What to do about domestic violence? (biased, elect, abuse, California)

[2mares]

Originally Posted by mathlete

CAR DEALER: Do you love this car or not?

CUSTOMER; Yes.

CAR DEALER; Then why do you want a sales contract?

CUSTOMER: So I know what all the terms and legalities are.

CAR DEALER: Everybody knows what the terms and legalities are. You're just being difficult.

CUSTOMER: I'm not being difficult. I just want all the terms in black and white so there aren't any nasty surprises down the road.

CAR DEALER: You tell me what should be in the contract then.

CUSTOMER: All the important terms and conditions. What happens in the case of a default on the loan or if the car has problems while under warranty. Things like that. Contracts are written up all the time. I'm not a lawyer but it's not like I'm asking for the moon here.

CAR DEALER: We don't do banalities like sales contracts. We can perform a nice little ceremony though where we promise that we'll both be happy with your new car purchase until death do us part.

Its called a prenuptial agreement.
One size does not fit all.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Maybe. But this kind of behavior happens in other places. Domestic violence is a big problem in Russia as well.

There the main problem is alcohol I suppose. But Russia has made great progress in reducing alcohol consumption over the past few years. I think this will soon be reflected in fewer DV cases.

[Neuling]

What is the default in the US when there is no prenup? In Germany, by default each spouse retains what they already possessed before they got married, and only what is earned by both during the marriage is split evenly between the two when they get divorced.
And there are tight rules for what can be agreed on in a prenup. In the case of a violation of morality, the whole prenup becomes null and void. That's in order to protect the economically weaker spouse.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by Neuling

What is the default in the US when there is no prenup? In Germany, by default each spouse retains what they already possessed before they got married, and only what is earned by both during the marriage is split evenly between the two when they get divorced.
And there are tight rules for what can be agreed on in a prenup. In the case of a violation of morality, the whole prenup becomes null and void. That's in order to protect the economically weaker spouse.

The same default in the US but some things differ by state like number of years for spousal support if any, separation periods, grounds and child custody and support.

Many issues are negotiated during the procedure and few cases actually go before a judge.
For example in my divorce we had recently purchased an additional house with property. We negotiated a price for the equity in the first house and he paid me 1/2 and I kept the second house with no equity while he kept the first house. So on the surface it may look like I got the house but I also got the mortgage. There was very little still owed on the first which btw I made the payments on.
We each had our own car that we kept, I kept most of the furniture because I bought it. He kept the pieces his parents gave us. There was no alimony because we both worked although he had been unemployed the previous 9 months. If we had been married a year longer he could have asked for spousal support for a period of time.

[Huckleberry3911948]

I have never hit a woman
But I have spent most of my life with both feet on the brake peddle

[Jay F]

Part of it is that in the sexual selection process women aren't considering if the man will beat her or not. It just isn't anything she is thinking about. All things being equal I would guess violent men are more popular with the ladies. Here's what I mean...take 10 men with a history of battering women and 10 men who never hurt women and bring them all to a meat market type of bar. Which group of men would have more success picking up women? I would say with near 100% certainty the group of guys who batter women. They have a dominance about them that many women find attractive unfortunately.

My solution is a radical one but the only solution that would work. If a man beats a woman hard enough where she requires a hospital visit his punishment should be a brutal beatdown by the state...to the point where he is disfigured. The goal should be to make him unattractive to the ladies so they no longer sexually select him again.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Part of it is that in the sexual selection process women aren't considering if the man will beat her or not. It just isn't anything she is thinking about. All things being equal I would guess violent men are more popular with the ladies. Here's what I mean...take 10 men with a history of battering women and 10 men who never hurt women and bring them all to a meat market type of bar. Which group of men would have more success picking up women? I would say with near 100% certainty the group of guys who batter women. They have a dominance about them that many women find attractive unfortunately.

My solution is a radical one but the only solution that would work. If a man beats a woman hard enough where she requires a hospital visit his punishment should be a brutal beatdown by the state...to the point where he is disfigured. The goal should be to make him unattractive to the ladies so they no longer sexually select him again.

While I kind of agree with the first part, the second part is just not how things are done in a civilized society.

But yes, many women seem to like the bad boy type for whatever reason, they are not even aware of. Many women are, from a modern perspective, genetically programmed to be superficial and outdated in terms of attraction pattern, just like men, and both sexes keep paying for it.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by 2mares

The same default in the US but some things differ by state like number of years for spousal support if any, separation periods, grounds and child custody and support.

Many issues are negotiated during the procedure and few cases actually go before a judge.
For example in my divorce we had recently purchased an additional house with property. We negotiated a price for the equity in the first house and he paid me 1/2 and I kept the second house with no equity while he kept the first house. So on the surface it may look like I got the house but I also got the mortgage. There was very little still owed on the first which btw I made the payments on.
We each had our own car that we kept, I kept most of the furniture because I bought it. He kept the pieces his parents gave us. There was no alimony because we both worked although he had been unemployed the previous 9 months. If we had been married a year longer he could have asked for spousal support for a period of time.

The most difficult part to "split" are often the kids. Houses, cars etc. have a certain monetary value, which can easily be determined.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by gus2

Ignorance helps no one.

Nothing you posted refutes what I said.

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

This - and the rest of your post - is a nice job of blaming the victim.

They're not victims. 90% of the time it's self-inflicted.

If you stick your hand in the fire, guess what? It's gonna get burned.

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

People change and nothing can prepare you for that.

People don't change over-night.

Even people who experienced personal physical trauma on or off the battlefield do not change over night. It takes weeks and months before the symptoms manifest themselves.

My parents divorced after 25 years, because their interests diverged. That happens, but it didn't happen over-night. They're still friends. My mother and my father's wife talk on the phone all the time.

I had a cousin who dated a guy for a couple of years, no problems, but my experience, education and training as a police officer, detective sergeant and private investigator, and my education and work in the legal field, and my 45+ semester hours of sociology and pscyhology tell me he was probably a control freak.

But, she refused to see that, because, you know, they're in love. Right?

After they marry, then he becomes physically abusive, but that's who he always was. She wasn't raised that way, and more importantly, she has self-esteem, so the second time the police came, she moved out, got an apartment and filed for divorce.

Then he broke into her apartment, shot and killed her and committed suicide, because, you know, that's what cowards do.

However, that's clearly distinguishable from a woman who rejects men who show her a modicum of respect and only dates guys who are verbally and physically abusive, and then marries them anyway knowing full well they're verbally and physically abusive, and then wants me to clean up the mess and fix all the boo-boos, using my money, of course.

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

A person who is mentally or physically healthy at age 25 may not be mentally or physically healthy at age 40 or 50.

While true, it's not relevant.

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

I could cite you a dozen examples of a "stable" and/or "responsible" spouse coming home one day and declaring s/he doesn't want to be married anymore,...

Sure, but that didn't happen over-night. They'd been involved in one or more affairs in the years prior.

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

...or a spouse becoming violent in an previously harmonious relationship.

That's the exception and not the rule and not even what we're talking about, and certainly not what I'm talking about, but when that does happen, there's an external stressor, like job or money or something. That is not to excuse the behavior, it's simply to explain it, and it can usually be fixed through counseling of one or both parties.

Originally Posted by Neuling

You keep claiming marriage is some sort of business deal, but it is not.

Sure it is. It always was. What part of "dowry" do you not understand?

Why do you think so many American women married at age 14?

To get them out of the house. That's one less mouth to feed.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Sure it is. It always was. What part of "dowry" do you not understand?

Why do you think so many American women married at age 14?

To get them out of the house. That's one less mouth to feed.

Not in modern times.