Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Magical Realist, Aug 22, 2014.
At standard significance thresholds, meh. It's a stringent business.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
??? So you're likewise blaming such wayward interests and bad or consequence-laden decisions on fluctuating hormonal affairs? If not, then I don't see what you're disagreeing with. Testosterone hasn't often worked lately as a bunk excuse for males, either -- whether concerning violence or milder, dufus acts. "Oh, so that's why you stupidly got an ex-GF, which you hate, pregnant that night? Fine, you're exempted from child support. [Not!]"
I don't think she was assigning blame. per se.
And you fail to factor in the personality disordered and often, the psychological damage suffered by these women who fall into such relationships repeatedly. My cousin is one such woman. The only reason her husband stopped beating her was because I threatened to ruin him financially, professionally and send him to jail if he so much as looked at her the wrong way again after he punched her so hard in the stomach and sides, she peed blood and required hospitalisation.. apparently prior to that, he would beat her about the back of the head where her hair hid any bruising. But my cousin stayed with him and is still with him. Why? Her previous relationship was also abusive, while not physically, it was very emotionally abusive. As was the one before that one when she was in her early twenties. It's not because she gets off on it. But because she was sexually molested as a child. I was the only one who escaped the worst of it in my family (father's side). I just got touching and I bolted. My cousins were too terrified to run. But she copped the worst of it because of her age at the time. And we were taken there by our grandmother who was into some weird crap and the things we witnessed as small children.... She still carries those scars. And it is simply that she does not think she deserves anything better. She was conditioned to believe that this was all she was worth.
And it is a recurring theme in abusive relationships. The victims are often conditioned to believe that this is all they deserve, that they can't get any better, that they are not worthy of better for themselves. And I'm not even touching on the pathological need some people have in the hope of saving others or trying to see the absolute positives even when there is so few of it.
Because they only deal with the ones who stay. Everyone knows some women leave. It does not mean that just because some leave, that it is easy for all.
The thing with domestic violence is that they all don't fit the same pattern.
What I do find pathetic, however, is the argument that someone can goad you into hitting another person and then blame that other person. That is absolutely ridiculous. And it is an excuse always given to say that they are not like that, but others made them like that by their behaviour and their actions. I'm sorry, but unless someone is grabbing your fist and hitting themselves with it when you are unconscious, you are in control of your actions. And declaring that the victim goads the other is like saying they were asking for it, begging for it, pushing for it. It is a pitiful excuse.
Ya, because being belted around and abused is such a great and wonderful thing.
No one welcomes abuse.
I am surprised you aren't more concerned with your friend's mental state that she thinks that this is normal or expected or acceptable.
What would I say to that woman? I'd tell her that this was not normal, that she was a better person and that she deserved better and I would remind her of that each time I saw her in the hope that one day she wold start believing it herself and I would tell her the moment she does, I would be there for her to help her.
A variety of reasons. Fame and others who believe that is what they deserve..
I find it interesting that you see it as being so black and white..
That's a new one. Well no, it's not really new. It's just so old and from the dark ages that I wonder how anyone could still be uttering it in this day and age.
Then perhaps a bit more compassion and understanding for these women's history and why they think this is normal and what they deserve..
Oh, and that study? They also found something interesting with it..
If you're a smiler, it is quite likely that your spouse was attracted to you because he thought you are weak and can be easily dominated.
Jokes aside.. One thing that people seem to have forgotten about this study:
Well Geoff is correct I'm not assigning blame but you're wrong that testosterone is an excuse for males or rather an underlying factor when it comes to aggression.
I find no one cries foul at the suggestion.
Personality disorders are genetic, innate if you will and where a person lies on the spectrum in terms of character is influenced by environment. Do you make excuses for men who are Antisocial Personality Disordered? After all they cannot help their predisposition towards bad behaviour (rape, abuse, criminal activity, murder, deceit etc)? What about pedophilia? Two Canadian psychologists Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem actually testified in court that sentencing for these types should be increased because pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, said, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.” He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
Do they get the same kind of "out" argument you give to women you consider perpetual victims of horrible men? Its said that pedophiles can abstain, which means they have some choice in terms of behaviour. If someone who has an innate orientation can make a choice then why not women who have been previously abused? Your argument claims these women have no choice because since they were originally in an abusive relationship they will always choose another abusive relationship. Still, it doesn't account for the numerous women who get out of an abusive relationship and forever avoid such inter-personal dynamics. Just ask Tina Turner. She wasn't too terrified to run and when she ran she ran with 36 cents to her name, she didn't do anything dramatic, she ran while he was sleeping and she didn't run right into fame either, she earned a living cleaning houses. She didn't believe she "deserved it", she's said so plenty of times during interviews. Yet you seem to believe that is an excuse for why a woman shouldn't take any responsibility. Or maybe you are trying to say that women like your cousin are simply weak? Or maybe your argument is that women in general are weak and therefore victims of whatever previously had influenced them, they have no choice and share no personal responsibility. Though men on the other hand should take full responsibility even if they too are predisposed or "conditioned" by past experience and genetics. If this is your argument then you should give the same consideration to the sociopath and psychopathic murderer, not to mention the pedophile. Because basically what you are saying is that abused women are predisposed to getting abused if they've been hit before then they will eagerly enter into an abusive dynamic nay INSIST on remaining. The woman I mentioned had a choice, she wasn't embedded in the relationship, she could have said no and yet she went in full gusto when she had evidence that there would be abuse.
Is that the pop psychology statement that's supposed to absolve the women of any personal responsibility? If they believe they deserve it then they are simply getting what they deserve? Yes? No? So why are they victims?
I say it was easy for none. And if it doesn't "fit the same pattern" then you cannot come up with any scientific basis for your claim that all women who enter into abusive relationships are victims and do not have a "pathological" enjoyment of the abuse. The same way the engineer offered himself up to the cannibal to get eaten. If something happens twice then it can be a coincidence, three times and I smell pattern.
Do you have any evidence that its ridiculous? I thought the notion of a man volunteering himself up to be butchered and eaten alive "ridiculous" and yet it exists. There are people who revel in the notion of their victimhood, they enjoy the sympathy, exuding helplessness, they love the pity almost as much as they love their victimizer. All you are saying is that the thought of this is anathema to you, you are showing no evidence that it isn't occurring.
