a question about abuse . . .

[mzteris]

what does it say (if anything?) about a woman who keeps getting involved with men who eventually abuse her - escalating over time, of course; HOWEVER, these men had never before - and go on to never again - abuse anyone else?

[noamnety]

1. my immediate reaction:

It says that the woman is a little too trusting of men who swear they never abused another woman beforehand and they never abused another woman after. Just a thought - men who abuse women lie about it happening and they lie about the extent to which it happened.

[mzteris]

2. except that it's not a matter of "their" word

it's really true . . . . all (multiple) parties are known. I mean I suppose they could have at some point in time, however, to the best of our knowledge, and the relationships they were known to have - no.

And let's say for the sake of argument, that it IS true, that this woman is the ONLY woman they ever abused - what does that mean, exactly?

[iverglas]

4. I find this to be a really bizarre question

"What does that mean, exactly?"

It means that all of the men in question are men who have abused a woman. (And any woman who knows this would be nuts to get involved with any of them. And I mean "nuts" in the most sympathetic way, of course.)

Whether they will ever abuse another woman - who knows? Until they die, it won't be possible to know. Why does it matter?

Perhaps they are all men who would have abused a woman in the past -- or did in fact abuse a woman or women emotionally or financially, just not physically -- but no woman had stuck around long enough to find out.

[ThomCat]

3. That's a bit of a loaded question.

I would wonder if she has co-dependency issues, or some other issues that pile stress onto the people she is with.

Anyone who abuses her is still responsible for the abuse. If she's causing stress that is building up that kind of rage, then he should be walking away rather than lashing out.

[ismnotwasm]

5. It says dick

So, suppose you could make a (pseudo) mathematical formula about how many women are abused, or suffered abuse, and the statistical chances of this happening? Just sayin'

What I suspect, is this woman, hurt the first time in dating marriage or whatever, tells her potential partners about her past experiences. These men, on a subconscious--or conscious-- level take it as permission. Perhaps they don't see her as human or an actual long term partner.

I can just hear it "No WONDER you ex so and so beat you" Honestly, it says more about these men than it does her. Or my personal favorite "I never hit a woman before but"

How she continues to find these disgusting assholes has roots perhaps in self esteem, perhaps in self expression but most likely in finding what is familiar and attractive to her. She's supposed to vet these guys so she doesn't get abused?

They don't start out beating her? Sounds Ok right? They don't have a history of beating women? WONderful. They decide she's the one to beat on? That equals complete and total assholes in my world. Beat on a vulnerable woman with a history of being abused. (Or: "I never hit a woman but that bitch actually drove me to it") Nice.

[bliss_eternal]

6. Reminds me of one of my personal faves...

"...you made me hit you." Or any variation thereof,"...she made me do it." etc.

:wtf:

As if to say, he has no choice whatsoever in what he does w/his hands, fists, whatever. That there is ever anything another human being can say or do that forces another to momentarily have a lapse of consciousness--during which they assault a woman, child, etc. :eyes:

I was getting to know a guy (as a friend) who said this crap about a woman from his past. That he'd never done something so horrible as to hit a woman--you know because he had such great respect for all women and all, but hey--this woman was special. Something about her, made him hit her....the spiteful wench. He was just so outraged that she purposely did 'whatever this was' just to get him to hit her....and make him behave so out of character.

Yeah. Tell me another one....like the moon is made of swiss cheese.
After this conversation, I never talked to or saw that pos again.
Talk about denial. :puke:

[ismnotwasm]

7. Oh that one is disgusting

I know and understand violence. I haven't been violent in a very long time, but I understand it.

Men who think they get brownie points for not beating women have some seriously fucked up thinking. I understand the sense of honor of men who say they never have, and never will, abuse women, and make it a point to say so, but that sense of honor usually extends to those weaker or smaller no matter what the gender or supposed provocation.


They don't get brownie points for participating in righteous (in the hippie sense, not the religious one) and healthy human behavior.

They might, just might, get brownie points for acknowledging past fucked up behavior and fucking take FULL responsibility for it.

Off topic (again) but I like this kind of logic from Twisty


The Twist-Solution

My wacky consent scheme flips it around. According to my scheme, women would abide in a persistent legal condition of not having given consent to sex. Conversely, men, who after all are constantly declaiming that their lack of impulse control is a product of evolution and there’s not a thing they can do about it, would abide in a persistent legal state of pre-rape.

Women can still have all the sex they want; if they adjudge that their dude hasn’t raped them, all they have to do is not call the cops.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/02/20/two-posts-two-posts-two-posts-in-one/