Amber Heard admits to beating up Johnny Depp

Raconteuse

She's a piece of work because of her behaviour, but how does how she *looks* indicate this? Because she's beautiful?

Silentcorner

pinkyeye wrote: »

What's the COSCs? And where is the back up for this? I don't believe it.

I think it was the CSO (Central Statistics Office the poster meant)...but how is unbelievable?

It has been known for a long time now, that in the case of non reciprocal domestic violence, that is a one sided domestic violence where one partner and one partner only engages in abuse, that women are twice as likely as a man to be abusive.


Quote from Harvard Study

(https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Domestic_violence_Not_always_one_sided )

When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%).

If you don't believe that women can be as abusive as men in relationships you have been sold a pup.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think it was the CSO (Central Statistics Office the poster meant)...but how is unbelievable?

No, it's The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, also known as Cosc. See cosc.ie.

creditcarder

Raconteuse wrote: »

She's a piece of work because of her behaviour, but how does how she *looks* indicate this? Because she's beautiful?

Don't be silly Raconteuse.

silverharp

I assume she is cancelled now and wont be in Aquaman 2?

JupiterKid

There are so many men out there, suffering in silence from domestic abuse by a female spouse who may instigate physical, emotional and verbal abuse. And are master manipulators to boot. Society still sees men who are victims of domestic abuse as “weak” or the subject of ridicule - or just invisible.

Female instigators of domestic abuse will also use children as a weapon against their male partner. I know a guy from my rehab days who very nearly drank himself to death over emotional abuse from his former partner and her refusing him access to his son.

We have to change the broken record narrative so successfully disseminated by women’s advocacy groups that women are the only victims in domestic abuse situations. Yes, the issue of domestic abuse needs to be addressed as effectively as possible but please let’s have some more balance to this issue.*

*there are also situations of where same-sex abusers are women against their female partners, and of course male victims of abuse where the perpetrator is their gay male partner.

creditcarder

JupiterKid wrote: »

There are so many men out there, suffering in silence from domestic abuse by a female spouse who may instigate physical, emotional and verbal abuse. And are master manipulators to boot. Society still sees men who are victims of domestic abuse as “weak” or the subject of ridicule - or just invisible.

Female instigators of domestic abuse will also use children as a weapon against their male partner. I know a guy from my rehab days who very nearly drank himself to death over emotional abuse from his former partner and her refusing him access to his son.

We have to change the broken record narrative so successfully disseminated by women’s advocacy groups that women are the only victims in domestic abuse situations. Yes, the issue of domestic abuse needs to be addressed as effectively as possible but please let’s have some more balance to this issue.*

*there are also situations of where same-sex abusers are women against their female partners, and of course male victims of abuse where the perpetrator is their gay male partner.

Nah, you can see them a mile off. It's only because society goes along with them.

Raconteuse

Well the men who end up with them don't spot them.

We're all part of society.

creditcarder wrote: »

Don't be silly Raconteuse.

Then how do her looks make her appear a piece of work?

Just answer the question instead of being all passive aggressive (similar to a closed account called Reviews and Books Galore).

Raconteuse

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think it was the CSO (Central Statistics Office the poster meant)...but how is unbelievable?

It has been known for a long time now, that in the case of non reciprocal domestic violence, that is a one sided domestic violence where one partner and one partner only engages in abuse, that women are twice as likely as a man to be abusive.


Quote from Harvard Study

(https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Domestic_violence_Not_always_one_sided )

When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%).

If you don't believe that women can be as abusive as men in relationships you have been sold a pup.

I doubt anyone with any sense believes women can't be as abusive as men. The idea that women can be MORE abusive than men is more of a challenge though.

I'm a person who believes in 50/50 for most behaviours in terms of the sexes. In this case though, I believe women are more likely to be abusive, mentally in particular - not because women are inherently more abusive as people, but because it's more accepted (by men and women). It's more acceptable for a woman to ridicule and verbally abuse her husband/partner. Men are physically stronger overall and severe injury or death is more likely to be perpetrated by men, however more low level (but still unacceptable) violence by women to men is more accepted.

In the film The Gentlemen, there is a part in which a man is grotesquely violated. And it's used as a comedic device. The audience were in knots when I saw it - I was just going "wtf?!"

Die Hard 2019

Raconteuse wrote: »

I doubt anyone with any sense believes women can't be as abusive as men. The idea that women can be MORE abusive than men is more of a challenge though.