One would think. But do you recall the Royal Antwerp Football Players kicking balls at beautiful young women arses as they were wearing scanty underwear with their naked bums hanging out? Those gals volunteered for that. Of the incident the Huffington Post wrote "The models wore high-rise lacy hotpants and the players aimed and took their shot - the look of pain on the women's faces as the ball connects is pretty awful to watch. Not to mention the players laughing among themselves afterwards."
But more to the point;
These are people who depend on others for their emotional gratification and the performance of Ego or daily functions. They are needy, demanding, and submissive. They fear abandonment, cling and display immature behaviours in their effort to maintain the "relationship" with their companion or mate upon whom they depend. No matter what abuse is inflicted upon them – they remain in the relationship. By eagerly becoming victims, codependents seek to control their abusers.
Inverted Narcissists are Covert Narcissists
The Inverted Narcissist is a co-dependent who depends exclusively on narcissists (narcissist-co-dependent). If you are living with a narcissist, have a relationship with one, if you are married to one, if you are working with a narcissist, etc. – it does NOT mean that you are an inverted narcissist.
To "qualify" as an inverted narcissist, you must CRAVE to be in a relationship with a narcissist, regardless of any abuse inflicted on you by him/her. You must ACTIVELY seek relationships with narcissists and ONLY with narcissists, no matter what your (bitter and traumatic) past experience has been. You must feel EMPTY and UNHAPPY in relationships with ANY OTHER kind of person. Only then, and if you satisfy the other diagnostic criteria of a Dependent Personality Disorder, can you be safely labelled an "inverted narcissist".
Inverted narcissists are covert narcissists. They are self-centred, sensitive, vulnerable, and defensive, or hostile, and paranoid. They harbour grandiose fantasies and have a strong sense of entitlement. They tend to exploit other, albeit stealthily and subtly. Covert narcissists are aware of their innate limitations and shortcomings and, therefore, constantly fret and stress over their inability to fulfil their unrealistic dreams and expectations. They avoid recognition, competition, and the limelight for fear of being exposed as frauds or failures. They are ostentatiously modest.
Covert narcissists often feel guilty over and ashamed of their socially-impermissible aggressive urges and desires. Consequently, they are shy and unassertive and intensely self-critical (perfectionist). This inner conflict between an overwhelming sense of worthlessness and a grandiose False Self results in mood and anxiety disorders. They team up with classic narcissists, but, in secret, resent and envy them. (Cooper and Akhtar, 1989, Development Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz)
In comparison to the above description your psychological model is shallow at best.
LOL! Concerned for what? If I give advise to someone and the person takes the exact opposite path then best of British luck to them. And she's not my friend, as a matter of fact she can't be anyone's friend. She's too self-absorbed in her drama to be anyones friend. She just wants a sympathetic ear and a pat on the popo from time to time is all.
Actually I didn't ask what you would say to that woman but what would you say OF that woman but since you went to all the trouble. What you would have said, do you think you're the only person in this woman pathetic life to tell her such things? All the those shallow statements we get from Oprah? "You're a better person", "The light resides in you" blah blah blah. Do you really believe she gives a rats ass about "normalicy"? She craves the abnormal because that's where her kick is. She would be bored by "normal". Like I said if you want her to reject a man just introduce her to a decent one. She'll send him packing and claim he isn't "her type". I don't waste time, concern or sympathy with someone like that.
Well Shuug, even the dark ages had its wisdom.
Compassion shouldn't be wasted or squandered and I do understand. Its you who do not understand which is why you went racing to your cousins husband all guns raised and cape flapping in the wind all just so she could smile meekly and stay with him.
Oh I'm not really referring to the study per se. I was just pointing out to CC that the notion that women like the "bad boy" isn't far fetched and that there are women yet still who like the dangerous bad boy. The study is perhaps just one bit of data to a larger understanding.
Was it Camille Paglia who once wrote "Victimhood’ is a role, a ‘mantle’ that is consciously taken on, a cult whose followers assume an undifferentiated perspective that legitimises and breeds passivity, and denies the possibility of any agency that might transcend victim status on the one hand, or be construed as a mitigating the moral capital of innocent helplessness on the other. This disproportionate emphasis on victims’ interests was also frequently decried as ‘victimology’, a ‘faddish, pseudo-scientific folly that constituted one of the ‘principles and mechanisms of Political Correctness.
Maybe this should really be its own thread since its transcended the original topic. Anywho Bells darling the ball is in your corner. Don't misinterpret my meaning either. I am not saying there are no true victims of abuse because there are. I'm saying that there is among that population women (& men) who seek out abusers as their main point of attraction. Aggression and eroticism are deeply entwined and why this is so hard for some to accept or admit is beyond me.
Both men and women are instinctually attracted to happiness. You don't need a smile to say happiness, but it is nice. Women don't like jerks, respect ftw.
Women are attracted to signs of arousal - sexual interest - in men. A non-smiling, focused, intent face is one such sign. A smiling man is socially engaged - obviously not aroused and intent, despite being in the woman's presence and (presumably, in the photo) even looking at the woman.
But, if your smiling your enjoying yourself. who doesn't want to be with that? A smile also says your welcome to an interaction.
:bugeye: Uh, never mind my request for clarification, since each response just causes me to want to add another set of "???". [Jeepers, when am I going to learn not to bother, considering the amount of semantic reversals I've encountered in the past up here in the top section of SF.]
Edit: To avoid sowing confusion myself... Note that what I was referring to above is how "Testosterone hasn't often worked lately as a bunk excuse for males, either -- whether concerning violence or milder, dufus acts" gets flipped around to the opposite of my advocating said bunk excuse. The rest is my being perfectly content [henceforth] to leave that and the former matter alone curiosity-wise, lest I eventually get caught-up in the Bizarro World spirit of this thread myself.
"In popular culture Bizarro World has come to mean a situation or setting which is weirdly inverted or opposite of expectations."
Well said, Mrs. Lucy.
Careful now, her weapons of choice are unfounded assumptions and loaded questions.
Why do you believe that all bad behaviour is caused by a personality disorder? For example, someone who beats their spouse may not suffer from any such disorder. Why are you trying to excuse it as such?
What about it?
In which case, an abuser has the choice to not hit.
If you are going to argue that there is a form of personality disorder or genetic reason for people to abuse, say like for paedophiles, and paedophiles who have a choice and do not abuse children, then why wouldn't the same apply to domestic abusers? Why do you place that choice on the victim instead?
