We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior. What women say about men comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends upon their evolutionary more primitive limbic system. Even campus feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with, not male feminists in touch with their emotions. I have heard it suggested that the best reason not to strike a woman today is that you will never be able to get rid of her afterwards.I am not sure what to make of this. If he is right, then most domestic violence is just human nature, and attempts to stop it are foolish.
Suppose millions of women are only happy with a husband or boyfriend who occasionally beats them. Then why would be have laws and policies to interfere with that?
Of course some women will say that "Fifty Shades" is just a fantasy, and they do not deserve to be put in the hospital. I am all in favor of mutually agreeable relationships. But under current law, a man can be prosecuted for domestic violence even if the wife is not injured and never makes a police complaint. See for example the San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi story.
Oh, in the main, he is quite correct, especially the portion that you quoted above. This is very much a part of our human nature and cannot be summarily stamped out, despite an ever-expanding mass of intrusive laws and social threats.
"[M]ost domestic violence is just human nature, and attempts to stop it are foolish."
Under our current legal climate most domestic violence is not particularly violent—forceful perhaps, but not violent to my thinking because it typically results in no real harm of a lasting sort. Roughing each other up a little does no permanent damage.
"Suppose millions of women are only happy with a husband or boyfriend who occasionally beats them. Then why would be have laws and policies to interfere with that?"
Because it might happen to me! There is a huge temptation to self-reference all of these issues with a worst-possible scenario in mind. It is particularly troubling for women—and even more so when they lack male protection, but it also affects many men.
[Women] do not deserve to be put in the hospital. But under current law, a man can be prosecuted for domestic violence even if the wife is not injured and never makes a police complaint.
Please research the term 'victimless crime' for a more comprehensive view of this phenomenon. We are going crazy, trying to protect ourselves from ourselves when no one is actually being harmed. When no legal complaint is sworn out, then neither investigation nor arrest should be undertaken, IMO. But, in our highly litigious society, we make criminal acts out of the most mundane and harmless circumstances.
We are all going quite mad.
"It is particularly troubling for women"
Why should it be "particularly troubling for women"? Seems to me it should be troubling for men. Why? All a woman has to do is hit three buttons on a phone and a SWAT team, Black hawk helicopter, and a tank show up to arrest the man, even if it was the woman who started it.
I have ZERO interest in living as a prisoner which is what you can be with a woman in the house.
Post a Comment