Sorry, Antiseptic, was I ignoring you. I know how you hate that.

>>I see that Pericles has skulked off without answering my simple questions:"do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds?"<<

No.

Happy?

Oh dear, Pericles, that's called "begging the question". I asked for your grounds, which I'm not surprised to see you haven't been able to provide. As I suspected, the whole "men are strong and women are weak" thing you've been hanging your hat on is no more than a red herring.

So what's your next faux "reason" for taking the position that women should be able to assault men with impunity if it's not based on power discrepancy? Could it be that you simply think women are less capable of self-control than men and thus should be given the latitude that we give children and adolescents to behave badly, while you think men are much more able to control their own impulses and hence should be held to account for not doing so?

Oh, come on Antiseptic. Surely you cannot be serious?

>>Oh dear, Pericles, that's called "begging the question". I asked for your grounds, which I'm not surprised to see you haven't been able to provide.<<

The answer I provided to your question was "no". What possible further grounds or justification does that require?

It goes like this:

>>do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?<<

No.

>>On what grounds?<<

On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity.

>>Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one?<<

No.

>>On what grounds?<<

Because both should be held to the same standard.

Now, my question to you: is your request for an opinion on male-on-male violence relevant, in a discussion on the topic of a girl slapping a guy at a party?

Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Common mistake. Just thought I'd mention it.

http://www.marriagemissions.com/husband-abuse-can-a-wife-abuse-her-husband/
The link is well worth a look.
From a counseling service it appears to be Christian.
However the details do not hide the truth and highlight the softer type of man being the victim.
It is not avoiding the lack of balance in the way the sexes are seen by the law.

Pericles:"no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity."

Ah, really? When did you change your mind?

Pericles:"Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question"."

Of course it is: you made a statement with no grounds and expect that to stand as a given.

Simple mistake, glad to have cleared it up for you.

"You saw it as "violence", a generalization that allows you to give it the same weight as being attacked with a knife in your own kitchen by a vicious harridan who then makes off with your worldly goods. I do not consider that to be a reasonable parallel"

It is violence. I don't think that a slap should be given the same weight as being attacked with a knife in the kitchen or elsewhere but it's still violence. If you are on the receiving end of that violence on a regular basis it's still a real problem if options to end it are seriously limited by the consequences of a gendered portrayal of DV.

I do think that a slap should be given the same legal weight regardless of the gender or size of the parties involved, where it can be judged the force used should be a factor ( a slap leading to substantial bruising and or broken bones is different to a wake up to yourself slap ).

From the opening description of the incident in question "Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud." and "Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

and your take on it "As far as I'm concerned, she gave him a slap. I do not consider that to be violence worth any serious consideration whatsoever."

I wasn't at the wedding and am not familiar with Waterstreet but as the details of the incident have not been challenged they are the context that subsequent discussion has been based on.

R0bert