Why doesn't the abuser not abuse? Why do you place that responsibility solely on the victim? Even victims who have been conditioned to believe that this is all they are worth or deserve? Or the victims who have suffered psychological trauma and/or may not even recognise they are victims of domestic violence?
You paint it in black and white, and you place the onus on the victim to not be a victim. You completely and blatantly disregard the psychological complexities of abusive relationships, its victims and perpetrators. It isn't always so black and white and victims of domestic abuse often find themselves in a cycle of abusive relationships. Not because he or she enjoys it, but because that is all they may have known or experienced and what they identify with.
You also willfully and dangerously disregard people's feelings and emotions. A victim of domestic abuse may and often does love his or her abuser. The moments where there is no abuse, no hitting, screaming, threatening behaviour are often happy experiences, shared memories and experiences. I see it with my relatives who were and currently are in abusive relationships. The happy holidays away, the constant smiling and hugging, the reminder of how much their abuser loves them. And the snap, that illusion is shattered in a night or two of frenzied attacks, threats, screams of abusive language, telling them that they are sluts and whores and that this is what they deserve. That this is what they are. And then the next day, silence, contrite behaviour, blaming the victim for what he or she did to them.. And the cycle begins again. Do you have any idea what that does to someone psychologically?
Not everyone is a cold fish, Lucysnow. Some people actually do have emotions and feelings and for many people, it's not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.
Everyone has a choice.
Which is why I find it surprising that you, of all people, are placing that choice solely on the victim. Why is there no choice on the abuser to not abuse? Why do you place the onus of choice on the victim only?
Firstly, not every person is the same. Not all of their experiences are the same. So why do you expect everyone to act or be the same?
Secondly, you also leave out the fact that Tina had gotten to the point where she drank 50 Valium tablets in a bid to commit suicide and she left after an attack that was so violent that she feared for her life, after having lived in fear of her life with Ike for several years. You also leave out the fact that she made sure Ike was unable to find her, ever. They did not speak for over "Three Decades".
Thirdly, Tina Turner did not consider herself a victim of domestic abuse because she survived it.
Responsibility for what?
Being beaten? Or to stop the beatings?
As I said above, you have a very black and white view of the world and you expect people to simply leave out all emotions as though they are androids and you seem to have this view that all should act or behave a certain way or fit a certain pattern. Life does not work like that and not every situation, relationship and person happen to be the same. You aren't even considering the psychological damage that people suffer.
My cousin is one of the strongest women I know. After all, she survived horrific abuse as a child and into her early teens, she survived though severe depression through her teens after what she had endured, she survived several abusive relationships because that is sadly all she believes she deserves and she is surviving her current abusive relationship and has done so for over 13 years. No one really knows of her current abusive relationship. I only found out after she turned to me for help after he beat her so badly that she peed blood. No one else knows. She thinks that this is all she is worth. And until such a time that she can get out of that cycle, I'll love her no matter what. I don't turn her away or denigrate her because she remains or had put up with it for so long. I recognise that she's a human being with vastly different experiences to what I had. Most importantly, I don't blame her for what has happened to her. I don't think she gets off on it or enjoyed it. She is absolutely terrified and she is scared. 24/7. And I think women who live in such situations should not be denigrated, viewed as being weak or accused of being willing victims or blamed for their "choices". The choice in abuse and domestic violence remains with the abuser to not abuse.
Wow Lucysnow, that is exceptionally cold and heartless.
I find it bizarre that you are incapable of understanding human emotion and the psychology of abusive relationships.
You have yet to provide any scientific evidence or evidence that women enjoy being abused.
And frankly, I find your one size fits all approach to domestic violence victims and survivors to be disturbing. Not in a funny ha ha kind of way, but in a 'holy shit' kind of way.
I mean you even fail to acknowledge that men are also victims of domestic violence. Why do you keep placing the onus of choice on the female victims?
Not every woman is the same. Not every man is the same. Victims of domestic violence are often groomed in the relationship to normalise the violence against them. And others are not. There is no set behaviour and frankly, your expectations of the victims literally looks as if you are placing the onus on them to not be abused. And frankly, that is ridiculous.
Most victims of domestic violence never speak of it to others. Many victims do not even consider themselves as being abused. That's the cycle, isn't it? The belief that this is normal. That you are the only one going through this. So victims do not tell their families, or anyone else. It is internalised. And many do not leave because they know, if they leave, then they and their loved ones will be at risk of death. In fact, a victim in a violent household is more likely to be killed when he or she tries to leave or has just left. It's why you often see and hear stories of how the ex hunts her down and kills her and/or the children.
I would strongly recommend that you learn the story of Leslie Morgan Steiner, just for a slight clue of what actually goes on in abusive relationships.
I would have thought that you would have more empathy than that.
And frankly, your disregard of the fact that most victims are more at risk as they are planning to leave, are leaving or just after they leave and that is when most victims of domestic abuse die is dangerous ideology. A victim of domestic violence is 70 times more likely to be killed in the few weeks after she has left. 70 times. Does that mean that she should stay? No. What it does mean is that declaring that she can just leave, is dangerous, because not all women can just walk out. Only she can make that decision if and when the time is right and safe for her to do so. And denigrating her by declaring that she's getting off on it just adds to more reasons as to why and how women are often at risk, as are male victims of domestic violence. It isn't one size fits all and just because Tina Turner walked out in the middle of the night after a particularly bad beating, does not mean that everyone is in the same situation or have the support network around them to allow them to just leave. Because they need support, counseling and help. Not some highbrow beliefs that she's getting off on being the victim.
And yours is based on the belief that we are all androids and all made to fit into little boxes and all meant to behave in a particular way.
1) You have completely disregarded the psychological abuse that occurs in violent relationships and families.
2) You seem to have this frankly bizarre one size fits all approach to human beings.
3) Your attempt to blame women for goading the poor man into hitting her because she gets off on it is, frankly, dangerous and illogical. And blaming her for not leaving? New low.
4) You deliberately disregard the psychological effects and the patterns of abuse and expect women to simply just know right from the get go or just get out while deliberately disregarding the dangers of such arguments (one can only hope you don't give this kind of advice to any woman or man who is unfortunate enough to open up to you about any violence they may be experiencing in the home... If you do, you could cost them their life if you approach it in such a cold and calculated manner that completely disregards just how dangerous such situations actually are and without the empathy you clearly appear to be lacking..)..
5) You clearly do not really understand domestic violence.
It is probably a relief for her that you are not her friend. No offense, but after your display here, any advice you give her could cost her her life, either by her own hand or by that of her abuser.
