about not being able to drink and have sex with my wife... (which is ignored by every married couple i know)


----------



## Cletus

*LittleDeer* said:


> You are awesome. So refreshing to see posts from someone with a voice of reason. Thank you.


It is possible to be reasonable and in favor of protecting women from assault and abuse and still think affirmative consent is a flawed premise (and not just for women - for anyone). The two are not mutually exclusive, your derision to the contrary. 

I posted why I think it's a bad idea. With what part of that explanation did you take offense? I thought "no means no" was a pretty good policy myself.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> So, Little Deer. Let me ask you a question which you will refuse to answer.
> 
> If a woman does not get an affirmative consent from a man before sex, should she be treated like a rapist?


In my opinion it does not take much to get affirmation from your partner. So sure

I love this video. I will be showing my son this series when he's old enough. 
http://youtu.be/TD2EooMhqRI


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> In my opinion it does not take much to get affirmation from your partner. So sure
> 
> I love this video. I will be showing my son this series when he's old enough.
> http://youtu.be/TD2EooMhqRI


I watched the video. And as a lesson in how to stay in tune with your partner...great stuff. As a way to avoid a few pitfalls? Way to go Lace.

In her 'defining being pressured for sex as rape'....BUUUUULLLLLLSHHHHHIIIIIITTTTTT! Being asked or pressured for sex is not rape. It isn't close to rape. It is uncomfortable but it's not rape.

And then there is this nugget: 'Gee...I am a strong articulate female college student...and I don't know how to say no. I don't know how to articulate that this is not something I want.'

I could put a long line of ROFLMAO sigils to properly give that idea the respect it deserves, but instead, I will go to Megan Mcardle to do it for me.



> Twenty-five years after I registered for college, we're still searching for an alternative to the stark simplicity of "No." And unfortunately, there's just no substitute. If you want to "teach men not to rape" -- a formulation that floated around the Internet a lot in the days after the Rolling Stone story was published -- then you need to give them a rule that can be clearly articulated, and followed even if you've had a few.
> 
> That's why "no means no" worked so well, even if it wasn't perfect. It's a heuristic that even a guy who's been sucking at the end of a three-story beer funnel can remember and put into practice. *The rule obviously needed some refinement, by adding other equally clear rules -- like "if she's stumbling drunk or vomiting, just pretend she said no, because she's not legally capable of consent." *But the basic idea, *of listening to what the woman is saying, *not some super-secret countersignals you might think she is sending, is exactly the sort of rule that we need in the often-confusing, choose-your-own-adventure world of modern sexual mores.


Just a brief pause. In her welter of 'no' signals, Lace had a frowny face on. Did you see the frowny face guys? Did you have your eyes closed for the frowny face? Well, by not seeing that frowny face, do not get sheepskin. Do not get a good job. Go straight to McDonalds.

Back to Megan:



> *But I don't think that's what Dominus is after. I think what she's actually seeking is a way to deliver a definite refusal without having to say the word "no." And being of that same generation of women, one that often goes to absurd lengths to avoid even mild refusals*, such as declining to purchase goods or services we don't want, I certainly wish that there were a reliable way to deliver the message without saying the words.
> 
> But as millions of time-share owners can attest, there is no substitute for a clear "no." My generation has spent decades trying to make things sound less unpleasant by coining new words to replace the older, harsh-sounding ones.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *It is not the word "no" that women are struggling with; it is the concept of utter refusal.* [/B] That is what has to change, not the words to describe it. It is perhaps unfair that this burden should be placed on women, especially when we are socialized to be accommodating and "nice" (especially to men). *Unfortunately, no one else can bear the burden of deciding who we want to have sex with, and then articulating it forcefully.*
> 
> Nor should feminists be eager to help women avoid the burden of deciding, and then stating their opinion in the strongest possible terms. "No" and "I don't want to" are great tools for women to master. For centuries, society protected nice middle-class women from having to use them by deciding what we wanted, and punishing anyone who wanted anything else. *Now that those rules are gone, some feminists are essentially advocating handing the burden of deciding what we want over to ... men, who are supposed to guess whether we are offering "affirmative consent," and be punished if they guess wrong.*


Affirmative consent is less about finding new ways to prosecute rape and more about shifting the burden blame on men for not seeing that frowny face.

How...weak have women become that instead of owning their sexuality by being able to say 'no', instead they are putting it all on the guy to determine (and continue to determine) exactly how they feel instead of TELLING HIM HOW THEY FEEL.

This is sort of like that 'if he loved me, he could read my mind' level of BS.

Caveat: This doesn't fix any problem with real rapists. A guy who does not listen to 'no' is not suddenly going to be patient enough to wait for a woman to say 'yes'. And we didn't need to have affirmative consent to realize this.

I can see why women are all over this. "Now I don't need to have an awkward conversation with someone who is in the midst of intimacy. Now it's HIS problem."

So some guys are going to lose careers and face possible jail time to spare a few women an awkward conversation

Keen!


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> I watched the video. And as a lesson in how to stay in tune with your partner...great stuff. As a way to avoid a few pitfalls? Way to go Lace.
> 
> In her 'defining being pressured for sex as rape'....BUUUUULLLLLLSHHHHHIIIIIITTTTTT! Being asked or pressured for sex is not rape. It isn't close to rape. It is uncomfortable but it's not rape.
> 
> And then there is this nugget: 'Gee...I am a strong articulate female college student...and I don't know how to say no. I don't know how to articulate that this is not something I want.'
> 
> I could put a long line of ROFLMAO sigils to properly give that idea the respect it deserves, but instead, I will go to Megan Mcardle to do it for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief pause. In her welter of 'no' signals, Lace had a frowny face on. Did you see the frowny face guys? Did you have your eyes closed for the frowny face? Well, by not seeing that frowny face, do not get sheepskin. Do not get a good job. Go straight to McDonalds.
> 
> Back to Megan:
> 
> 
> 
> Affirmative consent is less about finding new ways to prosecute rape and more about shifting the burden blame on men for not seeing that frowny face.
> 
> How...weak have women become that instead of owning their sexuality by being able to say 'no', instead they are putting it all on the guy to determine (and continue to determine) exactly how they feel instead of TELLING HIM HOW THEY FEEL.
> 
> This is sort of like that 'if he loved me, he could read my mind' level of BS.
> 
> Caveat: This doesn't fix any problem with real rapists. A guy who does not listen to 'no' is not suddenly going to be patient enough to wait for a woman to say 'yes'. And we didn't need to have affirmative consent to realize this.
> 
> I can see why women are all over this. "Now I don't need to have an awkward conversation with someone who is in the midst of intimacy. Now it's HIS problem."
> 
> So some guys are going to lose careers and face possible jail time to spare a few women an awkward conversation
> 
> Keen!


So women are going to get raped because men refuse to read their signals and ask if they want to have sex? 

You see it can go the other way too? Why can't men and women both have the conversation? 

That said Seeing as it's almost usually always men who are doing the raping and they are almost always physically stronger then Women I do feel they should take responsibility and ensure that the woman they are with is 100% up for sex. 

It's pretty simple.


----------



## naiveonedave

*LittleDeer* said:


> So women are going to get raped because men refuse to read their signals and ask if they want to have sex?
> 
> You see it can go the other way too? Why can't men and women both have the conversation?
> 
> That said Seeing as it's almost usually always men who are doing the raping and they are almost always physically stronger then Women I do feel they should take responsibility and ensure that the woman they are with is 100% up for sex.
> 
> It's pretty simple.


rapists won't stop at "No". Non-rapists will. If a woman never says no (and is not black out drunk or stoned), she wasn't raped.

You expect a conversation, that, in the heat of passion, whatever you are smoking is not legal in most of the USA.


