quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

NuevaVida,

First, you're also getting heated about this.  I wasn't being sarcastic to YOU--I was being sarcastic to the people who were "helping" me by taking the liberty of sending me links in private e-mail on the other side.  That should have been clear.  And the people I told to grow up were the people who are responding to me as though I'm condoning abuse.

quote:


Second, I SAID intimidation is abuse.  Really, people seem to be having a hard time reading what I say and not imagining that I'm saying something else.  What's wrong with listing things like criticism, yelling, slamming doors, and breaking promises, as examples of abusive behavior is precisely that it's all insufficiently contextualized; they all COULD accompany abuse, but, be honest, more often they don't.  I've broken promises; I've yelled; I've slammed doors.  And yet you'll never find anyone who has ever been intimate with me who will tell you that I'm an abuser.  (Asshole, maybe, but not abuser.)  Really, show me someone who has never broken promises, yelled, or slammed doors.

quote:


Third, you know, I have to point out, that I still don't see where your links demonstrate the claim that touched all this off: that abusers begin by breaking inanimate objects and move on to harming people.  THAT'S what I was objecting to.  I never said that abusers don't intimidate their victims, or that abuse isn't really so bad, or any of the other crap that people are putting in my mouth.  To be honest, you've done some of it in this thread too.  Take your link from womansdivorce.com (http://www.womansdivorce.com/psychological-emotional-abuse.html); where does that say anything about breaking inanimate objects?  It just states how serious emotional abuse can be--as though I were some kind of caveman who needed to be told this.

Fourth, this time I really am done with this subject, and all the womansdivorce.com websites in the world aren't going to make too much of an impression on me.  So people, save your effort and stop sending me links on the other side.  And stop following me onto other threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

quote:


Second, I SAID intimidation is abuse.  Really, people seem to be having a hard time reading what I say and not imagining that I'm saying something else.  What's wrong with listing things like criticism, yelling, slamming doors, and breaking promises, as examples of abusive behavior is precisely that it's all insufficiently contextualized; they all COULD accompany abuse, but, be honest, more often they don't.  I've broken promises; I've yelled; I've slammed doors.  And yet you'll never find anyone who has ever been intimate with me who will tell you that I'm an abuser.  (Asshole, maybe, but not abuser.)  Really, show me someone who has never broken promises, yelled, or slammed doors.

But, you see, we also said these behaviors were abusive depending on the context.  That was something you did not address, and likely is where the breakdown in understanding occurred.  Of course we've all done those things (yelled, etc.).  It is when we continually repeat and do so intending to intimidate that abuse occurs.  All you have been saying is, "It's not abuse."  How else could we respond to that??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yeah, well, the first problem is that the discussion started on a different thread (where I said I was done) and then was resurrected here.  So there's a lot that is being taken out of context, and there are all kinds of hot and heavy emotions that are short-circuiting discussion.  (Where did I ever insult Lockit, for example?  I disagreed with what she said; I never said anything about her as a person.)

The point that the context and intent of someone's actions are crucial in determining whether they are abusive was made clearly in that earlier thread.  LaTigresse had a good comment about it.  Anyone who is interested can go and find it, though I doubt many people will.

And good night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Rape is abuse. Intimidation is abuse. Sexual assault is abuse. Threatening to harm family and friends is abuse. I don't think we're going to disagree about any of those.

But I'm sorry, criticism is not abuse. Yelling is not abuse. Silent treatment is not abuse. Slammed doors are not abuse. Broken promises are not abuse. Maybe you don't like them, but they're not abuse. The most you can say about the things in this category is that they often accompany abuse--but often enough they don't. In fact, they usually don't. What relationship doesn't have yelling and criticism? By those criteria, EVERYONE is an abuser. That's ridiculous and only undermines the credibility of the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, as laudable as their mission is. Even worse, it trivializes real abuse.

What would be much more useful than a subjective "fact sheet" indiscriminately labeling all kinds of things as "abuse" would be a pamphlet outlining the pertinent LAWS and the options available to women who feel threatened. That would do a world of good. Some people on here have taken the extremely childish attitude that because I'm challenging the supposedly well-documented link between breaking things and abusing people, I must be condoning abuse or I must be a moron. Come on people, grow up.

quote:


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–

[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]

[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

quote:


1 Prohibition of harassment

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

quote:


Putting people in fear of violence

(1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—

(a) his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

(5) If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2.

(6) The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 as a magistrates' court would have on convicting him of the offence.

quote:


8 Harassment

(1) Every individual has a right to be free from harassment and, accordingly, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and—

(a) is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or

(b) occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.

(2) An actual or apprehended breach of subsection (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question; and any such claim shall be known as an action of harassment.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

*

“conduct” includes speech;
*

“harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and

a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

(4) It shall be a defence to any action of harassment to show that the course of conduct complained of—

(a) was authorised by, under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;

(b) was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5) In an action of harassment the court may, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may grant—

(a) award damages;

(b) grant—

(i) interdict or interim interdict;

(ii) if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to do so in order to protect the person from further harassment, an order, to be known as a “non-harassment order”, requiring the defender to refrain from such conduct in relation to the pursuer as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified,

but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim interdict and a non-harassment order at the same time.

(6) The damages which may be awarded in an action of harassment include damages for any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it.

(7) Without prejudice to any right to seek review of any interlocutor, a person against whom a non-harassment order has been made, or the person for whose protection the order was made, may apply to the court by which the order was made for revocation of or a variation of the order and, on any such application, the court may revoke the order or vary it in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(8) In section 10(1) of the [1976 c. 13.] Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 (interpretation), in the definition of “personal injuries”, after “to reputation” there is inserted “, or injury resulting from harassment actionable under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”.

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild

And selective patronization is alive and well here also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Maybe the next thread could be about Victim Mentalities? Those who love it and why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Maybe the next thread could be about Victim Mentalities? Those who love it and why.

Already done something similar. The original op is in my journal under hysteria a theory.