Because domestic violence and the cycle of violence is psychologically damaging and frankly, demanding or the expectation that she just leaves is exceptionally dangerous for her and her loved ones, especially if she has children. Children are often targets of abusers, to make the victim pay for having left. There was a case here in Australia, of a woman who left her husband and took her children with her. He managed to track her down, and waited one day when she had gone to work, and entered the property and killed their two children and her father. This is sadly not uncommon with domestic abuse. Sadder still, the courts and the law often allow the abuser access to the children, further controlling the victim further with the constant fear and risk of their harming the children (like the case here where a guy drove his car into a dam, drowning his 3 sons on a parental visitation day).
She is probably better off for it.
Because you appear to be very controlling and demanding about how she should act. Expectations of how someone should be acting or what they should be doing is very daunting and is often a barrier to leaving. Blaming the victim would most definitely qualify as a barrier.
Have you ever wondered why she is this way? Instead of blaming her, perhaps try to just listen to her or get her some help.
Indeed back the, marriage constituted a knock to the head and dragged back to one's abode.
Compassion and understanding can never be squandered. After all, I don't think I am squandering it on you.
Camille Paglia is a birther and of Sarah Palin:
I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.
As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee — what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.
Enough said really...
And my point to you is that domestic violence is not all black and white. And I think ignoring the psychological aspect of the abuse, and the human emotions involved and simply declaring some women get off on it, is dangerous. Not every person is the same and having a one size fits all and declaring they look to be abused or desire it, also ignores the obvious psychological damage that is obviously present.
I do not believe that all bad behavior is caused by a personality disorder. In fact the only reason why I even brought them up is because you referenced them the very first sentence of your last post where you wrote "And you fail to factor in the personality disordered". Why did you find it important to mention the personality disordered if you didn't want it considered?
What about pedophilia? Well I explained already you just have to re-read the post. You make excuses for women based on what they cannot control, based on their "personality disorder" and "psychological damage", my question was simple. Do you give these types the same excuse, the same 'out' to these types as you do women who persistently remain in and continue to choose abusive relationships? After all none of them are "in control" right? They are all victims of genetics, psychology and environment. Are you unaware of your last post? Do I need to reiterate all the points you made? Or rather all the excuses you made for these types of women?
The abuser has the choice not to hit. Does the abused have the choice not to be with someone who hits? We are talking of grown adult women here. Why do you absolve women the responsibility for their own lives. How sad. How Medieval!
I don't have to argue that there is a genetic reason for people to abuse its a point of fact, sometimes that even relates to these same people engaging in domestic abuse but I agree not all perpetuators of domestic abuse are personality disordered, just like all women who stay with domestic abusers are not all victims (an example of one of your "black and white" thinking). I am not deflecting the fact that an abuser has a choice, some have more choice than others. My point is that you do not even encounter or imagine that the so called victims have a choice and that choice sometimes is to remain in an abusive dynamic as opposed to leaving. You make excuses as to why the woman cannot or does not leave. Can you admit that there are women who willingly choose to remain in an abusive dynamic? The same way an abuser chooses not to control his urges? Why do you expect less choices from those you call victim? Remember we are not talking about one marriage or one boyfriend, were talking about women who specialize in abusive men.
Why doesn't the abuser not abuse?Why doesn't the abused not choose to leave the abuse? Its the same question Bells. Answer one and you answer the other. If I am a psychopath and my natural inclination is to abuse then why should I even bother to curtail my instincts if there is a person who is willing to suffer them? Why is the onus ONLY on the one who acts on their urge? Is the woman simply an empty vessel who simply absorbs the desires of another or does she also exercise choice? Its an important question so consider carefully. Right now you are arguing that the woman cannot exercise any agency at all. She's imply an empty vessel to be programmed and conditioned by a more dominant force. In short you believe women to be naturally weak by constitution. Being as all you need do is abuse them and then they will forever choose what you claim they do not want, need nor enjoy. What are they then? Blank canvases upon which men create what they like?
What is this psychological trauma you claim makes them crave further abuse? Can you elaborate on this? There are many many women who have been in traumatic abusive circumstances and it only makes them shirk these conditions. Why is it your group cannot? What is the psychology behind this exactly other than the lame excuse of "they don't believe they deserve any better". Because that Bells isn't as much a sign of psychological trauma as much as it is a mindset, I can safely say so since there are so many women who escape this mindset despite trauma. So what you have to do is explain why are woman has no choice but to submit over and over and over again to abuse no matter the relationship, no matter the man.
All victims have the onus NOT to remain a victim Bells! That is a given! All people who have suffered a wrong have the onus to protect themselves! We're not talking about children Bells! Or are you of the "dark age" belief that women are akin to children and cannot make these kinds of choices?
You claim that a woman chooses abuser after abuser not because she enjoys it but because "its all they may have known or experienced and with what they identify". Really? You make the claim but give no actual evidence that this is the case. I mean really why is it that people who have been viscously sexually and physically abused as children grow up to have healthy families with healthy spouses and children? Why does that occur? Why are they able to "not identify" or choose something other than what they have "known and experienced"? Are they anomalies Bells? Is it that they miraculously escaped "conditioning" by their abuser? Explain.
Yes often a victim of domestic abuse loves his or her abuser. Isn't there a pathology in that? You claimed earlier that no one loves being abused. And yet now you state that "they love their abuser". Why would a woman love someone who causes them nothing but pain? You cannot separate a person from what they do Bells. There is no "snap" moment. The only "snap" is the first time. The fourth and fifth and sixth is just the normalcy of what is to be expected. Are they somehow dimwitted and cannot understand that if after maybe one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times etc that this occurs that it will occur again? I think even children with down syndrome can understand that. A woman who is experiencing this and does not attempt a way out of it is as culpable as the man doing the hitting. Just like a woman who's with a man who abuses her children is culpable if she does nothing about it.
Oh I agree that most people are not cold fishes. I would go far as to say that someone who is so selfless that they would put their warm flesh and life on the line isn't a cold fish either. I would say that they must be hot. Why hot? Because a lash would leave me cold and it would only have to happen once…unless of course I found it enjoyable. Think of your own psychology Bells. Would you stay in an abusive relationship? And if not why not? Abuse is something I find boring. I am willing to agree that its not that way for everyone. There is another way of looking at it too. The woman who does put their warm flesh and life on the line IS cold because she doesn't feel enough to know the pain. Either way you slice it the fish isn't worth eating.