----------



## Cletus

*LittleDeer* said:


> So women are going to get raped because men refuse to read their signals and ask if they want to have sex?


What is your objection to the word "no"? It removes all ambiguity. People get confused, crossed signals, misinterpreted expressions, any one of a million ways two people who may have never met before would come to the wrong conclusion. If reading the signals of the opposite sex was simple, we wouldn't have endless shelves of self-help books written to aid people who've been married for decades to understand their spouse. 

"No" is universally understood by everyone in the room to mean "stop what you're doing". Every man or woman who is not then an intentional rapist will stop. It is very hard to work up much sympathy for a person who feels he or she was violated but who was unwilling to utter that single, simple word. 

Are you or are you not strong enough to tell someone when you no longer want to continue? If not, why the hell not?


----------



## ocotillo

As'laDain said:


> ....but i think you would be hard pressed to name the basic human right negotiated away by a woman who says "i want to scream noooo! the next time we have sex, and i dont want you to stop unless i say jellybelly!"


I really think what you have in mind here is simply a formal agreement. Although it has no binding force prior to the sex act, a statement from her could be used as documentation in defense of a false charge of rape after the fact. Formal agreements don't have to be in writing; they can be recorded or even witnessed by a third party and they don't need to be worded in legal terms. 

However in books like _Fifty Shades_ and similar works from the BDSM world, authors throw around terms like, "Contract," "Legally Binding," "Property," "Warranty," "Terms and Conditions," "Any and all," with (apparently) little understanding of what they're actually saying. 

Let's assume a hypothetical scenario where a man and woman draw up a contract outlining what you've said above in writing. Both parties sign it.

At some point subsequent to the execution of the contract, but prior to the actual sex act, she has a change of heart. The reason doesn't really matter, but let's assume she becomes angry with him. 

She doesn't say, "Jellybelly." She says, "I'm not joking or playing around here! I've changed my mind and I'm not going to have sex with you at all. Goodbye!"

Does the contract have any binding force at this point? If it does, then she's negotiated away her sexual autonomy, which is a basic human right. It it does not, then it never had any binding force to begin with.

Of course there are a lot of, "He said / She said" ways this could play out, but if the "Contract" is worded in legal terms that are clearly intended to abridge her autonomy and bind her to a course of action, it could easily backfire by giving the impression that his intent had been coercive from the beginning.


----------



## vellocet

*LittleDeer* said:


> In my opinion it does not take much to get affirmation from your partner. So sure


But "it does not take much to get affirmation from your partner" isn't going to cut it here.

There is always some implied consent. Things are getting hot and heavy and the lack of the word "no" or physical resistance.

What we are talking about here is the affirmative "yes" has to be given now. And if two people are drunk and there is no "yes" given by either, the argument is that this doesn't make the man the criminal when we all know if there is no consent on either side, then the man is the one going to go to the slammer.

So with that, I think that if something happens and like with UVA, if there is a false accusation, then the policy/law should work the other way. 

It would go something like this:

2 people got drunk, had sex. Nobody said anything, the implication was there that they both wanted sex, neither one resisted, neither one said "no". If they are both drunk, who do you believe?

So, lets say the girl/woman decides to pursue a rape charge based on this "affirmative consent" seeing as how she didn't say yes, because the man didn't ask for affirmation.

Then couldn't the man turn around and say, "well, you didn't ask to have sex with me, I didn't give affirmative consent, so I am filing charges based on the fact you didn't ask me."


And you know, I understand the whole issue. If a man truly takes advantage of a woman while drunk, assuming he isn't just as pissy ass drunk, he should be punished. No question about it.

But lets not fool ourselves here, the "affirmative consent" is sold as being needed by men and women(they have to say that to APPEAR gender neutral), but it WILL be used against men solely.


----------



## vellocet

Cletus said:


> What is your objection to the word "no"? It removes all ambiguity.


Would make sense, no? However I understand what they are "trying" to do with regards to someone who can't say no or yes being passed out.



> Are you or are you not strong enough to tell someone when you no longer want to continue? If not, why the hell not?


Maybe because of the following. Cheater's deception

http://www.cotwa.info/2014/09/girl-16-who-cried-rape-after-cheating.html


----------



## As'laDain

ocotillo said:


> I really think what you have in mind here is simply a formal agreement. Although it has no binding force prior to the sex act, a statement from her could be used as documentation in defense of a false charge of rape after the fact. Formal agreements don't have to be in writing; they can be recorded or even witnessed by a third party and they don't need to be worded in legal terms.
> 
> However in books like _Fifty Shades_ and similar works from the BDSM world, authors throw around terms like, "Contract," "Legally Binding," "Property," "Warranty," "Terms and Conditions," "Any and all," with (apparently) little understanding of what they're actually saying.
> 
> Let's assume a hypothetical scenario where a man and woman draw up a contract outlining what you've said above in writing. Both parties sign it.
> 
> At some point subsequent to the execution of the contract, but prior to the actual sex act, she has a change of heart. The reason doesn't really matter, but let's assume she becomes angry with him.
> 
> She doesn't say, "Jellybelly." She says, "I'm not joking or playing around here! I've changed my mind and I'm not going to have sex with you at all. Goodbye!"
> 
> Does the contract have any binding force at this point? If it does, then she's negotiated away her sexual autonomy, which is a basic human right. It it does not, then it never had any binding force to begin with.
> 
> Of course there are a lot of, "He said / She said" ways this could play out, but if the "Contract" is worded in legal terms that are clearly intended to abridge her autonomy and bind her to a course of action, it could easily backfire by giving the impression that his intent had been coercive from the beginning.


i have never heard anything good from 50 shades of grey... the people it pisses off the most are those who practice BDSM...

but your right, its a simple form of agreement. and if its backed out of clearly, before the "scene" even starts, then it would be pretty clear. no deal. in real life, those contracts arent meant to abridge someones rights. they are meant to specify what is expected, what is consented to, and what is off limits. 

but, those agreements SHOULD protect one or the other from backlash in a case where someone feels guilty later on, or decided AFTER the fact that they didnt like it. 
im not sure how it would hold up in court if someone were to say, "i wanted him to treat me like he was raping me, because it was an exciting fantasy. but after we started, i felt like i was being raped instead of getting turned on, so i am now claiming that he raped me".

common sense would say "hey, you LITERALLY asked for it because you thought you would like it. your signature on this statement of what you expected proves that. lesson learned, you dont like consensual nonconsent. no conviction". of course, thats assuming there was no deviating from the agreement. 

would that play out? no idea. i for one dont ever plan to find out.


hence the danger in BDSM. which is practically the same danger in mixing sex and alcohol. if everybody agrees that things are cool before the drinking and the sex starts, changing their minds later on shouldnt be grounds for a rape claim. 

but in this case, i would say that BDSM is even safer than having sex while drinking. there is never a written agreement between people getting wasted and jumping into bed together.


----------



## doubletrouble

Back to the topic, and combining the last several pages, if a woman asked if she could beat me up, I'd say no.


----------



## Retribution

Before I get into my point I want to say that I feel that rape and sexual assault are disgusting. I don't think that a woman is "asking for it" when she dresses provocatively, puts herself in a given location, or gets drunk, etc. I feel that too many rapists get off easy, and I'd love to be the final arbiter for these people's fate, but that's a whole other story.

With that said, California rape law already provides for those who are incapacitated and unable to give consent or give a clear no. Adding to it by creating a caveat that you need a clear yes isn't really going to solve anything. It won't solve anything because the real problem is evidence in most rape cases. I have two friends who have worked the sex crimes division in their police department, and that is exactly why they couldn't prosecute in most non-statutory cases. Lack of evidence. Requiring a clear yes will likely only do one thing, and that is create an administrative nightmare for the school and the accused. And if we're going to be honest which gender is more likely to be "the accused"? Men. I'd be more on board with this if it required due process and used innocent until proven guilty, but I still think it creates an imbalance for real justice. If we're going to improve rape law, then this is a poor way to do it.

