Sexual Discrimination and Violence: Changing women's attitudes

[codanblad]

there is absolutely nothign we can do about the women. It is a biological thing. They know that some men only respond to shocks. Or they think this is true. WE cannot change women, just as we cannot reduce the number of men who rape.

What we need to discuss here is how you, lepustimidus, can make intelligent choices that prevent this from happening to you or reduce the chances.

You need to focus on you.

are you being sarcastic, is this another shot at tiassa and co.?

if women have a view it can be changed, and if its biological we can create inhibitions or something. the number of male rapists could surely be reduced too, by improving mental health care, increasing punishments for rape etc.

 

[Bells]

bells whats your opinion on my post?

Sometimes the courts will favour the mother. Hence why it is essential for the male victim to contact the police and record instance(s) of abuse.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

And yet you encourage the abuse of the male by his spouse or partner. The inherent sexism in your outlook is disheartening, but not uncommon.

Men who are not men deserve what they get, so yes. I am sexist - against men.

"Why did you fail to contact the police at any time?"


And your answer would be? "Because I am a real man"?

Yes. I think the view is common enough in society to be acceptable.

Again, refer to above. As a lawyer, I can assure you, that would be my first question. "Did you call the police?".. "Did you have the abuse documented with police reports, photos of your injuries, keep a diary or mark down when she abused you, seek medical attention for any of your injuries, contact the police at any time or even now?"..

I'd pull the defense I just noted.

Did you know, that in times not far gone, the police would react in the same way if a woman was being abused and called them for help? Domestic issues were meant to be resolved between the parties only. Thankfully, we have moved past that stage and realised that some people need and deserve help and the law is on their side.

This is an exaggeration in general. Furthermore, I think it is in general right: The police should not be there to adjudicate your disputes. It's a cowardly way to involve the police in matters.

If you had dignity, you would report her to the police, contact your lawyers and start child custody proceedings immediately. Have her removed and barred from the house and from having access to the children. To do all of that, you'll need to have contacted the police and frankly, the courts would find it strange that not once did you bother to seek police intervention during the periods of abuse. Attitudes such as "because I'm a real man and not weak" won't wash.

A man does not rat out his woman to the police. That is absurd. What sort of coward requires the police to handle his business?

Oh and it will wash: I can guarantee you that no man on any jury would find any problem with what I am affirming.

I just asked my (male) friend this question and he concurred: The man would be beyond a wimp to be beaten up by his wife and do nothing about it or to call the police.

Again, it is attitudes such as yours that make the issue of male victims of domestic violence a persistent issue. It goes largely unrecognised because men are too afraid to come forward. But hey, 'you da man'! And yes, that was sarcasm.

These men deserve what they get. They're cowards. T

It is obvious you don't have children. I can assure you, as a parent, if someone ever threatened my children and the only way to save them was for me to eat shit, I'd be asking them for a fork before digging in. One does not "deserve" the love and admiration of one's child. One has to earn it and then work to keep it. I'd die for my children without even having to think about it first. Do you know why? Because their heath, wellbeing and happiness takes precedence over everything else in my life. And if by some chance my husband ever threatened me or beat me and my children. I'd have his backside in a jail cell before he could even recite is name and date of birth.

You're speaking as a mother. I'd be speaking from the position of a father. The relationship is entirely different.

I would no more eat shit for a child then I would for anything else. I'd kill the man, not give in.

A son would have more respect for his father if he saw his father standing up for himself and his family by contacting the police and having his abusive mother removed from their home than seeing his father beat the living hell out of his mother. Which do you think would set a better example to a young boy?

I would say that any man who has to have the police do his dirty work on a woman who is disrespecting him is less of a man than he who beats his wife. Wife beaters are scum, but these are beneath even that.

Freud also posited the Oedipus complex theory. Enough said really.

Freud actually had some good points, but Jung was the better psychologist. Freud was too obsessed with the sexual aspects of psychology.

 

[Bells]

Bells:



Men who are not men deserve what they get, so yes. I am sexist - against men.

So in your view, a real man would either strike back at the woman or kick her arse to the curb? A man who does things legally, ie call the police and have her arrested for assaulting him, is a weak individual and thus, not a real man?

Yes. I think the view is common enough in society to be acceptable.

Common? Yes. Acceptable? No.

I'd pull the defense I just noted.

It is not a valid defense.

This is an exaggeration in general. Furthermore, I think it is in general right: The police should not be there to adjudicate your disputes. It's a cowardly way to involve the police in matters.

