Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The above is an example of baiting and emotional and mental abuse by this woman. My roommate was just setting boundaries because she obviously couldn't be trustted with the male friend.
Maybe Mr Smith's message would have been better received had he "also" given men the same advise.. Walk away or try and defuse the situation before it escalates into violence? Just saying....
Maybe Mr Smith's message would have been better received had he "also" given men the same advise.. Walk away or try and defuse the situation before it escalates into violence? Just saying....
Men are taught in society to not hit women. The men who choose otherwise, deserve to be criminalized. Women need to also be taught in society to not hit men either. You shouldn't put your hands on anyone regardless of gender, however women aren't taught that in society.
Not every situation is the same but there are situations in which women are the provokers and sometimes they even hit the man first because they believe they can get away with it because they assume that the guy won't hit them back. What women in these situations fail to realize is that they can't just assume every guy won't hit them if the woman punches them first. Not every guy has good morals.
So if the woman does know the guy won't hit her back, then it's okay for her to punch him? It's bad morals for a guy not to let someone physically assault him if the perpetrator is female? That's crazy.
Maybe Mr Smith's message would have been better received had he "also" given men the same advise.. Walk away or try and defuse the situation before it escalates into violence? Just saying....
The primary issue with any domestic violence discussion on the rights and wrongs is the consistent double standards applied due to gender (and there are, just look at the recent thread about whether it's acceptable for men to defend themselves against violent women for evidence). If the discussions were reduced to two people without being gender identified, then there is an excellent chance that both sides will agree with any suggestions posited on their own merits, and not on variances in standards based on the specific genitalia of the actors. Indeed even if actions taken by one side or the other were described in a way that suggested a same sex relationship, then there likely would be consensus on who was at fault.
Unfortunately this is never the case and thus productive discussion is consistently stifled.
Men are taught in society to not hit women. The men who choose otherwise, deserve to be criminalized. Women need to also be taught in society to not hit men either. You shouldn't put your hands on anyone regardless of gender, however women aren't taught that in society.
I am a woman and I was taught that is is not acceptable to put my hands on anybody.... I've never hit a man in my life. Well.. Except for the guy who was raping me, but that was self defense.
I am speaking in the context of the thread where Mr Smith is talking about men perpetrating violence against women and how she should try and diffuse the situation by not provoking him.
Which leads me to ask.. How does one define provocation? People can come up with a myriad of things that they feel are provoking or use as an excuse for provocation.
Which leads me to ask.. How does one define provocation? People can come up with a myriad of things that they feel are provoking or use as an excuse for provocation.
Possibly the most important question asked thus far.
I feel something that can constitution as provocative is generally any violation of ones property or privacy (life as well, but that's easily the most universal). Borrowing someone's car without permission or reading their mail would be things that I would say are provocative.
With that said, when saying a woman shouldn't have provoked the man, this is not saying that it's ok that the man hit her. Violence is wrong, provoked or not. Only extreme circumstances, like assault, could warrant violence, or in this case, defense.
So if the woman does know the guy won't hit her back, then it's okay for her to punch him? It's bad morals for a guy not to let someone physically assault him if the perpetrator is female? That's crazy.
That's basically how it is. There are women who will provoke and sometimes hit men because they assume that the guy won't hit them back. If these type of women didn't think like that, then those types of domestic violence situations wouldn't occur.
I am a woman and I was taught that is is not acceptable to put my hands on anybody.... I've never hit a man in my life. Well.. Except for the guy who was raping me, but that was self defense.
I am speaking in the context of the thread where Mr Smith is talking about men perpetrating violence against women and how she should try and diffuse the situation by not provoking him.
Which leads me to ask.. How does one define provocation? People can come up with a myriad of things that they feel are provoking or use as an excuse for provocation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