Which leads me to my second point. Why is anyone mingling civil law and criminal law? Rape is a crime, therefore it is, and should, fall under criminal law. By adding it to civil law it creates a lot of ambiguity that will only serve to put money in the pockets of lawyers and courts, while wasting the time of the accused, who could have otherwise been studying and getting their degree. This creates a type of rape as well, and who's going to come to the defense of these people?


----------



## JCD

*LittleDeer* said:


> So women are going to get raped because men refuse to read their signals


Here is your fallacy: it's isn't a refusal to read signals. It is the fact that *every single woman has different signals and in the midst of passion, these signals are far too easy to be misread!
*

Want to know what cannot be misread? "NO!"

Here is how you clear up every single 'gray area' rape.

"Ladies, if you want to stop sex or you don't want to have sex, say no."

"Gentleman, if the lady is drunk, she automatically said no"

No dithering. No 'frowny face' which I am automatically supposed to translate into 'clearly she is not enjoying this and wants me to immediately cease coitus".

I can see that scenario playing out.

We are mid coitus. She starts grunting in what I assume is a painful manner.

I stop.

"Why did you stop?"

"You sounded upset." 

"I wasn't upset! Keep going!"

We reengage.

Her face starts twisting up in a strange rictus. I stop coitus.

"WHAT DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?!? I WAS ALMOST THERE!" she screams at me. 

"How the hell was I supposed to know? You looked like you were out of it."

"Will you quit stopping and start screwing?"

We go back to coitus. She starts clenching her muscles, pulling me in with her heels and saying 'no no no no." as she starts to send me, once again, a bunch of mixed signals.

I stop coitus and leave at this point. It would be more satisfying at this point to jerk off...and a lot less legally dangerous.

Because SIGNALS AREN'T ALWAYS CLEAR. A girl can barely get a guy's attention by wearing something low cut, flicking her hair and mentioning the half a dozen facinating things she sees in him. This is stone cold sober. I've heard MANY women whine about men not picking up signals (Which is one of the basises of affirmative consent.)

So sure. Women, tell a guy you want to screw...and also be willing to say NO! if you don't or you want to stop.

But since it is YOUR opinion women, it is YOUR job.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I had someone come into my room once. Get into bed with me and try and RAPE me. You know what I didn't say. I didn't say NO. 

I actually didn't say anything because I was so scared. I knew this person. I had known them for years. I had spoken to them earlier and joked around with them but never thought any more of it. 

I went to bed and they followed me in there. I am not going into details but I had zero sexual experiences. I completely shut down, could not move, could not speak, could not scream. 

Oh but I guess the onus should have been on me to say No? 

I am fortunate that someone came into the room. He got up and left. I was terrified. 

This kind of thing happens all the time. 

But hey you know you guys know better then the women who have had it happen.


----------



## Cletus

*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh but I guess the onus should have been on me to say No?
> 
> I am fortunate that someone came into the room. He got up and left. I was terrified.
> 
> This kind of thing happens all the time.
> 
> But hey you know you guys know better then the women who have had it happen.


Sorry to hear that, sounds disturbing as hell.

Nonetheless, are you suggesting that this guy would have gone to the trouble of asking you for your permission to have sex? If you had said no, would he have stopped? Do you think he cared about your boundaries, what you wanted or did not want, how you felt about the whole thing?

A rapist is a rapist, and no amount of "no" short of violence or "active consent" is going to impact his behavior. The "no means no" and "active consent" movements are for the people who want to do the right thing but might make a mistake. Let's not conflate the behavior of sociopaths and criminals with most of the population. 

Let's try a thought experiment. I take two groups women not in LTRs. I tell the women in one group that they should tell a partner "no" in no unclear terms when they want a partner to stop. I tell the other group they are not allowed to use the word "no" or "stop" or any of its variants, but instead must attempt to convey their acceptance or refusal of sexual acts through their face and body language. 

I follow both groups for a year, and at the end count how many times members of each group feel like they participated in a sexual act which they really didn't want to do but had difficulty in conveying that information to a partner.

Which group do you think would have more success at stopping unwanted behavior? 

No doubt you and I would both prefer a world where both members have a detailed conversation about their likes, preferences, boundaries, and limits before they ever climb into the sack, but I live in the real world where that level of maturity sometimes comes well after your first heavy petting session at a high school party. 

I'm on your side on this one, Little Deer. Your ire is misdirected. I want us to be promoting the solution that saves the most women from harm. That imposes burdens on both genders. We have to teach the boys how to treat a woman with respect, how to do their best to infer her desires and limits, and that "no means no". We have to teach the women (or any victim, this isn't gender specific) to be clear when you want someone who is not a rapist to stop. No one else can take that burden from you, because quite possibly you are the only one who knows.

This is to me so blindingly obvious that I well and truly cannot fathom anyone arguing to the contrary. Everyone understands the meaning of the word "no". For most of us, it's the first word we learn as toddlers.

I can't argue this any longer. I can't possibly make my position more clear, nor convince you if you don't agree. So I'll just walk away shaking my head now.


----------



## Forest

Tall Average Guy said:


> And you wonder why women fear men's rights groups. Disgusting.


Who said anything about men's right's groups? 

Who thinks women are afraid of them? To speak for for a peer group you have no connection to is presumptuous and strange. 

Should men be afraid of women's right's groups, too?


----------



## Wolfman1968

To go back to the Original Post and away from this threadjack (a threadjack which, in my opinion, was started to minimize the original issue of the hypocrisy of the Jezebel women and their fellow-travelers abusing men):

A Columbia University professor, who apparently specializes in teaching how to defuse "heated situations" to NY police and fire workers, and who is an outspoken advocate for women and domestic violence, assaults her boyfriend while he is sleeping.

Reportedly, she told the police that "I hit him because he cheated on me."

Here's the article from the NY Dailly News:
Columbia professor charged with assaulting boyfriend - NY Daily News

And her arrest case file in the NY Court System; the top charge is a Class A Misdemeanor, "Assault with intent to cause physical injury". She is also charged with a Class B Misdemeanor "Attempted Assault with intent to cause physical injury", Class A misdemeanor of "Recklessly causing physical injury" and "Harrassment--physical contact".:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Detail?which=charge&docketNumber=KpDtbqeBg8fFKnApqZPXlA==&countyId=ftUCLXxA/VgUxT4CDSVwBw==&docketId=bR8NzqBuKvciupdDDKZLPw==&docketDseq=o6PDyKIx4BvSfbvyCgDnHw==&defendantName=Baney,+Joann+P&court=New+York+Criminal+Court&courtType=L&recordType=C&recordNum=iCsxhNK8hLi1RzLezz4x/Q==

And apparently, the assault occurred on Valentine's Day.


----------



## JCD

Wolfman1968 said:


> To go back to the Original Post and away from this threadjack (a threadjack which, in my opinion, was started to minimize the original issue of the hypocrisy of the Jezebel women and their fellow-travelers abusing men):
> 
> A Columbia University professor, who apparently specializes in teaching how to defuse "heated situations" to NY police and fire workers, and who is an outspoken advocate for women and domestic violence, assaults her boyfriend while he is sleeping.
> 
> Reportedly, she told the police that "I hit him because he cheated on me."
> 
> Here's the article from the NY Dailly News:
> Columbia professor charged with assaulting boyfriend - NY Daily News
> 
> And her arrest case file in the NY Court System; the top charge is a Class A Misdemeanor, "Assault with intent to cause physical injury". She is also charged with a Class B Misdemeanor "Attempted Assault with intent to cause physical injury", Class A misdemeanor of "Recklessly causing physical injury" and "Harrassment--physical contact".:
> 
> https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Detail?which=charge&docketNumber=KpDtbqeBg8fFKnApqZPXlA==&countyId=ftUCLXxA/VgUxT4CDSVwBw==&docketId=bR8NzqBuKvciupdDDKZLPw==&docketDseq=o6PDyKIx4BvSfbvyCgDnHw==&defendantName=Baney,+Joann+P&court=New+York+Criminal+Court&courtType=L&recordType=C&recordNum=iCsxhNK8hLi1RzLezz4x/Q==
> 
> And apparently, the assault occurred on Valentine's Day.