I'm a person who believes in 50/50 for most behaviours in terms of the sexes. In this case though, I believe women are more likely to be abusive, mentally in particular - not because women are inherently more abusive as people, but because it's more accepted (by men and women). It's more acceptable for a woman to ridicule and verbally abuse her husband/partner. Men are physically stronger overall and severe injury or death is more likely to be perpetrated by men, however more low level (but still unacceptable) violence by women to men is more accepted.

In the film The Gentlemen, there is a part in which a man is grotesquely violated. And it's used as a comedic device. The audience were in knots when I saw it - I was just going "wtf?!"

Actually it's not clear what happened but I agree that if he had been a woman people wod not have laughed and that's because of perception. The scene where MD is in danger certainly wasn't laughed at.

The number one sexual abusers of men is clearly the same gender as the number one abusers of women but the discussion is about domestic abuse.

creditcarder

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Actually it's not clear what happened but I agree that if he had been a woman people wod not have laughed and that's because of perception. The scene where MD is in danger certainly wasn't laughed at.

The number one sexual abusers of men is clearly the same gender as the number one abusers of women but the discussion is about domestic abuse.

Actually, statistics have shown that women commit rape 40-50 % of the time under the absurd specifications that class certain acts as rape.

creditcarder

Raconteuse wrote: »

Well the men who end up with them don't spot them.

We're all part of society.

Then how do her looks make her appear a piece of work?

Just answer the question instead of being all passive aggressive (similar to a closed account called Reviews and Books Galore).

Eh, when you've been around the block enough (as a man who likes women) you learn how to spot things and know if a woman is a bit of a ****.

Raconteuse

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Actually it's not clear what happened but I agree that if he had been a woman people wod not have laughed and that's because of perception. The scene where MD is in danger certainly wasn't laughed at.

The number one sexual abusers of men is clearly the same gender as the number one abusers of women but the discussion is about domestic abuse.

Wasn't making any statement in that regard (see what I said before it) - just giving an example of how accepted it is for men to be abused in certain contexts.

Raconteuse

creditcarder wrote: »

Eh, when you've been around the block enough (as a man who likes women) you learn how to spot things and know if a woman is a bit of a ****.

No you can't tell by a person's (why just women?) looks whether they are a cuntt.

creditcarder

Raconteuse wrote: »

No you can't tell by a person's (why just women?) looks whether they are a cuntt.

Yeah, grand.

Die Hard 2019

Raconteuse wrote: »

Wasn't making any statement in that regard (see what I said before it) - just giving an example of how accepted it is for men to be abused in certain contexts.

It was a movie and it wasn't shown it was left to the audience imagination and if was sexual abuse by a villan not domestic by a partner

Die Hard 2019

creditcarder wrote: »

Actually, statistics have shown that women commit rape 40-50 % of the time under the absurd specifications that class certain acts as rape.

Sorry what? Do you mean drunk ? It's still not rape, rape requires penetration by the little pianist

silverharp

There is a petition up for her to lose her role in the next Aquaman movie, over 100K signatures

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

There is a petition up for her to lose her role in the next Aquaman movie, over 100K signatures

I don't believe we should be encouraging this "cancel culture", since it's something that can easily be applied badly (which it has). Her personal life should be separate from her career.

By all means, voice a disapproval of such behavior, but I really don't like this mob mentality. It's one of the reasons the internet has turned all nasty, and justifies the behavior of the SJWs/feminists in targeting those they don't approve of.

nthclare

I experienced this before with an American lady it starts off on the first date you think you've met the most amazing person ever.
Extremely attractive and charming.
They are quite shock and awe, kind of start off with a playful insult, and im only kidding you etc

Then the playful slaps start, but tee hee im only kidding.

Then you're going along okish and all of a sudden you forgot to text them back...

Then after one mistake you're in for a roller-coaster ride of trauma bonding, intense cycles of hot and cold.
Amazing make up sex for the traumatic nuclear fallout and this rinses and repeats.

Men and women are culpable of being the victim and perpetrator of abuse and enabling the abuse.

So best run as fast as possible when the playful slaps start and the ohhh im only kidding...

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe we should be encouraging this "cancel culture", since it's something that can easily be applied badly (which it has). Her personal life should be separate from her career.