So a woman suffering beatings at the hands of her husband should also not involve law enforcement officers because they should not be there to "adjudicate" her disputes? In that case, police officers should never break up a brawl, never arrest someone who's threatening his or her family members with a weapon? Both are personal disputes. Yet the police do respond to such instances. Why not for a man who is being beaten by his wife? Oh wait, because real men handle things themselves and only cowards call the police.

A man does not rat out his woman to the police. That is absurd. What sort of coward requires the police to handle his business?

The woman ceases to be "his woman" when she starts to abuse him.

Would you call the police if someone stole your car? Would you call the police if someone was breaking into your house? After all, it is your business, is it not?

Oh and it will wash: I can guarantee you that no man on any jury would find any problem with what I am affirming.

You are wrong. Men in court have convicted female domestic abusers (women who beat their husbands). You are assuming that the male on the jury will judge the accused from his male point of view and not from a legal standpoint.. that is to say, did the individual break the law in his or her actions. Whether he has his own ideals about what a real man would do does not matter. What does matter is whether the accused broke the law.

In that sense, the legal system neuters the male ideal of what it is to be a real man. It brings all down to a level playing field where such archaic beliefs do not matter. What does matter is the legality of the actions of the accused.

I just asked my (male) friend this question and he concurred: The man would be beyond a wimp to be beaten up by his wife and do nothing about it or to call the police.

One would hardly be friends with people who did not in some way or other, share such intrinsic beliefs about one's sex and society in itself. Ask a police officer how he would react if called to a domestic disturbance where the woman was beating her partner, whether he'd tell the guy to buck up and be a man and whether he would arrest the woman or not.

These men deserve what they get. They're cowards.

And your attitude and those of your friend(s) is basically at the root of this issue and the reason why male domestic violence victims remain victims. Well done.

You're speaking as a mother. I'd be speaking from the position of a father. The relationship is entirely different.

I would no more eat shit for a child then I would for anything else. I'd kill the man, not give in.

So you would put your own pride over the health and wellbeing of your child?

Heh..

I can assure you, every single male I have ever known who happens to have children would disagree with you. If there was a gun to their child's head and they were told to eat shit or the child dies, they'd eat the shit to save their child. One's pride goes out the window when one's child is in danger.

I would say that any man who has to have the police do his dirty work on a woman who is disrespecting him is less of a man than he who beats his wife. Wife beaters are scum, but these are beneath even that.

How is the police doing your dirty work in arresting a woman who has broken the law? You are not above the law PJ. You are so caught up on the issue of respect that you disrespect every single other male and female on this planet. Wife beaters and husband beaters are scum.

Freud actually had some good points, but Jung was the better psychologist. Freud was too obsessed with the sexual aspects of psychology.

No! Really?

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

So in your view, a real man would either strike back at the woman or kick her arse to the curb? A man who does things legally, ie call the police and have her arrested for assaulting him, is a weak individual and thus, not a real man?

Yes. Having to call the law to stop a woman from hurting oneself? Utterly absurd!

Common? Yes. Acceptable? No.

Quite acceptable.

It is not a valid defense.

I'm talking to practically all my male friends about this. They've come back with complete disapproval of a man who would be beaten up by his own woman.

So a woman suffering beatings at the hands of her husband should also not involve law enforcement officers because they should not be there to "adjudicate" her disputes? In that case, police officers should never break up a brawl, never arrest someone who's threatening his or her family members with a weapon? Both are personal disputes. Yet the police do respond to such instances. Why not for a man who is being beaten by his wife? Oh wait, because real men handle things themselves and only cowards call the police.

Women are not held to the same standards, although I'd prefer if the police were never brought into private matters. As such, I'll allow a woman to hide behind the law - it is, after all, not her place to be courageous.

But no, I don't think that police should ever break up consensual combat (a brawl).

A man threatening his family with a weapon deserves to be arrested. A woman threatening her family with a weapon deserves to be wrestled to the ground and subdued and then kicked to the curb.

Would you call the police if someone stole your car? Would you call the police if someone was breaking into your house? After all, it is your business, is it not?

I'd only call the police after the fact. When the person who was attempting to steal my car and break into my house laid bleeding and potentially dead on the floor.

If my car was stolen without me present, I'd call the police, yes, so I could get back said car. Simply because finding one's car on one's own would be practically impossible in this situation.