You ask what constant abuse does to someone. Why ask me? You are the one who seems to understand these circumstances.I cannot understand it but evidently you do. I wouldn't put up with it. I wouldn't stay in it. I would run like T. Turner with only 36 cents in my pocket and work as a housekeeper just to get away from it. You evidently believe there is an EXCUSE to remain in it. Since you understand it I would like you to explain it to me with a thorough explanation, not simply shallow phrases that really do not explain nor convey anything, never mind offering a true argument to support such behavior.
Bells you say here
"Everyone has a choice.Which is why I find it surprising that you, of all people, are placing that choice solely on the victim." The victims problem isn't the abuser since he or she cannot change their behavior, the only person whom the victim can control is him or herself. So who else is supposed to exercise this choice? Or is your argument that they should hang around being abused until the abuser decides differently?
I never said Tina Turner never considered herself a victim of domestic abuse. She does. I said she never believed she deserved it, which is the excuse you give of why a woman stay in an abusive dynamic and why she continues to choose abusive partners. You need to read the posts more carefully if you're going to argue this with me.
You want to know what the victim has to take responsibility for? HERSELF and whether she continues to be abused or not. That is her or his SOLE responsibility. Or again are they akin to children who cannot take responsibility? If you beat me yesterday and today its my responsibility whether I am beaten tomorrow. To leave that responsibility to the person doing the beating is to absolve oneself of any independence and relinquish all agency to the one doing the whipping, in which case its no wonder why she's not getting a licking. What you claim is the person has no personal will of action. So you see its you who damn them to their circumstances not me. And not only that you are confused about them too.
Case in Point
You're cousin isn't a strong woman. She isn't. Why is she strong? Because she martyrs herself on the alter of abuse? From your own argument she isn't "surviving" anything, she's just adapted to it in such a way that she has become "accustomed", "conditioned". Why are you now claiming that this conditioning is a sign of strength? She's strong but she's scared. She's strong but terrified. She's strong but she stays. Do you realize what you are saying? You are claiming that remaining in victimhood is a sign of strength. If its not something to be denigrated then I guess you believe its something to be applauded? What are you catholic or something?
I do understand human emotion Bells. This is why I am not cold to it. I am not so cold that I would call victimhood a "strength" because one stays in an abusive situation. Which is what you claim in this psychologically and emotionally warped paragraph
'My cousin is one of the strongest women I know. After all, she survived horrific abuse as a child and into her early teens, she survived though severe depression through her teens after what she had endured, she survived several abusive relationships because that is sadly all she believes she deserves and she is surviving her current abusive relationship and has done so for over 13 years.'"
That's what she believes and yet you maintain she is "strong". How warped is that?
You've elevated sickness into health and claim that its exemplary, you even speak warmly of it. And that little bit of perversity is what you call "warm feeling"? And you have the nerve to question my depth of feeling because I find it to be nothing more than just sick? LOL. You is crazy Bells. You is crazy. LOL. Know wonder you admire her. LOL
You claim I haven't provided any evidence that women enjoy being abused. True. Of course I haven't Its not my argument. Women don't enjoy being abused Bells. Women who systematically seek out and remain in abusive relationships enjoy being abused. And I didn't fail to acknowledge that men are victims of abuse either, all you had to do is actually read my posts to see that I state its women and men.
You claim that victims of abuse never speak of it and then you claim that they don't even consider themselves abused. So how do you know what they consider or do not if they never speak of abuse? And if someone gets a slap or a punch and doesn't consider it abusive. Or if they are abused financial or emotionally and don't deem it as such. Who the hell are we to argue Bells? If they don't consider it abuse then what's the complaint exactly?
You say you thought I would have more empathy. Why? The meaning of empathy is to "share another's feelings". These are not feelings I can share Bells. These are feelings that leave me cold. I can sympathize with a woman who is abused and needs a way out of that abuse. I cannot sympathize with a woman who is abused and embraces the abuse and the abuser because (as you claim) "they don't even consider it as abuse", they don't believe they deserve better.
You are engaging in double speak can't you see? You claim the abused do not really see that they are abused. You also claim those in these relationships are so damaged they cannot leave and for this you say they are strong because. What? Because they are "surviving" it? Really? To remain in an abusive relationship is what it means to survive one? That's what I call double speak. You elevate the victim in her victimhood.
I agree that just because one woman walks out on an abusive relationship doesn't mean another will do the same. Its that exact difference that I am referring to here Bells, its that exactly that I am highlighting. There is a reason why some women leave and then never enter into another abusive relationship and why some women do not leave and if they do they continue to perpetually seek out abusive relationships, in fact my entire argument is based on the fact that some women leave and others will never choose anything else. Yet you claim that its some sort of scientific fact that women are "conditioned" by abuse. That they are somehow forever altered by these experiences which absolves them of all responsibility toward their life and health. I say no. They are not absolved. As a matter of fact its arguments like yours that keeps them "happily" engaged while garnering social sympathy. Basically you EXPECT abused women to remain shattered and destroyed both emotionally and psychologically because you are claiming that they have no choice in the matter (hence my pedophilia example).
Do you realize that most abused women don't seek counseling until they have left an abusive relationship? Its true.The are seeking to heal from the abuse. You cannot get help for something you are unwilling to part from.
I don't have a one size fits all belief on this subject, you do. You believe that ALL women in these relationships are de facto victims who have no choice but to put up with these circumstances because they've been "traumatized" and "conditioned". I am saying that there are plenty of women who leave abusive relationships and never get into another. PLENTY! So what's the difference between these women and those who continuously seek out the same kind of sick dynamic? You're answer is that they basically cannot help themselves. I am saying that not only are they capable of helping themselves but they are making a choice not to! Can't you see? Its you who believe they are helpless. I say they use helplessness as an excuse, especially if their victim status is endemic.
When you use the example of a woman who leaves with her kids and then her husband hunts her down and harms her kids then we are speaking of true victims. I agree that she and her children are victims and she will have to be exceptionally proactive to deal with the bum. But that's not what many of these circumstances are about are they? After all your cousin has voluntarily stayed in an abusive relationship for 13 years without attempting to leave, even after you went there with guns blazing and your cape flapping in the wind as back up. And of course the example you give of the woman leaving doesn't account for the women who continuously go from abuse to abuse to abuse so please stop comparing apples to oranges. We are not discussing women who try to leave an abuser and is hunted down!! We are talking about the ones who stay and choose another abuser if the relationship fails.