By all means, voice a disapproval of such behavior, but I really don't like this mob mentality. It's one of the reasons the internet has turned all nasty, and justifies the behavior of the SJWs/feminists in targeting those they don't approve of.

well that horse has bolted and while I don’t agree with cancel culture its more a bit of schadenfreude to see it happen in this case, its one of those “they are eating their own”

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

well that horse has bolted and while I don’t agree with cancel culture its more a bit of schadenfreude to see it happen in this case, its one of those “they are eating their own”

I don't agree. Cancel culture was growing for some time driven by SJWs/Internet personalities, but a resistance has been growing to it for some time now. I'd rather that we didn't expand on it's usage out from the SJWs and eventually it'll be dropped as an unsuitable set of behavior.

“they are eating their own”... true enough... I enjoy seeing it too because it reinforces and highlights the double standards..

Ray Palmer

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Sorry what? Do you mean drunk ? It's still not rape, rape requires penetration by the little pianist

That is a very narrow definition of rape. One which I don't agree with and neither does the law in many places. If you have consensual sex with a person but it was due to deception it is classed as rape in some place. You also have statutory rape.

Men have reflexes so it isn't all about conscious desire so can be raped by women whether laws here say so or not.

creditcarder

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree. Cancel culture was growing for some time driven by SJWs/Internet personalities, but a resistance has been growing to it for some time now. I'd rather that we didn't expand on it's usage out from the SJWs and eventually it'll be dropped as an unsuitable set of behavior.

“they are eating their own”... true enough... I enjoy seeing it too because it reinforces and highlights the double standards..

It could be argued that the cancel culture is ending because the people who are doing it (losers tbh) are being affected by it due to different people competing. (E.g. A sad story about a cute Asain lady having to change her book because it didn't depict slavery properly in regards to African Americans...the book was about slavery in Asai)


So, actually, if you reverse what is going on, it could lead to these losers being a little bit more careful about making accusations of racism/sexism/so on and so forth.

creditcarder

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is a very narrow definition of rape. One which I don't agree with and neither does the law in many places. If you have consensual sex with a person but it was due to deception it is classed as rape in some place. You also have statutory rape.

Men have reflexes so it isn't all about conscious desire so can be raped by women whether laws here say so or not.

The study is dumb. It uses the same definitions that a lot of the rape statistics are based upon, but it is useful to highlight how absurd things have gotten.



As in, if a guy doesn't explicetly say 'consent', even if he is being rode on like an elephant on a bycicle, he is technically 'raped'.

Ray Palmer

creditcarder wrote: »

The study is dumb. It uses the same definitions that a lot of the rape statistics are based upon, but it is useful to highlight how absurd things have gotten.



As in, if a guy doesn't explicetly say 'consent', even if he is being rode on like an elephant on a bycicle, he is technically 'raped'.

What study?

There is no talk of explicit consent like you are suggesting. In most people's minds they acknowledge a man can have an erection and a women can have sex with a person without their consent. In other words rape. To deny that is possible and has happened is worrying

tritium

pinkyeye wrote: »

What's the COSCs? And where is the back up for this? I don't believe it.

Cosc are The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender based violence (www.cosc.ie), a government body with responsibility for this. The results are based on extensive research carried out by them some years ago.

I believe this was the first time an Irish study had included the idea that men could be victims/ women abusers (anecdotally I believe it wasn’t well received in some quarters). However the number broadly agree with other research internationally

creditcarder

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What study?

There is no talk of explicit consent like you are suggesting. In most people's minds they acknowledge a man can have an erection and a women can have sex with a person without their consent. In other words rape. To deny that is possible and has happened is worrying

What do you mean?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

silverharp wrote: »

well that horse has bolted and while I don’t agree with cancel culture its more a bit of schadenfreude to see it happen in this case, its one of those “they are eating their own”

Right but you’re either for cancel culture or against it. And if you’re against it, shouldn’t you be consistent? As already said, it’s something that could quickly become quite sinister.

silverharp

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right but you’re either for cancel culture or against it. And if you’re against it, shouldn’t you be consistent? As already said, it’s something that could quickly become quite sinister.

well it will only end when it happens to enough of the enlightened folk. Alot of cancel culture revolves around someone saying something possibly years ago on twitter so it tends to be petty. On the other hand I have no problem with rapists/molesters etc being "cancelled", she isn't far off that imo.