You are wrong. Men in court have convicted female domestic abusers (women who beat their husbands). You are assuming that the male on the jury will judge the accused from his male point of view and not from a legal standpoint.. that is to say, did the individual break the law in his or her actions. Whether he has his own ideals about what a real man would do does not matter. What does matter is whether the accused broke the law.

I am pretty sure I could convince a jury of men to see how I would not want to call the police.

Furthermore, you are expecting people to judge the law "based from the law". This never happens. That is precisely why there are such things as chosen juries. OJ Simpson got off because the jury was filled with blacks, for instance.

In that sense, the legal system neuters the male ideal of what it is to be a real man. It brings all down to a level playing field where such archaic beliefs do not matter. What does matter is the legality of the actions of the accused.

Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. Furthermore, I can point out the rationality of my actions through the consistency of my viewpoints. "Why did I not call the police?" "Because would you call a police when a woman was trying to beat you up? No, it would be absurd."

One would hardly be friends with people who did not in some way or other, share such intrinsic beliefs about one's sex and society in itself. Ask a police officer how he would react if called to a domestic disturbance where the woman was beating her partner, whether he'd tell the guy to buck up and be a man and whether he would arrest the woman or not.

If I am ever in the presence of one, I'll ask. I don't tend to meet cops on a regular basis. I did, however, tell one to go fuck himself mistakenly the other week. That was hilarious.

And your attitude and those of your friend(s) is basically at the root of this issue and the reason why male domestic violence victims remain victims. Well done.

I'm proud of it. I hate cowards and half-men. They disgust me.

So you would put your own pride over the health and wellbeing of your child?

Heh..

Yes.

I can assure you, every single male I have ever known who happens to have children would disagree with you. If there was a gun to their child's head and they were told to eat shit or the child dies, they'd eat the shit to save their child. One's pride goes out the window when one's child is in danger.

I take the Mossada approach in life. If need be, I'm willing to kill my woman and children to prevent them from slavery and death.

How is the police doing your dirty work in arresting a woman who has broken the law? You are not above the law PJ. You are so caught up on the issue of respect that you disrespect every single other male and female on this planet. Wife beaters and husband beaters are scum.

One should deal with one's own problems as much as is possible. Calling the police for a woman beating you up? How cowardly and pathetic do you need to be when you refuse to yourself handle things like this?

No! Really?

Why yes, you could say he had a sexual complex, even!

But seriously speaking: The experience of Freud regarding his father's emasculation at the hand of the Jew hater is an example of the psychological child abuse a father being a coward can have on his son.

 

[angrybellsprout]

that night she came running over to the house saying her husband was after her with a hammer so we called the police for her.

she rings the bell again telling my partner that he was trying to kill her again.

It is just me or is there a distinct lack of evidence to her being actually harmed in this scenario? Though sure the police would have been glad to arrest the husband in this case because who needs evidence when you can just point a finger?

 

[Asguard]

i didnt need evidence, all we required was the police (and then the courts) to sort it out. Aparently at one point (acording to the police offices we spoke to later) she DID take out a restraining order but that night she invited him back with her. As for direct evidence she always had bruses and he was almost always drunk.

however as i said the only evidence WE needed was that the two of them were being risruptive to the street and making the nabors feel unsafe. I actually dont know what evidence was given to the tribunal, unfortunatly due to fog at adelaide airport when i was flying back from melbourne, i only arived at the court as the judge (or whatever she was called) was about to hand down the eviction notice. However as i said this case was the aborigional housing board vs the both of them.

 

[Bells]

Bells:



Yes. Having to call the law to stop a woman from hurting oneself? Utterly absurd!

Yes, because real men are.. well.. you.

I'm talking to practically all my male friends about this. They've come back with complete disapproval of a man who would be beaten up by his own woman.

I guess the fact that you seem to view the women in your life as being your property, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you take this stance.

Women are not held to the same standards, although I'd prefer if the police were never brought into private matters. As such, I'll allow a woman to hide behind the law - it is, after all, not her place to be courageous.

You have this whole 'Me Tarzan, you Jane' thing going on, don't you?

The law is there for a reason. If everyone on this planet believed as you do, then police officers would not exist.

But no, I don't think that police should ever break up consensual combat (a brawl).

Until your property becomes damaged in said brawl and then you'd cry foul.

A man threatening his family with a weapon deserves to be arrested. A woman threatening her family with a weapon deserves to be wrestled to the ground and subdued and then kicked to the curb.