They should make every presumption as to her dangerousness and culpability as if she was a man. A large man who wears a wife beater.

She attacked someone in his sleep.

Equality. Because 'she was justifiably mad' is no excuse. It isn't for a man

And yes this thread jack ties in to female hypocrisy. If every woman who did not get an affirmative 'yes' from their partner was treated the way they want to treat men, this law would be toast tomorrow


----------



## JCD

One person knows if they want to have sex. ONE. Hint, it is not other person.

In that situation, where you knew the guy, you were friends with the guy...in a public dorm...where was this fear coming from?

Part of it is the natural fear of first time sex. That is always a bit of a mouth dryer.

But did you really think he was going to beat you senseless? Your friend? Or was it that this was an incredibly socially awkward situation where you saw no 'win'? If you said no, there might be a shouting match. If you said no, his life might be ruined. If you said no, what would people think of this situation?

That is what we need to teach our daughters: to not be afraid of socially awkward situations so they remain polite to their rapists.

This guy was a 'be pushy about sex until he gets push back'. And that is a wretched thing for someone like Little Deer.

But how would affirmative consent change that? If you were petrified, and he asked, sorry, but if he is that big a jerk, he is going to take silence as a yes.

The onus IS on girls to communicate their feelings it is a word. It is a short word


----------



## *LittleDeer*

JCD said:


> One person knows if they want to have sex. ONE. Hint, it is not other person.
> 
> In that situation, where you knew the guy, you were friends with the guy...in a public dorm...where was this fear coming from?
> 
> Part of it is the natural fear of first time sex. That is always a bit of a mouth dryer.
> 
> But did you really think he was going to beat you senseless? Your friend? Or was it that this was an incredibly socially awkward situation where you saw no 'win'? If you said no, there might be a shouting match. If you said no, his life might be ruined. If you said no, what would people think of this situation?
> 
> That is what we need to teach our daughters: to not be afraid of socially awkward situations so they remain polite to their rapists.
> 
> This guy was a 'be pushy about sex until he gets push back'. And that is a wretched thing for someone like Little Deer.
> 
> But how would affirmative consent change that? If you were petrified, and he asked, sorry, but if he is that big a jerk, he is going to take silence as a yes.
> 
> The onus IS on girls to communicate their feelings it is a word. It is a short word


You just made up a scenario in your head. 

None of that was my situation at all. :scratchhead:

I was very young, I was not in school I was at a relatives house for a big birthday party. But even if it was a dorm it makes no difference. 

I have no issue with saying no if I am capable or pushing back or yelling. I had no care if his life was ruined or not. In fact he went to jail a few years later for sexual assault. (Nothing to do with me).

He had no right to come into my room. He had no right to assume anything. 

Many women are raped by people they know- in fact when a woman is raped it's usually by someone they know. You seem to think of rapists as these other people. They are just guys like you and sometimes they seem like the nicest person. More of them then you know. 

When a person is scared they can freeze up, or react in a myriad of ways there is no one way a woman has to or can react in any situation. And moreover did you know that many women are still told it's dangerous to fight back? 

I wasn't scared to fight back, I could not fight back, I could not move, I could not scream. I don't know how much clearer I can make that- it wasn't a choice. 

Where is the harm in being extra sure the person you are with (man or woman) wants to have sex?


----------



## Cletus

*LittleDeer* said:


> Where is the harm in being extra sure the person you are with (man or woman) wants to have sex?


Nothing at all, but we both know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the abuse you suffered. You're avoiding that fact for some reason.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Cletus said:


> Nothing at all, but we both know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the abuse you suffered. You're avoiding that fact for some reason.


Yes it does, because that's how rapists get away with it. They say oh look at what she was wearing, she was flirting with me. I thought she wanted me. She didn't say no etc etc. 

They don't take responsibility for making sure the woman wants to have sex with them, and other people agree with them and suddenly the woman is at fault. 

It has everything to do with it.


----------



## Forest

The funny thing about the goofy consent law is that its a bunch of hooey about nothing. Purely pandering to one side of the aisle. The law was passed to LOOK like something was being done, but nothing was accomplished. Just sidestepping.

As a law, it has nothing going for it. There's no way to prove or defend either party's statements.

Did you consent? 
No.
Did she consent?
Yes.


----------



## tacoma

This argument is a bit moot anyway.

The guys are arguing for a direct negation of consent in order to alleviate the possibility of false rape allegations.

But the kind of girl who will issue false rape charges is the kind of girl who will consent and later deny that consent anyway.

The girls are asking for affirmative consent in order to avoid rape but the kind of guys who rape aren't going to give a damn about consent one way or the other.

I realize all situations are different and these two black and white situations are probably not even the norm in many cases when one considers all the motivators, environments, and mental capability but really this topic will always be subject to extreme shades of grey.


----------



## JCD

tacoma said:


> This argument is a bit moot anyway.
> 
> The guys are arguing for a direct negation of consent in order to alleviate the possibility of false rape allegations.
> 
> But the kind of girl who will issue false rape charges is the kind of girl who will consent and later deny that consent anyway.
> 
> The girls are asking for affirmative consent in order to avoid rape but the kind of guys who rape aren't going to give a damn about consent one way or the other.
> 
> I realize all situations are different and these two black and white situations are probably not even the norm in many cases when one considers all the motivators, environments, and mental capability but really this topic will always be subject to extreme shades of grey.


Here is my defense. Women act weird. Signals are notoriously unreliable.

And if Little Deer was too afraid to say no, she could not have said yes. Now, should he keep going? No. But for a hell of a lot of women, they ARE passive and accepting of sexual advances. They want the man to take the lead.

So while he might have committed rape, that does not mean he had the heart of a rapist.

Which is why there is a strong subset of women who, after the fact consider how much fault accrued to each side.

And in a situation like Little Deer, some of these women would say 'he would have stopped if I had said no...but I couldnt' say no and he could not know that. Maybe he thought my shivers were of excitement."

So yes, affirmative consent is pushing on men to interpret the frowny face.

One person knows if they want sex. One. So where does the burden rationally lie?


----------



## Forest

tacoma said:


> This argument is a bit moot anyway.
> 
> 
> The girls are asking for affirmative consent in order to avoid rape but the kind of guys who rape aren't going to give a damn about consent one way or the other.


True. *******s that force themselves on girls are not going to even be aware of this law.

Another ironic bit is that some people seem to think this consent law business is going to really matter later in court. All the while, solemn marriage vows taken in front of a host of witnesses don't count for squat anymore.


----------



## tacoma

JCD said:


> Here is my defense. Women act weird. Signals are notoriously unreliable.
> 
> And if Little Deer was too afraid to say no, she could not have said yes. Now, should he keep going? No. But for a hell of a lot of women, they ARE passive and accepting of sexual advances. They want the man to take the lead.
> 
> So while he might have committed rape, that does not mean he had the heart of a rapist.
> 
> Which is why there is a strong subset of women who, after the fact consider how much fault accrued to each side.
> 
> And in a situation like Little Deer, some of these women would say 'he would have stopped if I had said no...but I couldnt' say no and he could not know that. Maybe he thought my shivers were of excitement."
> 
> So yes, affirmative consent is pushing on men to interpret the frowny face.
> 
> One person knows if they want sex. One. So where does the burden rationally lie?