The example of the woman I gave (let's call her 'Madame De Sade'). Here's your quote on how I dealt with her
"She is probably better off for it.Because you appear to be very controlling and demanding about how she should act. Expectations of how someone should be acting or what they should be doing is very daunting and is often a barrier to leaving. Blaming the victim would most definitely qualify as a barrier. Have you ever wondered why she is this way? Instead of blaming her, perhaps try to just listen to her or get her some help."
Nah. I listen mostly and then I say what I have to say and then I never talk to her again about it. That means she cannot complain to me. I do not give her my ear on the subject once she has made A CHOICE. I respect her choice because its hers to make. She can waste someone else's time about being with someone she knew was ill and decided to cohabit with. That's her choice. If its a problem then she knows what she can do about it. What I will not do is listen to someone whine about a situation they are unwilling to influence themselves. She knew what she chose when she chose it! And yes I do assign blame on her but not for wanting what she wants. I blame her for pretending it wasn't what she wanted as she reveled in the act of choosing it. She brought him in and supported him and then complained that she was supporting him. She claimed she can only enjoy painful sex and then complained when he abused her during sex. She decided upon the relationship AFTER she knew from various sources that he was potentially dangerous. So. I acknowledge her responsibility in the matter. What I did say to her was that she wasn't going to leave him and she didn't. I could say that because I know her history and her history is that she doesn't leave abusive relationships unless there is an equally sick relationship she can double into. There is no helping her. She doesn't want help. She wants what she wants. You could suggest help and she wouldn't take it, this being the case I don't bother with her. I believe, just as you do, that she is getting just what she thinks she deserves AND what she wants. And we all deserve what we want don't we?
Oh and guess what. There's an update on the matter. This guy that she dragged into her life? He left her. LOL! HE left her! And do you think she's happy about it in the "I dodged a bullet" kind of way? No. Relieved perhaps? No. Ego being what it is she's practically insulted! Hurt and sad, dumped with all that "why me?" nonsense. All for someone who was in her life for less than three months, someone who nearly drowned her, hit her until the white of her eyes turned red, someone who bruised her and allowed her to pay for the privilege. AND YOU WANT ME TO FEEL SORRY FOR HER BELLS? I have better things to do with my time AND my sentiments. You are a sloppy mess my dear if you waste your sentiments on people like this. If you want to feel sorry for something Bells I suggest you go to your local animal shelter. To give it time is to hear more sad sack tales of why, when and how without her EVER taking any responsibility for her circumstances. At the end of the day even the sick guy has more sense than she does. Do I blame him? No. Not particularly. He was using her. He told others he was using her. She was told he was using her. It was obvious that he was using and abusing her and she allowed and welcomed it. Now of course that she's left as damaged goods she gets to call everyone and...da da...be the victim.
Where do you get such a dim view of the dark ages Bells? Surely you must believe there was some love, health, beauty, happy marriages or are they simply modern inventions? Or is it again that you seem to view women being victims both historically as well as now? You're like the anti-feminist or those first wave feminist who think the only role for women is that of being protected because they are so weak. Well I have some news for you about the "dark ages" Joan of Arc, Lady Godiva, Lady Agnes Randolph aka Black Agnes and Julian of Norwich would all laugh in your face never mind beg to differ. The list goes on but why waste the bandwidth. You cannot suppress true strength Bells no matter the time period or what laws exist on or off the books.
Camille Paglia is an intellectual AND A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT! Her defense of Palin in the cultural zeitgeist doesn't discount her scholarship. After all she's the same woman who said
“I AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT WHO IS DETERMINED TO RETURN MY PARTY TO THE PROLETARIAN PRINCIPLES OF THE FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT ERA.”
Because you seem incapable of understanding or even acknowledging that not every case is the same and not everyone is the same. You accuse women of seeking abuse if they are within that abusive cycle and continue to enter relationships with men or women who are abusive. They aren't doing it because they enjoy it or get off on it, as you seem to argue, but because that is all they have ever known. These women rarely recognise what a healthy relationship is like.
You miss my point, you seem incapable of approaching it from the context of the abuser having the choice to not hit. You place the blame on the woman for having 1) entered into the relationship with the man 2) remaining in the abusive relationship, 3) not leaving the abusive relationship within a certain set time, 4) if she is in that cycle and enters another abusive relationship.. You do this without recognising what exactly goes on and how victims are groomed in such relationships.
Good grief, Lucysnow. You are an intelligent woman. Surely you cannot be disregarding the psychological and emotional abuse that accompanies physical abuse, the threats, the psychological trauma, the fear and terror, the belief that they are at fault, the thought that this is their doing and what they deserve, the fact that many actually love their spouses and are scared to leave because they may either kill them or themselves or their children, the fact that they don't know where to go or what to do, the fact that many are economically held prisoner in that they do not have access to money, and all the rest of the nightmares that go on in such relationships? To declare that she has a choice to not be with someone who hits.. Really?
It's not as black and white as that, Lucysnow and I am appalled that anyone in this day and age could think this is so.
And frankly, those kinds of attitudes is why some women remain, because instead of providing them with options and protection, they are harangued for having stayed as long as they did and people like you carry on as if they are irresponsible or enjoy or get off on it.
I own two homes that are used as halfway homes for such victims. The ins and outs of domestic abuse is not as cut and dried as you seem to believe.
Because most of those women are so psychologically damaged and so bloody terrified that they cannot leave.
Not everyone is the same. Approximately 50% of women are able to leave and do so safely. A large portion are not in that position because they don't have anyone to turn to, because they have been groomed to be what and where they are. To put it bluntly, your argument is akin to accusing a child sex abuse victim of enjoying being raped because they kept going back or kept putting up with it and because they did not leave. The dynamics of such relationships is not so cut and dried as you are trying to make it. Your whole "hur hur hur she should just leave".. It doesn't work that way. If it did, then it would not be the issue that it is.
Do you understand what is meant by grooming?
