Antiseptic is attempting to misrepresent what violence is.

Here's examples of violent behaviour in domestic situations:

1...A partner assaults their partner (made MUCH MORE serious if the assaulted partner is smaller and physically weaker, or a child)

2...A partner threatens their partner with assault (made MUCH MORE serious if the threatened partner is smaller and physically weaker, or a child)

3..A stronger and bigger partner uses "physical" stand over tactics in order to exert control over the smaller and weaker partner

Now here's examples of reprehensible behaviour that is NOT violent, it's simply reprehensible:

1...A partner has a manipulative personality and uses mind "games" in order to gain advantage

2...A partner is a control freak and resorts to dishonesty or slander or revenge in order to gain more control

3...A partner is a cruel person and sees an advantage to be gained by degrading their partner verbally without shouting

Antiseptic wants to include various non-violent, reprehensible behaviours within the bounds of "violence" because, yes you guessed it, he sees "WOMEN" as the main perpetrators of this type of behaviour. Indirectly, it's his chance to get back at his ex for what he sees as her manipulation of him, and for her daring to say she felt threatened by him.

You see, by declaring "non violent" behaviours, to be violent, antiseptic then has a claim (in his own mind) to VICTIM STATUS. As everyone who has read his posts knows, he sees himself as a VICTIM.

Now, if he can convince people that he's a "VIOLENCE" victim, he then becomes an EVEN BIGGER VICTIM.

He's a walking, talking, breathing psychiatrist's dream patient. And patients like that never, ever, give an inch...until the day arrives when they gain some personal insight into their behaviour.

I think antiseptic still has quite a way to go yet.

SallyG:"Antiseptic wants to include various non-violent, reprehensible behaviours within the bounds of "violence""

Poor Sally, not only a liar, but unable to comprehend basic English.

I quote from my previous post:"I'd also like to see some of the things currently classified as "violence" described properly, whether it be as controlling behaviours, emotional abuse, manipulative behaviours or whatever is most appropriate."

Poor, poor dishonest Sally.

Even JW isn't as stupid as you are, although she's equally dishonest.

Romany excellent summing up. Thanks.

Antiseptic, I agreed with most of what you said in the post that followed Romany's summing up.

I'd like to see a much stronger emphasis on violence outside the home as well but the issues are yet again different. My impression is that for most of us staying away from night clubs and their vicinities at night and the early hours of the morning will dramatically reduce the risks of being the victim of violence. Not being drunk in public will reduce the risks of being a victim of violence. If violence occurs in other places where circumstances make it difficult for me to make different choices the law is lokely to be able to help.

Some occupations carry with them high risks of being the victim of assault - Ambo's being one that has been brought to my attention a few times recently. They are more difficult to resolve.

SallyG, you could put aside your dislike of Antiseptic for a while and try reading what he has actually said rather than misrepresenting his comments. One of the points we have been making all along is that the government campaigns portray controlling behaviours as DV (monitoring a partners emails or SMS's being an example I've seen a few times), behaviours which has nothing to do with physical strength.

I consider assaulting a larger person knowing that they are unlikely to respond in kind then hiding behind your smaller physical size or strength as a defense to be as reprehensible as using greater physical strength or size to intimidate.

R0bert

Thanks antiseptic for your last response to me. You fell directly for a trap instigated my me, totally unaware.

I've known for a long time here, that your claim that we need to separate badgering, controlling and manipulative behaviours from "reaL" violence, is a front put up by you and a TOTAL LIE from you!

Note, that when "YOU" feel badgered, badgering and violence is NOT separated by you. You ONLY separate it when it applies to WOMEN.

How do I know this? Well, there's many past statements you have made. Here's one:

"As a man who has been the VICTIM of State inflicted VIOLENCE istigated by my ex wife"
Posted by antiseptic, Wednesday 1 October 2008, 10:12:04 AM

This proves you are COMPLETELY INSINCERE about your claimed interest in separating genuinely non-violent behaviours from violent behaviours. You have lied, yet again. Your standards are as "DOUBLE" as it gets!

I hope people noticed my statement in my post at the top of the page: "By declaring non violent behaviours to be violent, antiseptic then has a claim (in his own mind) to VICTIM status. As everyone who has read his posts knows, he paints himself as a victim. Now, if he can convince people that he's a VIOLENCE victim, he then becomes an even BIGGER VICTIM".

Therefore, when it "suits his argument" he includes non violent behaviours within the circle of violent behaviours, as PROVEN by his quote in my post immediately above.

Yes, he views himself as a victim of VIOLENCE from his ex and the system. I fuels his clear misogyny and clouds his thinking (although calling it "thinking" is probably going a bit far).

Look at the difference between the behaviours and language used by Robert and antiseptic.

They are both arguing similar points, yet Robert is clearly not a misogynist, while antiseptic clearly engages in misogynistic behaviours. Just look at the behaviour of these two people on the CSA topic as well....the person who attempts to abuse and degrade others is "ANTISEPTIC", not Robert.

When people reply in kind to antiseptic, he complains. It's always the bully who is the first to complain about being bullied.