I'm in complete agreement with you JCD and understand exactly where you're coming from.

In my experience with women I have rarely if ever been given vocal affirmative consent unless "**** me now!" counts.

Most women are very passive where first time or early sexual encounters are concerned.

I have also rarely ever asked for sex as again, this is really not something women want regardless of how many here may state differently.

Most women, like men, want the passion that comes without cold dry verification and documentation of consent.

It has never been a problem for me but looking back I can see how it might have been a problem in many instances if a woman regretted her decision after the fact and decided to deny any and all implied consent for whatever reason.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Thundarr said:


> It's a good thing that someone came into the room because you're not taking any ownership for not speaking up and protecting yourself. You guys were friends and were joking around and he thought you might be into him. It sounds like mixed signal more than attempted rape. I hope he would have figured out that you were scared and stopped on his own but you've got to protect yourself too by saying something. Responsibility and ownership of choices is a two way street and had things gone further and then you accused him of rape then there would have been two victims here and not just one.


Stop being a rape apologist. How disgusting. That is the lowest if the low. 
So if I talk and joke with any man- they have the green light to come into my room uninvited? Do men also have the right to do that to you? When you joke and laugh with a man can he sneak into your room and do what he wants with you? What if he's huge and three times stronger then you and you freeze up? 

If a man rapes you I guess he's just a victim too. 

How dare you tell me I've got to protect myself. That's like telling an old lady who is beaten and robbed by someone she talked to earlier in the grocery store that she should have protected herself. 

When trauma happens there are usually four types of responses FIGHT FLIGHT FREEZE OR FAUN. at the time I fell under freeze. And even if I didn't it does not excuse his behaviour at all. 

I hope you don't have any daughters, who attend family birthdays with you. And if you do I guess they are banned from talking to other guests because if they do and they get raped, well leaving the house apparently is reason enough for a man to rape you and it be your fault. Lock up the ladies because the men just can't help themselves. Is that your theory? 

Two victims? A man who was later convicted of sexual assault and sent to Jail. Yes poor him. 

How about this -you don't act like men have no control over themselves! Men aren't animals, they can behave like decent human beings. 

I think it's really sad that men don't expect better from other men. I myself have lots of wonderful men in my life. They behave like gentleman. 

And Thundarr don't address me in this thread agin. I won't further indulge a rape apologist.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I think a lot of men are afraid that they will be falsely accused of rape. However, all of the men and women who were raped that I know of had a rapist who knew exactly what they were doing. The rapist then proceeded to make it seem like the victim gave them mixed signals.

Rapists are not guys who had sex with a passive women. The men and women who rape intentionally do it. The victims have a hard time talking about it because people are afraid of being falsely accused (and false accusations do happen) so they argue about how one can determine if someone has been raped. Everyone that I know who has been raped knew that the rapist knew what they were doing. If not in the act, after so when they asked the rapist why they did that. It's not a mistaken judgement.


For me, I was raped while sleeping. Woke up and couldn't fight back. I know a lot of people say a person needs to fight back, but honestly, sometimes you are helpless. If you are restrained and are weaker you cannot overpower them. Also trauma.

People who are raped face a lot of judgement. To the people trying to argue the laws or if people lie. It is an important subject. But some people are expressing one of their deepest traumas in life. Understand that and respect that on this forum. It's bringing out a lot of their pain to relieve the disbelief and judgment they faced after.


Let me make this clear, I am not talking about proving this in court. 

ALSO 

Can we please get off of rape? I don't know why every man/women roles thread has to come to rape. It's turning me off to TAM


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I think a lot of men are afraid that they will be falsely accused of rape. However, all of the men and women who were raped that I know of had a rapist who knew exactly what they were doing. The rapist then proceeded to make it seem like the victim gave them mixed signals.
> 
> Rapists are not guys who had sex with a passive women. The men and women who rape intentionally do it. The victims have a hard time talking about it because people are afraid of being falsely accused (and false accusations do happen) so they argue about how one can determine if someone has been raped. Everyone that I know who has been raped knew that the rapist knew what they were doing. If not in the act, after so when they asked the rapist why they did that. It's not a mistaken judgement.
> 
> 
> For me, I was raped while sleeping. Woke up and couldn't fight back. I know a lot of people say a person needs to fight back, but honestly, sometimes you are helpless. If you are restrained and are weaker you cannot overpower them. Also trauma.
> 
> People who are raped face a lot of judgement. To the people trying to argue the laws or if people lie. It is an important subject. But some people are expressing one of their deepest traumas in life. Understand that and respect that on this forum. It's bringing out a lot of their pain to relieve the disbelief and judgment they faced after.
> 
> 
> Let me make this clear, I am not talking about proving this in court.
> 
> ALSO
> 
> Can we please get off of rape? I don't know why every man/women roles thread has to come to rape. It's turning me off to TAM


I'm sorry that happened to you.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

*LittleDeer* said:


> I'm sorry that happened to you.


It was ****ty. The reaction afterwards by people and family was pretty bad.

But life has really ****ty things for everyone and now I don't see that as defining me anymore. 

Now I see it as a watershed moment in which I had choices to make. Those choices led me to being who I am now and I really like that person. I also don't want to live life without the values I now have. 

Thank you for your concern and I am sorry what happened to you as well.

I don't think a forum is that great to talk about rape. Some people have individual experiences with it. That needs to be addressed in a compassionate and understanding way. It's combining people with individual experiences with people who want to debate the political/sociological. That's a bad mix and not productive I feel. 

I want us to get back to the ideas of hitting from the start.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> What's disgusting are those uncalled for and nasty accusions you're making. You don't have a free pass the be nasty because you're triggering. I'm the last person to apologize for people's disgusting behavior. One disgusting behavior twisting an honest post it into something it's not because it triggers you. Maybe you should read a few of my recent posts rather than spinning out of control.


As I said before. On a forum we are combining people with personal experience on rape with people who are debating the sociological. They use the person's personal experience to debate the sociological. It's just not a good mix. I'm not saying lets not ever talk about rape.

But that is not the point of this thread and I think it doesn't have enough pay off for either side.


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> As I said before. On a forum we are combining people with personal experience on rape with people who are debating the sociological. They use the person's personal experience to debate the sociological. It's just not a good mix. I'm not saying lets not ever talk about rape.
> 
> But that is not the point of this thread and I think it doesn't have enough pay off for either side.


I didn't bring up the topic but only commented on a post and don't care to continue it. I do however know TAM rules and they are very simple. I don't appreciate being called nasty names that in no way apply to anything about me as a person. I have a handful of comments in this thread and they are all direct contradictions to the disgusting rant aimed towards me.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> I didn't bring up the topic but only commented on a post and don't care to continue it. I do however no TAM rules and they are very simple. I don't appreciate being called nasty names that in no way apply to anything about me as a person. I have a handful of comments in this thread and they are all direct contradictions to the disgusting rant aimed towards me.


Thundarr,

I am sorry for looking over that. I was reading fast.

You are completely right. Being called names is wrong. I did not mean to speak up against that.


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Thundarr,
> 
> I am sorry for looking over that. I was reading fast.
> 
> You are completely right. Being called names is wrong. I did not mean to speak up against that.


Thank you Maria Canosa Gargano. I can see that diffusing arguments is one of your personality traits. It's an admirable trait.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Thundarr,
> 
> I am sorry for looking over that. I was reading fast.
> 
> You are completely right. Being called names is wrong. I did not mean to speak up against that.