Look at the case of Leslie Morgan Steiner as a prime example. Married in her early 20's, as are a large portion of victims, to a man she loved and who worshiped her and their relationship. By all rights, she had the perfect marriage. They were a doting couple who were into each other and working at their dream jobs.. He set it up, told her how he was from an abusive household.. then he slowly began to isolate her from her family and her friends, from her job and even from where she lived.. Made her move to a small quiet country town where he had full control. Then the threats began, not outright threats, but purchased guns and kept them near him at all times and in sight of her. But she loved him so much and he loved her so much, she didn't think anything of it. He was still exceptionally supportive of her career and of her. She thought he needed it because he had been so traumatised from his childhood. A week before they married, he grabbed her by the neck and smacked her head into the wall.. Then blamed her for it and she bought it, she thought she was to blame. During their honeymoon, he beat her again, and again and again.. Pretty much a weekly occurrence. No one knew. By the end, she thought he was going to kill her and she realised that she was not alone and she managed to leave, she contacted the police and she was able to get some protection and she left. She broke the cycle she'd been in for years, a cycle she didn't even recognise herself as being in. Now, as per your beliefs, she was getting off on it and a "willing victim" because she stayed. She stayed because she was terrified for a variety of reasons. She was absolutely controlled and she was conditioned from the start of their relationship to believe this was normal and acceptable.
Have you ever read Ice Bound, by Jerri Nielsen? The doctor who found out she had breast cancer during a winter at the South Pole? She was also a survivor of domestic abuse. You should read it, as it provides some insight as to why women stay and the absolute fear of leaving and why some never leave or keep falling back into that cycle.
I think you are so short sighted about this that it is spectacular, to be honest. You have floored me with your attitude.
They don't crave it. Good grief, Lucysnow!
For some victims, it is all they have ever known. It is what they expect. And it is what they consider to be normal. And what they think they deserve. They think they have done something or they think they are at fault or they think they can stay with him or her to cure them or help them past it or they are frankly, too terrified to leave.
Do you know how some victims of child sex abuse are very promiscuous, and exhibit sexualised behaviour and sometimes, even come onto adults? It's not because they crave it, but because that is their new normal.
And if they are unable to, does not mean that people can accuse them of craving it or wanting it or desiring it.
Domestic abuse is heinous because of its very nature. The person you are with, the one you love and who loves you is hurting you physically and psychologically.. You feel terrified, threatened, scared for your loved ones, scared for yourself, scared for them. It's complex and coming out and declaring that it is up to them to not be the victim only works to keep them as the victim. These women and men don't need to be judged, they need to be helped and told that there is help and protection out there for them.
It is astounding how much you lack empathy for such victims, and how judgmental you are.
Because not everyone is the same, Lucysnow. Some do and some do not.
Some go on and fall into drugs, commit suicide, commit crimes, end up being abusers themselves.
Do you understand how much that kind of trauma changes you? The fear you live with for the rest of your life? How it removes your ability to trust people? After all, if you are being abused by someone you love and trusted, what does that say for your ability to judge others and what they are like?
It's a vicious circle. Literally. And sometimes her vulnerability will attract others like the abusive partner she had previously. Because that is what these people look out for.
Unfortunately, all too many women remain in the victim role for years, and when they try to make attempts to change, they discover that they do not have enough energy to overpower the abuser. They become so distrusting of their own judgment that they do not feel that they can cope by themselves, especially when there is the reality of raising children, and they are uncertain of financial support. It is in these circumstances that the cycle of abuse can continue for years. Even though she may be a competent mother and homemaker and/or employee, the constellation of control tactics used against her and her perception that she has no support erode her confidence. The cycle of abuse continues. -
You can't tell the difference between those two statements?
Because the abuse is not constant.
And that is the thing with domestic abuse. It's not 24/7. There are good times in the relationship. Usually at the start, it is exceptionally intense and loving. And that is when the grooming and isolation starts.. And by the time he hits her for the first time, she is emotionally and psychologically involved in such a way that she will not be able to believe it happened. It's written off as a one off. Then when it happens again and he starts to blame her for it. It's never him, it's her. And it happens again and again and between those periods of abuse, there are happy times, where the man she fell in love with shines through, so she thinks he's still in there somewhere and she's determined to try and make it work, to try and get that man to come back all the time. That's the bloody heinous cycle. She will often just want the violence to end, but not the loving relationship that co-exists with the violent one to end. Do you understand that dynamic?
What? Do you think they are being locked up in the basement and beaten 24/7? Seriously Lucysnow? I thought you understood it all better than that!
You say that now. I said it too. Until it happens out of the blue and you are left reeling at it all. It's not always so cut and dried for everyone.
I did. For a long time. Only mine was psychological and emotional abuse during a time where I was weakest and by the end, I had come to believe that the situation outside of my control was my fault. It took me a long time to find my way out of it. And I am someone who has worked with abused women for many years. It isn't always easy to recognise when you are on the receiving end. No one believed me when I finally spoke out about it. But it was an abusive relationship and I lost myself and a part of myself during it.
It's not that she doesn't feel the pain. It's that she may not be able to recognise it for what it is and she may not recognise or realise the cycle of what's happening.
Tina Turner put up with it for years, attempted suicide at least once and was beaten so severely and over such a length of time, that she required corrective surgery to her nose. She didn't leave the first time. She survived multiple and brutal beatings for a number of years before she finally took the steps she knew she had to take to leave, when she knew should could be kept safe. Leaving is easy and it is downright dangerous and too many times, deadly. Tina Turner was one of the lucky ones.
I did read your post carefully.
And I think you do her and abused women a disservice when you claim she wasn't too terrified to leave. She was terrified and lived in terror of Ike for a long time. It's why he never knew where she lived, and why she never spoke to him since then, even though they had a child.
In most cases, to leave is the most dangerous and deadly decision a woman can make. To argue the point you are trying to make here is to simplify and ignore the inherent dangers and complexities of domestic violence relationships. It's not just a matter of her walking out the door. Most women who are victims of domestic killings are killed when they are planning to leave, attempting to leave or within a few weeks after they leave. You also fail to recognise the psychological and emotional attachment, guilt, fear, terror, love, hatred, humiliation and isolation many of these women suffer from. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, you do not know her, what she has seen, suffered, endured and had to put up with for the 46 years she has been alive. I do know. I was there for a large chunk of it during our childhood and teenage years, I watched her battle depression after being sexually molested and raped as a child, I watched her battle what we saw and were made to watch as small children and I watched her survive abusive relationships. Her husband, the man she is with now, seemed like the ideal and adoring boyfriend. He clearly was not. She does not need people like you around her, to kick her when she is already down. She has me, who provides her with a bank account, a safe house and support for if and when she does decide to leave and she has me there to guard her, in the event that he ever tries to lift his hand on her again. He hasn't since the last time, years ago, so far he is doting, the man she fell in love with, but she still lives in fear.. And I suspect she will for as long as she lives. But if it ever goes sour and she chooses to leave or finds the strength within herself to leave, she only has to call. And she knows this. Whether you think she is weak or strong, really, who are you to me or to her? No one. I value your opinion of her as much as I value her husband's opinion of her. In other words, you don't factor that strongly..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You expect women and victims of abuse to behave or act in such a way. Failure to do so means they are weak to you and not worthy of your time or consideration. In that regard, I don't think you understand or value human emotion as you may believe you do.
