AC, nobody is driven to assaulting someone other than in response to an immediately prior assault. Bashers who assault people are those who actually commit violence. If it's in a relationship it is still violence but gets a special title of "domestic" violence to leave an option of blaming the victims to keep the heat off those who actually DO it by committing assault. When someone is in court defending a charge of assault, non-physical provocation is disallowed as a plea of mitigation.

Once, in South Carolina, murder was allowed if the court could be persuaded that the deceased "needed killin' ". That could be argued if the killer was a white overlord and deceased was black and uppity. The basher defenders giving voice on this thread use the old South Carolina defence for when the basher is "driven" to violence if the person being bashed is female, foolish in entering a relationship with a man, and uppity. The DV defender brigade go on to insult men in general on the ground that bashing uppity women is just something that men do. Boys will be boys. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

EmperorJulian,

All I'm saying is that if 'Laying the Blame' and 'Punishing the Offender' after the fact is the best strategy they can come up with, they might as well give up now.
They might as well just accept Domestic Violence as a fact of life.
I have serious doubts as to whether they're really going to change much whilst relying on this strategy.

If they really want to prevent Domestic Violence, (otherwise why bother spend the money) they need to empower people with the tools and knowledge to have good relationships, to identify and understand behavior that my lead to an unhealthy one, to give people the tools to try their best in relationships, resolve their problems on their own and part company amicably if and when the time comes...

I don't know that young people are ever given the tools to have good relationships.
It's more sex-ed based.

'This is a penis, this is a vagina - now off you go and have fun; don't forget to practice safe-sex.'

[Cont.]

[Cont.]

"When someone is in court defending a charge of assault, non-physical provocation is disallowed as a plea of mitigation."

I think that's interesting, and it kind of leads me to think about where these higher statistics of men killing themselves comes from.

As I've said time and again 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
I won't support acts of violence but there is some 'grey area' in the idea that 'non-physical provocation' is disallowed.

Disallowing it essentially gives a woman a free pass to do all sorts of manipulative stuff without any recourse.
Men need to be made aware they can be used, manipulated, emotionally blackmailed, entrapped, and have their partner deliberately undermine them and destroy them emotionally based entirely on (the females) own insecurities, as well as using their kids and finances as weapons and even then they cannot say anything about it.

Yet the female police officer rightly acknowledged controlling behavior as a catalyst of an abusive relationship, did she not?
If it's good enough for the victims side, why isn't it good enough for the other side?

If you want to prevent this stuff, you need to educate men on what to avoid in placing themselves in situations which will get them into trouble with the law, as well as educating women on what to avoid in placing themselves in situations that might see them physically harmed (like the female police officer) as well as empowering both sides with the knowledge of how to handle situations that can eventuate through little or no fault of their own.

You don't do this on the basis that one party might be harmed, you do this on the basis you want both parties to have good relationships and happier more fulfilling lives.
Isn't that essentially what you're aiming for?

AC: "You don't do this on the basis that one party might be harmed, you do this on the basis you want both parties to have good relationships and happier more fulfilling lives.
Isn't that essentially what you're aiming for?"

More ducking and weaving in the form of amateur marriage counselling to protect "the things that batter".

No. It's for stopping DV perps from assaulting anyone, given that they will commit assault if they can get to their victims. That is, it is for actually tackling domestic violence.

Hi AC,

So, are you suggesting, in a roundabout way, that if men can't use violence against 'their' women, they might kill themselves ? Am I reading too much into what you're asserting ?

Cheers,

Joe

You're all missing my point.
My whole argument is NOT defending perpetrators;
It's PROMOTING EDUCATION to PREVENT Domestic Violence...
You can't move to that position whilst you 'Lay the Blame'.

EmporerJulian "More ducking and weaving in the form of amateur marriage counselling to protect "the things that batter"."

Loudmouth "So, are you suggesting, in a roundabout way, that if men can't use violence against 'their' women, they might kill themselves? Am I reading too much into what you're asserting ?"

That's not exactly what I was saying, but I suppose it's not entirely incorrect either.

What if the maximum effectiveness of the 'Laying the Blame and Punishing the Perpetrator' strategy could achieve was equal to 25% of the problem, and 75% was left unaddressed?
Would you consider that acceptable?
But what if educating women (just as the female police gained to avoid the wrong behavior in a partner) could be taught and this knowledge could be equal to another potential 25% effectiveness?
- Meaning our 'Maximum Effectiveness' has increased to 50% over the problem.
And what if educating men properly in the same way way in avoiding the wrong type of behavior in women and how handle certain situations better could also be equal to another potential 25% effectiveness?
Meaning our 'Maximum Effectiveness' has increased to 75% over the problem (from a point of no intervention at all or 25% with the original strategy) and we have 'critical mass' over the problem.

If 'non-physical provocation is disallowed as a plea of mitigation'; then there's no accepted legal foundation with which to identify areas that lead to DV; and that results in limiting the ability to create a framework that would more effectively prevent DV; don't you see my point?