Thundarr was not called names by me. I do find rape apology to be a disgusting behaviour but at no time did I directly call Thundarr names. 

I think most people would be upset and revolted by that kind of behaviour and IMO it is something that encourages rapists. 

Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> Thank you Maria Canosa Gargano. I can see that diffusing arguments is one of your personality traits. It's an admirable trait.


 Thank Thundarr. It's a nice feeling to be recognized. I have a fiance who might disagree but its nice to hear anyway.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

*LittleDeer* said:


> Thundarr was not called names by me. I do find rape apology to be a disgusting behaviour but at no time did I directly call Thundarr names.
> 
> I think most people would be upset and revolted by that kind of behaviour and IMO it is something that encourages rapists.
> 
> Just wanted to make that clear.


He did mention that others in the thread have lobbed names at him. Something in your post set him off though those were not at all your intentions. 

Rape apology is a disgusting behavior. I do think people who do it think that rape happens between a guy who has sex with a woman who later regrets it. That has never been my experience with rape in my own life or the lives of the men and women who have been raped. The rapist knew exactly what they were doing and hid behind the "they are just regretting it" line. False accusations do happen but I don't think that is for someone who knows four or five tidbits to judge that. They were not in the room.

It was not fair at all for your situation to be used to debate what rape is.

I don't think it was anyone trying to attack you actually. It was to talk about society at large but that just doesn't work on a forum made of individual people. Particularly on a forum which is skilled in one thing (Love, Marriage, Cheating) but has worked out little on rape. 

I am not against rape being talked about on here, but it has to be done very skillfully.


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> He did mention that others in the thread have lobbed names at him. Something in your post set him off though those were not at all your intentions.


These aren't too hard to spot. One at the beginning of the post to me and the other at the end. I'd be happy to jointly delete mine and her comments however I'm not going to pretend it was an honest mistake.



*LittleDeer* said:


> Stop being a rape apologist. How disgusting. That is the lowest if the low.





*LittleDeer* said:


> And Thundarr don't address me in this thread agin. I won't further indulge a rape apologist.


----------



## Lila

Thundarr, I respect your opinions on this forum, moreso than many of the other people who post here regularly. With that being said, I was frankly shocked at your post below directed at Little Deer's description of what happened to her in college. The language you used, particularly the bolded portion, minimized her experience as well as that of many of the woman that have suffered similar events in their lives. It's difficult enough to go through an event like that but to then have others judge you as 'having brought it on yourself' is doubly so. This sort of stuff seems way out of character for you. 



Thundarr said:


> It's a good thing that someone came into the room because you're not taking any ownership for not speaking up and protecting yourself. You guys were friends and were joking around and he thought you might be into him. It sounds like mixed signal more than attempted rape. I hope he would have figured out that you were scared and stopped on his own but you've got to protect yourself too by saying something. *Responsibility and ownership of choices is a two way street and had things gone further and then you accused him of rape then there would have been two victims here and not just one.*




ETA: I hope you two can work out your differences in a manner that will bring both of you closure on this topic. Good night.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I deleted my post because I was overstepping my boundaries. 

Thundarr, I do understand your concern about false rape apologies. But please do take a look at Lila and understand why LittleDeer responded in the way she did.


----------



## Thundarr

Lila said:


> Thundarr, I respect your opinions on this forum, moreso than many of the other people who post here regularly. With that being said, I was frankly shocked at your post below directed at Little Deer's description of what happened to her in college. The language you used, particularly the bolded portion, minimized her experience as well as that of many of the woman that have suffered similar events in their lives. It's difficult enough to go through an event like that but to then have others judge you as 'having brought it on yourself' is doubly so. This sort of stuff seems way out of character for you.


The intent was the exact opposite of minimizing even though it's being read that way. This thread is chock full of men seeing the man's side and women seeing the woman's side. Objectively if miscommunication leaves one person violated and the other person thinking it was consentual and charged with assault then that's a lose-lose. Both pepole lose. It was not out of character because that's what the words meant.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> The intent was the exact opposite of minimizing even though it's being read that way. This thread is chock full of men seeing the man's side and women seeing the woman's side. Objectively if miscommunication leaves one person violated and the other person thinking it was consentual and charged with assault then that's a lose-lose. It was not out of character because that's what the words meant.


I understand Thundarr. That is a problem. 

What we are objecting to is using LittleDeer's situation as an example. You are using her story to talk about a larger societal problem. Talking about that problem is fine, but you are using her story to do so.

Have women see men's side and men see women's side by not using an individual's experience.


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I understand Thundarr. That is a problem.
> 
> What we are objecting to is using LittleDeer's situation as an example. You are using her story to talk about a larger societal problem. Talking about that problem is fine, but you are using her story to do so.
> 
> Have women see men's side and men see women's side by not using an individual's experience.


That wasn't intentional and I would have quickly clarified as such.

Here's the thing, communication on forums is flawed and we all know this. Especially those of us who are long time posters. It's not like IRL conversations where we can see the misspoken or misinterpreted words distressing the other person. Often times comments that are read as mean, minimizing, and indifferent were not intended as the jab they are received as.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I understand Thundarr. That is a problem.
> 
> What we are objecting to is using LittleDeer's situation as an example. You are using her story to talk about a larger societal problem. Talking about that problem is fine, but you are using her story to do so.
> 
> Have women see men's side and men see women's side by not using an individual's experience.


To be fair,, the first person to 'use' LD's disturbing story to make a point was LD herself.

She's every right to do that but, having led the way, shouldn't be surprised if others reference it to.

Rather like the wider debate,, if somebody posts a comment - personal or not - doesn't that imply consent for others to comment on it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

Maria,

I get a definite burr up my ass when someone wants to make a confusing law which will criminalize a number of horny but otherwise well meaning boys because women can't be troubled to say 'no'.

I will grant that that policy is not perfect. If someone is 'paralyzed with fear', it may not work IN THAT INSTANCE.

For MOST sexual encounters with a horny guy, it works JUST FINE. He doesn't need to see a frowny face. He does not need to interpret all those random allusions that Lace acted out because she was too much of a social coward to say 'no' or 'stop'.

I am going to teach my son to make sure his signals don't get crossed. I am also going to teach my girls she does not need to be polite to someone she thinks is a rapist.

And no one blames a woman for being helpless. Once that 'no' is said, that guy is legal toast...and should be. No hitting or struggling required.

But apparently, that is far too high a bar for our women. It is ALL the mens' job...the approach, the seduction, starting the sexual dynamic...making sure he properly and in a timely manner interprets every single frown, gasp and grunt of the woman. She is barely involved in the entire process at all apparently.

Is that as high as you want your gender to aspire to? Unable to say 'no'? 

Rape is a horrible traumtic thing. So is going to jail or getting expelled because of a political movement where innocence is not a defense. Ask the UVA frats about what they went through. No one has as much as apologized for that.


----------



## JCD

Lest you think I am blowing smoke and engaging in the kind of evidence-less hyperbole that TallAverageGuy is indulging in in his defense of this policy:



> Harvard debuted a new sexual harassment policy this year in response to pressure from the federal Office of Civil Rights. But the policy—which broadens the definition of sexual harassment and gives one university office sole power in adjudicating disputes—vastly exceeds the scope of federal law, according to 28 members of the Harvard Law School faculty. They write:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach. We also find the process by which this policy was decided and imposed on all parts of the university inconsistent with the finest traditions of Harvard University, of faculty governance, and of academic freedom.
> 
> *Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation*.
> 
> 
> 
> The professors recommend scrapping the entire policy and starting over again. They accept that this could get the university in trouble with the feds, but Harvard is fully capable of taking a stand against unjust federal mandates, they write:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. *The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I am not going to do the 'fallacy of appeal to authority'. It is fully possible that 28 law professors in one of the most prestigious legal universities we have are wrong. Possible!