Of course. Because women are so weak and meek and the man so big and strong.

And yes, the sarcasm was intended.

I'd only call the police after the fact. When the person who was attempting to steal my car and break into my house laid bleeding and potentially dead on the floor.

If my car was stolen without me present, I'd call the police, yes, so I could get back said car. Simply because finding one's car on one's own would be practically impossible in this situation.

You don't live in the real world, do you?

There is such a thing as not being allowed to take the law into your own hands.

I am pretty sure I could convince a jury of men to see how I would not want to call the police.

Furthermore, you are expecting people to judge the law "based from the law". This never happens. That is precisely why there are such things as chosen juries. OJ Simpson got off because the jury was filled with blacks, for instance.

Refer to above. Whether you can convince a jury or "men" is beside the point. Their true opinion of you and your manly status is moot. What will matter is the law.

And I can assure you, I have spoken to several of the men in my acquaintance, many of whom are either in law enforcement or have been in the armed forces (real butch blokey kind of men) and each and every single one of them laughed at your stance on this issue. And not a single one of them agreed with you. They give me some hope for society.

But hey, at least you have Kadark on your side!

Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. Furthermore, I can point out the rationality of my actions through the consistency of my viewpoints. "Why did I not call the police?" "Because would you call a police when a woman was trying to beat you up? No, it would be absurd."

Refer to above.

Yes.

I shouldn't be surprised I guess.

One day, sadly, you may have children of your own. Then we'll see if your selfishness changes. Lets hope for your child's sake, it does.

I take the Mossada approach in life. If need be, I'm willing to kill my woman and children to prevent them from slavery and death.

It's astounding that people like you still exist. Here I thought we'd moved and evolved.

One should deal with one's own problems as much as is possible. Calling the police for a woman beating you up? How cowardly and pathetic do you need to be when you refuse to yourself handle things like this?

Ah geez, I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, it's because the woman is breaking the law? Could that be it?

Why yes, you could say he had a sexual complex, even!

But seriously speaking: The experience of Freud regarding his father's emasculation at the hand of the Jew hater is an example of the psychological child abuse a father being a coward can have on his son.

I doubt Freud's issues with 'fathers' stemmed from his father not standing up to a Jew hater. It probably stemmed from the fact that he felt his father was the masculine figure in the household and slept with his mother. Lets face it, you're talking about a man who posited that babies get some form of pleasure when they poop, or have reached the "anal stage".

 

[angrybellsprout]

the only evidence WE needed was that the two of them were being risruptive to the street and making the nabors feel unsafe

So this is enough evidence to arrest the man and only the man?

If she was bruised up and he didn't have any marks on him, then there would be a good cause for him being arrested, but the scenario that I just quoted sounds like sexist bunk.

 

[Asguard]

as i said the case we apeared for wasnt against the man, it was an eviction case in the rental tribunal brought by aborigional housing against the couple (did you get it this time) to have them evicted from a state owned house for disrupting behavior, because both of them were making US feel unsafe in our own homes and i was tired of being woken at 3 in the morning. If the women had pressed charges and the police or DPP had ask me to apear in a criminal trial i would have and given evidence about watching him chacing her around the backyard with what apeared to be a hammer (because thats what i saw and on that occasion i didnt wait for her to ask me to call the cops, i did it myself) and beating her to the ground (again i called the cops and an ambulance on that occasion)

 

[angrybellsprout]

You need to work on your syntax because that wasn't very clear in the post.

Back to the OP though:

It makes me sad that this thread has been pushed into only talking about domestic violence because that isn't the only context upon which females think that it is lol to attack a male, especially in the case of kicking him in the balls. I can't think of how many times in high school you'd hear girls go lulz i kicked some guy in the balls ha ha ha, or they'd sit around and go 'you go girl' when one of them would talk about assulting a male.

One of those whacky bitches tried to stab me with a fork one day, but I grabbed her arm while she lunged at me and threw her down. Of course I was then smeared as a woman abuser because she ended up hitting her tummy on a table edge and started to go on about how she was preggers...

 

[Asguard]

as i said in your other thread, the burden is the same. Have the women charged with assult.

Take some burden on yourself

 

[Asguard]

just to add, yes i do apologise for the awkedness of that post. I had alot of trouble wording it.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Yes, because real men are.. well.. you.

Precisely.

I guess the fact that you seem to view the women in your life as being your property, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you take this stance.

You sure like to read a lot into my posts. This probably says more about you than it does me, by the way.