She is a survivor. For that, she is strong. I don't see her as weak. For all your warbling about human suffering, you are incapable of understanding what that actually entails for some people and what it means to survive it. She doesn't fit into your neat little box on the shelf of what she, as a woman, should do.
No, I elevate her strength and claim it is exemplary. I elevated the fact that she didn't kill herself, that she survived what she has and is still the loving and caring person she always was. I understand how that may escape you, however.
You are free to that interpretation and opinion. One can only hope you are not in a position to provide help to such victims.
I have to say, I actually feel embarrassed for you for having uttered that sentence.
That is appalling Lucysnow.
As I said above, I can only hope that your line of work does not involve helping people in need.
And you wish to blame her if she does not leave.
I don't elevate her to her victimhood. I elevate her and herself esteem so that she can hopefully find the strength to get out. Because for all of your fake bravado, you clearly fail to recognise the danger these women face and the psychological abuse and the grooming they have suffered and endured.
As opposed to your system of beating them with a rubber hose if they don't comply with what you think they should do?
You consistently and deliberately ignore and disregard the emotional and psychological abuse that occurs in such relationships. Perhaps that makes you feel better about your argument. Thankfully the shelters these women often find themselves in when they do manage to leave safely, don't offer your kind of service.
Do you understand that many do not seek counseling while in the relationship because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they do?
Do you even understand what goes on in such relationships? Do you understand the underlying urge to control and dominate the other, all that they do, some even what what they wear and how they wear it, how they cut their hair, when they do and do not drive, their finances? Do you understand that? Why do you think the battle against domestic abuse is to educate others about the signs, so that they may be able to identify it in their loved ones or friends to try to help them? It's because the victims are so often controlled that they are unable to directly seek help themselves.
My god.. I have never said what you are attributing to me. I have consistently said that every relationship is different and no violent relationship is the same and so each has to be approached differently and not all women and their circumstances are the same and no, not everyone feels safe enough to leave or has the help and support to leave and others do and do leave, not every woman has the psychological and emotional strength and temerity to take that huge risk and leave and others do and some do and end up being killed as a result. You have this belief that she should just leave. That is not always possible and sometimes, not always the safest option, not unless she has an active support system in place and the ability to get there safely. However, you seem to disregard the fact that many women in violent relationships are isolated from the support system they would normally have had to turn to. They are isolated from them emotionally by their spouse and physically by distance if their spouse has them move further away. It is your disregard of all of these facts and your flippant that she should just leave, that is exceptionally dangerous. Not everyone can or is able to just leave and not doing so certainly does not make them weak and it certainly does not mean they are getting off on it.
And you once again fail to recognise that the abuse is but one part of their relationship. That for many of these women, they are in love with the kind of caring man they first fell in love with. They just want the violence to stop. Others stay because that's all they think they deserve, that it is all their fault. There are many facets to abusive relationships. It's not all the same and every single one of them is different. Your stomping through going you should do this or that and if you don't, then you're weak or getting off on it only serves to exacerbate the issue.
What a great friend you are to her...
Or possibly because you find the subject "boring" and because you are so flippant and declare you would never stay, etc?
Yes, I can see how you react to it shows "respect"..
Case in point:
Then clearly you have failed to recognise the damage to your friend.
She is better off without you in her life because you have the empathy of a dead fish. For example:
After reading your posts, it isn't a promising or healthy prospect. But you are free to remain there as is your wish.
Jim Jones and Fred Phelps were also once considered intellectuals.. So your point would be?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm…maybe that’s why women are more religious than men. It glorifies their weaknesses.
Trooper... I have to ask... why do you continue to seemingly extol the "virtues" of being a victim?
I have never even looked at them lol
They think everyone is panting for them. Glad as well.
It doesn't have the same answer. The consequences and aftermaths of refraining from abuse are often quite different from the consequences and aftermaths of leaving an abuser.
?! How to suppress the strong? You can force them to wear black burkas in the midsummer sun and bring male supervision to speak for them wherever they go. You can beat them bloody with cudgels and horsewhips for attempting to drive a car (similarly the British Navy used to hang seamen who attempted to learn navigation). You can throw acid in the faces of the defiant, beat the rebellious to death. You can, if you have the power and the psychological motivation, take a truly strong woman and burn her alive in the public square while her neighbors watch, as an example to any other truly strong women who might be thinking about running their mouths or leaving their husbands.
Or have all those women, those millions of women subservient to those abusers and living their lives under such threats, been weak? Have they been craving their abuse, in need of such a relationship with powerful men?
It does, however, discount her intellectual ability. Too clever is dumb, and Paglia is overlooking some basic reality in celebrating the native intelligence and "common sense" of an abysmally ignorant and incompetent and bigoted politician - Palin was in line for the Presidency, not speaking her mind to the Harper Valley PTA, and her short record in office was one of gullibility and corruption and incompetence - that is not the same as John Edwards's record, or Kathleen Sibelius's, and one wonders how Paglia missed that directly relevant circumstance.
And what the hell does being a registered Democrat have to do with anything?
Meanwhile, back in the thread: I was perhaps too brief, above, when pointing out that most women like most men rate higher their immediate sexual draw toward those who seem to be sexually available and interested themselves. We all become more erotically interested in and favorably disposed toward those who are interested in and favorably disposed toward us. In this case men here seem to be surprised by the circumstance that a non smiling, focused, intent man registers as erotically interested - surprised to the point that they search for complicated explanations like the draw of bad boys and so forth. I'd go with the simple first.
Is that what I’m doing, Kittamaru? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hungry eyes and glaring smiles are creepy.
It reads like that to me... I mean, using such phrases as "glorifying their weaknesses" and such just feels... I dunno, wrong somehow...
Then again, my wife is a particularly strong woman - I'd take her at my back in a fight any day over all but maybe two or three of my male friends (and even then, only because those friends have military training)... I love that about her!
Separate names with a comma.