But I need a bit more than TAG, Anon Pink and Little Deer saying 'there is nothing to worry about'.

I tend to lean on the side of civil rights particularly when they are MINE being flouted.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I do know about that Harvard law. 

I agree it is wrong and unfair. I do agree that there are going to be people who are going to use it to punish men.

I do want to say this. The men and women who are getting raped may be getting raped at parties. (They are also getting raped in other places). The way that it is going is this.

-Met man/woman at party. Slipped drug in drink. I proceeded to fight/cry/scream/freeze up/be unconscious. Raped
-Met man/woman at party. Overpowered me. I proceeded to fight/cry/scream/freeze up/be unconscious. Raped

That Harvard law is a result of misinformation in a culture which portrays men as all potential rapists. Rapists are intentionally raping people not men. The getting raped at a party thing happens not because men don't know where the boundary is but because predators use a party knowing that their victim is going to be more helpless because their boundaries are lower. RAINN has even been trying to get the message out to colleges that portraying their male populations as all potential rapists at a party is actually stopping the colleges from preventing rape.

The idea that all these people who are getting raped at parties are being raped just because they regretted it after having sex is not what is actually happening. Those people who knew that they had sex and then regretted it are the aggressors. 

Portraying men as all potential rapists is completely wrong and unfair for men. It puts them in a dis-empowered position when they are constantly put in default in the rapist position.

However, as I stated. Those are not the people doing the raping. So when you do get people stating that they are raped on forums like this, the vast majority of them are going to be actually raped by actual rapists. By people who intentionally did it and who know they intentionally did it. Not by guys who didn't get clear enough signals from a woman. They are raped by the men and women that RAINN are trying to get us to concentrate on. 

I am not suggesting that we then proceed to ignore laws like the Harvard law which put boys in danger of being falsely accused by the predators who would then use that law. Because the women who would use that law to get back at men would be predators and would knowingly be using that law on innocent men. Perhaps it would be fun for them to get the ego boost to sleep with men and then accuse them. Men should be protected by predators like that.

We need to fight back against that all men are potential rapists in our culture. 

But please be sensitive to people who are expressing their stories of rape and trauma. Yes they posted it on a public forum and of course you can respond to it. But that story is personal and traumatic and we can talk about the larger cultural problem of portraying men as rapists as a problem.

For both men and women it is a problem. Men legally it is a problem and physically as it makes them think they cannot be raped by a woman or see a woman as a predator. For women it is a problem because it leads them to not learning about the signs of a male predator.

The way to go about comabting this stereotype is not to question each and every rape story where the woman was raped at a party by a guy and say Aww the guy just didn't know the boundaries. That perpetuates that rape is a crime because all men are potential rapists. 

Thundarr, after a person is raped they hear other people's interpretations of it over and over and over again. You gave an interpretation of the events of what happened. I'm saying to just not go there. Not because you don't have the right on a public forum but all it will do is re-open wounds for that person. It won't further the discussion at all. That doesn't mean you intentionally tried to hurt her.

I am also saying men and women in everything because getting raped is not just a woman issue. It is a man issue as well. It is a human issue. 


I'm going to put this in bold

*Let's not have every TAM regarding men and women relationships turn into rape.* We were having an interesting conversation before which allowed us to see the double standard with hitting. But then the rape card got played and we all got sucked down into it (including me) again. We end up saying the same things, no one gets convinced and sides get hurt. 

That's why I'm out after this. I am going to be perpetuating the same subject I am getting sick of seeing come up time and time again and eating up threads.


----------



## EleGirl

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Rape apology is a disgusting behavior. I do think people who do it think that rape happens between a guy who has sex with a woman who later regrets it. That has never been my experience with rape in my own life or the lives of the men and women who have been raped. The rapist knew exactly what they were doing and hid behind the "they are just regretting it" line. False accusations do happen but I don't think that is for someone who knows four or five tidbits to judge that. They were not in the room.


:iagree:


Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> It was not fair at all for your situation to be used to debate what rape is.
> 
> I don't think it was anyone trying to attack you actually. It was to talk about society at large but that just doesn't work on a forum made of individual people. Particularly on a forum which is skilled in one thing (Love, Marriage, Cheating) but has worked out little on rape.


I agree that no one was trying to attack *LittleDeer* directly. Instead it was the point she was making that they did not want to hear. They were attacking the idea that a rape victim can feel so frightened and over powered that they have a very natural reaction of freezing. It is a documented fact that humans (like all animals) can freeze when attacked and when they are physically threatened. What freeze means is that they go into a state similar to shock.

Since some posters do not want to hear things that contradict their pre-conceived notions, they fabricated stories that turned her story into something to support their point of view. They needed for it to not be a rape but instead some poor guy who was misunderstood.

Look at the fabrications used, they directly support the idea that she’s lying and it was not a rape. That humans cannot go into a freeze state when seriously threatened. Not one person asked for more information so that they could understand more. Instead they fabricated circumstances that supported that the rape was *LittleDeer*’s fault or not really a rape, but instead it surely must have been a misunderstanding between some guy she had lead on and gave mixed signals to. Why are these guys making up stories?

Sadly, sharing real life circumstances in threads like this a bad idea for this very reason. Many are not on the forum to hear others’ points of views supported by actual experiences. They are here to pontificate whatever their preconceived notions are.




Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I am not against rape being talked about on here, but it has to be done very skillfully.


I agree that TAM is a very bad place to discuss rape. Sadly, if we can only talk about real rape experiences in an environment skillfully controlled, then that leaves a lot of people who never hear much of the truth of rape. It leaves people to their preconceived notions.




JCD said:


> One person knows if they want to have sex. ONE. Hint, it is not other person.
> 
> In that situation, where you knew the guy, you were friends with the guy...in a public dorm...where was this fear coming from?
> 
> Part of it is the natural fear of first time sex. That is always a bit of a mouth dryer.
> 
> But did you really think he was going to beat you senseless? Your friend? Or was it that this was an incredibly socially awkward situation where you saw no 'win'? If you said no, there might be a shouting match. If you said no, his life might be ruined. If you said no, what would people think of this situation?
> 
> That is what we need to teach our daughters: to not be afraid of socially awkward situations so they remain polite to their rapists.
> 
> This guy was a 'be pushy about sex until he gets push back'. And that is a wretched thing for someone like Little Deer.
> 
> But how would affirmative consent change that? If you were petrified, and he asked, sorry, but if he is that big a jerk, he is going to take silence as a yes.
> 
> The onus IS on girls to communicate their feelings it is a word. It is a short word





Thundarr said:


> It's a good thing that someone came into the room because you're not taking any ownership for not speaking up and protecting yourself. You guys were friends and were joking around and he thought you might be into him. It sounds like mixed signal more than attempted rape. I hope he would have figured out that you were scared and stopped on his own but you've got to protect yourself too by saying something. Responsibility and ownership of choices is a two way street and had things gone further and then you accused him of rape then there would have been two victims here and not just one.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> The intent was the exact opposite of minimizing even though it's being read that way. This thread is chock full of men seeing the man's side and women seeing the woman's side. *Objectively if miscommunication leaves one person violated and the other person thinking it was consentual and charged with assault then that's a lose-lose. * Both pepole lose. It was not out of character because that's what the words meant.


Why did you assume that there was a miscommunication? 

Why did you say "It's a good thing that someone came into the room"

Why did you assume that she had led him on?

Why did you assume that she gave him mixed signals?