Regardless, by the way, of whether it is a matter of property: It is certainly a matter of honour.

You have this whole 'Me Tarzan, you Jane' thing going on, don't you?

Amusingly, that is one of my favourite books. I love when Tarzan kills half a savage village with his bare hands.

The law is there for a reason. If everyone on this planet believed as you do, then police officers would not exist.

The police have many roles. I am not going to contest their usefulness in murder investigations, for instance. But why should anyone have to resort to the police tod eal with their own business when it does not warrant this?

Until your property becomes damaged in said brawl and then you'd cry foul.

You'd be pleased to hear that I'm more likely to be cheering ecstatically and betting with my fellow spectators on who will win. Watching two men fight, either professionally or in a brawl, is the most fun one can have without being naked.

Of course. Because women are so weak and meek and the man so big and strong.

And yes, the sarcasm was intended.

Considering it is a biological fact that women are, on a whole, weaker and smaller then men...

You don't live in the real world, do you?

There is such a thing as not being allowed to take the law into your own hands.

In my country (the US), it is common and completely legal to kill intruders into one's house. Castle laws stipulate it is a right to kill anyone who enters your house threateningly uninvited or trespasses on your property. This stands for men, women, and children in that house.

Similarly, self-defense is a strong defense, especially against someone trying to steal my car.

Refer to above. Whether you can convince a jury or "men" is beside the point. Their true opinion of you and your manly status is moot. What will matter is the law.

In the American system, the jury is the absolute arbitrator of law. Is this different in Australia? I know that certain countries are not keen on giving juries that much power, but here in the States the jury can do what they want regarding the law. They judge whether someone is guilty. The guy could be a guilty as a sin and the jury can throw out the case.

And I can assure you, I have spoken to several of the men in my acquaintance, many of whom are either in law enforcement or have been in the armed forces (real butch blokey kind of men) and each and every single one of them laughed at your stance on this issue. And not a single one of them agreed with you. They give me some hope for society.

But hey, at least you have Kadark on your side!

Kadark is a cool fellow.

As to these other men, okay. It seems we move with a different crowd.

I shouldn't be surprised I guess.

One day, sadly, you may have children of your own. Then we'll see if your selfishness changes. Lets hope for your child's sake, it does.

We'll see.

It's astounding that people like you still exist. Here I thought we'd moved and evolved.

I once heard a story from the Holocaust, where a Jewish woman took rocks from the ground and bashed her children's skulls in when they were brought to the concentration camp and she realized what was coming. What do you think of this story?

Ah geez, I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, it's because the woman is breaking the law? Could that be it?

What is your fetishism about the law about?

I doubt Freud's issues with 'fathers' stemmed from his father not standing up to a Jew hater. It probably stemmed from the fact that he felt his father was the masculine figure in the household and slept with his mother. Lets face it, you're talking about a man who posited that babies get some form of pleasure when they poop, or have reached the "anal stage".

Have you never taken a particularly gratifying shit? It is quite a nice experience. Specifically after having had to hold it in for a while (such as on a train)? It is ceratinly not sexual, but it is definitely sensual. A great relief and strain is lifted.

Surely, you've enjoyed a shit at least once in your life?

Freud's "anal stage" is not so odd in that light. Of course, it differs significantly from sexual gratification.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Bells:
Men who are not men deserve what they get, so yes. I am sexist - against men.

That was the most idiotic post I've ever seen. You're saying it's wrong to go to the police when you are being beaten up?

What if the man is refusing to fight back because he's 6ft and 100kg and 'fighting back' would probably entail seriously injuring or disabling her??!! How is that unmanly?

 

[visceral_instinct]

Have you never taken a particularly gratifying shit? It is quite a nice experience. Specifically after having had to hold it in for a while (such as on a train)? It is ceratinly not sexual, but it is definitely sensual. A great relief and strain is lifted.

 

[Bells]

You sure like to read a lot into my posts. This probably says more about you than it does me, by the way.

Regardless, by the way, of whether it is a matter of property: It is certainly a matter of honour.

Your words speak plainly enough.. "My woman".. "His woman"..

The police have many roles. I am not going to contest their usefulness in murder investigations, for instance. But why should anyone have to resort to the police tod eal with their own business when it does not warrant this?

Well, lets see.. Police officers are there to enforce the law. Assault is against the law.. Hmmm.. There's a connection there somewhere. Can you see where it is Big Man?

