UK Lawson - Saatchi. Domestic Abuse in Public ?

[Mischief]

That's what men who beat women always assert.

Yes, the old "She made me do it" refrain. It's also heard in those cases where a woman is the perpetrator of domestic violence.

It's a total lack of acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions, common to much criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior.

If that is the case and Mr Saatchi does not meet Ms Lawson's negative emotional needs then Mr Saatchi is going suffer in ways that will make the most severe forms of physical violence seem like a tender mercy in comparison.

Out of a very interesting post, this part is the most so.

 

[ledboots]

Yes, the old "She made me do it" refrain. It's also heard in those cases where a woman is the perpetrator of domestic violence.

It's a total lack of acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions, common to much criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior.



Out of a very interesting post, this part is the most so.

You don't want to know, I read it on a previous forum.

 

[Clueless Git]

So are you saying it's possible that the violence directed towards Ms Lawson from Mr Saatchi could be of her own making?

The only alternative to it being a possibility is that it is impossible for women to have negative emotional needs.

A man with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a woman though.

Similarly a woman with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a man as well.

About the only two things anyone can say with certainty are these;

1. Neither Mr Saatchi has left Ms Lawson nor Ms Lawson left Mr Saatchi, as of yet.

2. Neither Mr Saatchi nor Ms Lawson are unable to leave each other because of being underfinanced so to do, if they wished.

 

[Clueless Git]

Out of a very interesting post, this part is the most so.

Heed Leboot's advice on that one, Mischeif.

Intelligent discussion of that is 100% guaranteed NOT going to be allowed to happen.

 

[Mischief]

The only alternative to it being a possibility is that it is impossible for women to have negative emotional needs.

A man with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a woman though.

Similarly a woman with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a man as well.

This is as fine an example of creating a false equivalency to excuse one's bad behavior as I have ever been privileged to witness.

We can probably all agree that someone who engages in domestic violence is not an emotionally or psychologically healthy person, and we can probably all agree that someone who voluntarily stays in a relationship where she or he is the victim of domestic violence is not an emotionally or psychologically healthy person.

However, to equate the nature and extent of that emotional and psychological dysfunction is at best ludicrous and at worst the self serving excuse of an abuser.

It's the similar to equating a hostage who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome with the hostage taker who programmed the hostage into that mindset through intimidation and violence.

I hope that someday you will be able to say that your decades as a perpetrator of domestic violence are in the past and that you are truly a changed man. The first step to that is actual repentance, but you are far from that as long as you still think that your victims are in any way responsible. I sincerely hope that there were no children to witness and be damaged by these years of violence.

 

[Clueless Git]

Has anyone watched the TED link I put up the other day? It's very interesting how society has made DV a women's issue.

Yah, I watched it.

Katz seems to be saying that DV is soley a male issue. That men leading men is the sole solution.

I guess that women leading women, women leading men and men leading women (men and women being equaly capable of leadership, basicaly) are too taboo for him to touch.

 

[Clueless Git]

We can probably all agree that someone who engages in domestic violence is not an emotionally or psychologically healthy person, and we can probably all agree that someone who voluntarily stays in a relationship where she or he is the victim of domestic violence is not an emotionally or psychologically healthy person.

I have to agree with that.

It is basicaly the same 'false equivalency' (that both partners in abusive relationships are not in good emotional/physchological health) which I made myself.

I hope that someday you will be able to say that your decades as a perpetrator of domestic violence are in the past and that you are truly a changed man.

No need to hope that I will say that someday, Mischeif.

I said it yesterday in post #36.

 

[das_nut]

A spokesman for Scott’s said last night: “We do not comment on the private matters of customers.”

Really? That looks like an assault in public to me. I wouldn't call it a private matter.

And shame on all the other diners. Really, nobody could get up, walk over, and ask what the hell is going on?

 

[Clueless Git]

This is as fine an example of creating a false equivalency to excuse one's bad behavior as I have ever been privileged to witness.

Hang on a minute ....

Which were you saying was false?

1. A man with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a woman.

2. A woman with zero negative emotional needs (being served by a violent relationship) would leave such a man.

 

[SummerRain]

Has anyone watched the TED link I put up the other day? It's very interesting how society has made DV a women's issue.

Yeah sorry I did, I just forgot to reply. I've made a new thread in the debates forum about it because I thought it was interesting

 

[SummerRain]

Mod Post: This thread has now been moved to Debates and Current Events (from the UK forum) because the discussion has evolved into a debate.

 

[shyvas]

Saatchi is now filing for divorce :

http://news.sky.com/story/1112501/charles-saatchi-files-for-divorce-after-row