----------



## EleGirl

Flying_Dutchman said:


> To be fair,, the first person to 'use' LD's disturbing story to make a point was LD herself.
> 
> She's every right to do that but, having led the way, shouldn't be surprised if others reference it to.
> 
> Rather like the wider debate,, if somebody posts a comment - personal or not - doesn't that imply consent for others to comment on it?


The objections to the way LD's story was used is that posters then fabricated "facts" so that they could turn story into a story that supported their notion that it was not really a rape.

That is the problem. 

Posting a personal story is not consent to have others fabricate "facts" to make the poster look like a liar and that the rapist was the real victim.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Rape is a horrible traumtic thing.


Yet when LD told of a rape, you fabricated a story so that you could accuse her.


----------



## EleGirl

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> *Let's not have every TAM regarding men and women relationships turn into rape.* We were having an interesting conversation before which allowed us to see the double standard with hitting. But then the rape card got played and we all got sucked down into it (including me) again. We end up saying the same things, no one gets convinced and sides get hurt.
> 
> That's why I'm out after this. I am going to be perpetuating the same subject I am getting sick of seeing come up time and time again and eating up threads.



:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Personal

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I do know about ....the rest of your quote has been removed for brevity... threads.


Thank-you.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

EleGirl said:


> The objections to the way LD's story was used is that posters then fabricated "facts" so that they could turn story into a story that supported their notion that it was not really a rape.
> 
> That is the problem.
> 
> Posting a personal story is not consent to have others fabricate "facts" to make the poster look like a liar and that the rapist was the real victim.


Thank you and that is exactly what happened. 

If I had have had an empathetic and understanding audience, I may have gone into more detail and would have been happy to tell more of what had occurred. 

I cannot believe that when I have told something so incredibly personal and difficult for me, that I am basically called a liar and told that I could have ruined his life if he'd raped me. :scratchhead:

I was astounded. 

I don't know why though, because I know it's exactly what keeps most women quiet. Many women on this site (and some men) will have been the victims of sexual assaults and rape. (Many have contacted me and told me their stories) How insulting and awful for them to have to read that their peers believe them guilty, when something awful has happened to them. In no other crime would this be likely to occur. 


For me personally it confirms once again that women are often treated as second class citizens and do not have the same rights as men. They don't have the right to go to parties and feel safe for instance. 

If someone on this forum -man or woman posted about past trauma, abuse, sexual assault etc I would try so hard to be empathetic and understanding. Never would I insinuate they were to blame.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Yet when LD told of a rape, you fabricated a story so that you could accuse her.


FABRICATED. What an interesting word.

No, I fabricated nothing. I accused nothing.

Here is the story:

She walked into a room.

HORRORS...a guy followed her.

DOUBLE HORRORS, he made a move on her sexually.

And she did nothing.

People who are attempting liasons do such things. Now, I cannot 'know' his mind (though Little Deer and yourself show no such humility), but I can see that perhaps this WAS a guy who thought that Little Deer might be up for some fun. No idea why he thought this. And yet, this is the sort of 'yes/no' signal that men are supposed to read so flawlessly for affirmative consent to work

I look at this story. I look at Maria's story. I look at Little Deer's story.

All of them had one thing in common: Affirmative consent would have done nothing in any of these cases EXCEPT MAYBE Little Deer's and that assumes the guy wasn't a rapist, just confused.

Most rapes will not be prevented by affirmative consent. A guy holding a woman down is not going to wait for her to say yes. A guy spiking her drink is not going to take no for an answer. And a drunken girl is already fully covered by the law. 

But the affirmative consent rule does defend women. It defends them from saying no. It defends them from getting caught up in the moment and having sex which on second thought, they might not have 100% wanted the next day...but RIGHT NOW, seemed like a potentially good idea. (one reason men don't like it. Being that explicit is a real buzz kill.)

This law is more about criminalizing men and being a 'mood breaker' than anything else.

We had this great link which I cannot find which had a case of a girl having sex in the same room as a roommate, saying yes to her sex partner, her TEXTING she was having sex to friends, and then when mom found out, she cried rape. And all those witnesses and evidence...not admitted cause it was not a court of law and one of the professors was a feminist with a burr up her ass. Guy now has no education and is unlikely to get into another college if he runs a lawsuit...if he can get into one at all for being a 'rapist'.

Instead of acknowledging this, you cry 'rape apologist' and 'preconceived notions'. Yes...it's preconceived by me...and 28 Law professors. Women are applauding as male rights are taken away.

I am fighting for my rights. You still have yours.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

We can't have men being asked to to do things like make sure a woman really wants him. No that wouldn't do, it would cramp their style. Much better to put the responsibility all on women. 

I mean a man's right to have sex without proper consent is much more important then a woman's right to be safe after all.


----------



## As'laDain

*LittleDeer* said:


> For me personally it confirms once again that women are often treated as second class citizens and do not have the same rights as men. *They don't have the right to go to parties and feel safe for instance. *



thats not a gender issue. men arent really any safer at a party than women are. that may be your perception, but it does not line up with my experiences.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> Why did you assume that there was a miscommunication?
> 
> Why did you say "It's a good thing that someone came into the room"
> 
> Why did you assume that she had led him on?
> 
> Why did you assume that she gave him mixed signals?


I assumed none of what you suggest. It was a misworded comment so I don't know what you're looking for. I already said that. A couple of "if"s or "could"s change the way it reads more as intended. But you and others seem determined that there was ill intent. So why are you asking questions that don't apply. Once someone openly says a quote was worded wrong and then specifies the original intent, it's pretty crappy to keep badgering and hounding the person and reposting the quote. I expect more than that from posting who I interact with on many threads. What I expect is something along the lines of "okay Thundarr. I hope you know why it was taken so offensive as well". At which point I would say "yes I see that. Thanks".


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> thats not a gender issue. men arent really any safer at a party than women are. that may be your perception, but it does not line up with my experiences.


This is an interesting point. As a woman, I have always had a certain fear of men. But just a few years ago it was brought to my attention that some men also fear other men.

I had never once considered that.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

As'laDain said:


> thats not a gender issue. men arent really any safer at a party than women are. that may be your perception, but it does not line up with my experiences.


I'm sorry you have had that experience with other men, however violence is mostly gendered. Often males are violent with and assault, sometimes even sexually assault other males. And sometimes women are violent to men too. 

I certainly hope no one ever blames you for another persons actions. If someone is violent to you that is their issue and not yours, and if someone assaulted you that is because they are sick. 

I can only speak from my experience of course, but the men in my life have always felt much safer and more confident of being safe in most situations. That's not to say they always were safe or there weren't situations that were unsafe. 

I know my brother once was beaten up, luckily he got away. And no one said to him "Why were out walking at night?" "Why did you drop away from your group?" "Why didn't you yell out?" He obviously did not want to be beaten up (they were attempting to rob him). So it was assumed by everyone that I know of -that there was no justification for this crime. Those men were a$$holes. 

Please feel free to tell of your experiences I would be interested in hearing them.


----------



## naiveonedave

*LittleDeer* said:


> I'm sorry you have had that experience with other men, however violence is mostly gendered. Often males are violent with and assault, sometimes even sexually assault other males. And sometimes women are violent to men too.
> 
> .


not really, men kill men much more often than women.


----------



## IvyGirl

This whole argument confuses me. 

If someone picks up my keys from my desk and drives away in my car, and I'm too surprised to say no, it's still auto theft. 

If they walk into my house, climb into my bed and go to sleep, and I'm too shocked to say no, it's still trespassing. 

But if they try to put their penis inside me, and I'm too shocked and scared to say no, that's ok? 

Women should always carry a responsibility to say no. But at the same time, a man should carry a responsibility to know he has consent, not just assume it. BOTH PARTIES play a part in this, not just the woman. These issues usually come up in undefined relationships where people don't know each other's boundaries well enough to make assumptions.


----------