Come on.. Rub those two stones together and say "ugg".. Hopefully the fire you start might be enlightening enough for you to see the connection.

You'd be pleased to hear that I'm more likely to be cheering ecstatically and betting with my fellow spectators on who will win. Watching two men fight, either professionally or in a brawl, is the most fun one can have without being naked.

Bring on the jelly I say!

Considering it is a biological fact that women are, on a whole, weaker and smaller then men...

Not all.

In the American system, the jury is the absolute arbitrator of law. Is this different in Australia? I know that certain countries are not keen on giving juries that much power, but here in the States the jury can do what they want regarding the law. They judge whether someone is guilty. The guy could be a guilty as a sin and the jury can throw out the case.

Yes they can. But the law must still apply. Or to put it bluntly, the legality of the defense is paramount. Standing up and saying "I'm a real man" just wouldn't cut it I'm afraid.

Kadark is a cool fellow.

Hmmm.. I can see why you have so much in common.

As to these other men, okay. It seems we move with a different crowd.

Indeed.

I once heard a story from the Holocaust, where a Jewish woman took rocks from the ground and bashed her children's skulls in when they were brought to the concentration camp and she realized what was coming. What do you think of this story?

I pity her. I hope like hell I never have to face that kind of situation. In all seriousness, there is nothing on this planet that could make me kill my children. I would not want the last thing they see is their mother killing them.

What is your fetishism about the law about?

'Cos it's hawt!

Have you never taken a particularly gratifying shit? It is quite a nice experience. Specifically after having had to hold it in for a while (such as on a train)? It is ceratinly not sexual, but it is definitely sensual. A great relief and strain is lifted.

Funnily enough, I don't sit there and contemplate the sensuality of my defecation. Strange I know, but I just tend to go in there, do what needs to be done, flush, wash hands and leave.

Surely, you've enjoyed a shit at least once in your life?

Apparently when I was 8 months of age, I managed to open up my nappy and smeared it all over the walls and my parents room and furniture. I'm sure I enjoyed it then. But now, no, I honestly don't come out of the bathroom singing a happy tune, feeling a sense of joy. As I said, I don't really contemplate my the how or the why. Strange that you find it such a sensual experience though. Telling.

Freud's "anal stage" is not so odd in that light. Of course, it differs significantly from sexual gratification.

Freud also never probably saw a small baby 'take a dump'. I can assure you, there's no joy there. Not for the child or for its parents who need to clean it up. Most will scream blue murder before, during and after the event, and that's just the parents. Most babies actually feel extreme discomfort before and during it and some can end up screaming blue murder as a result. After that phase passes and their bodies get used to the sensation, they still scream during and afterwards because it is uncomfortable to them. I guess they need to get to your age to feel it as a sensual experience.

 

[Tiassa]

Mark Steel rules

Well, I was at least able to find this segment of the Mark Steel Lecture on Freud. Enjoy.

A note on the Anal Stage: the source of pleasure is the association of sensations with a certain sense of pride. Briefly—

Anal Stage (18 months to three years). The child’s focus of pleasure in this stage is on eliminating and retaining feces. Through society’s pressure, mainly via parents, the child has to learn to control anal stimulation. In terms of personality, after effects of an anal fixation during this stage can result in an obsession with cleanliness, perfection, and control (anal retentive). On the opposite end of the spectrum, they may become messy and disorganized (anal expulsive).

(Heffner)

____________________

Notes:

Heffner, Dr. Christopher L. Personality Synopsis. AllPsych.com. 2002. Updated March 23, 2004. http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/psychosexual.html

 

[Prince_James]

Visceral Instinct:

\That was the most idiotic post I've ever seen. You're saying it's wrong to go to the police when you are being beaten up?

What if the man is refusing to fight back because he's 6ft and 100kg and 'fighting back' would probably entail seriously injuring or disabling her??!! How is that unmanly?

Escort her to the curb and keep her there, then. I am not suggesting that you smack a bitch like out of that scene in "Purple Rain". I am merely affirming that only cowards call the police when their woman is beating them up and allow their women to do that in the first place.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Your words speak plainly enough.. "My woman".. "His woman"..

The possessive does not indicate ownership. "His son", "Her father".

Well, lets see.. Police officers are there to enforce the law. Assault is against the law.. Hmmm.. There's a connection there somewhere. Can you see where it is Big Man?

It's called "one's personal honour". Who cares if it is against the law? Deal with it yourself. You seem to have some sort of fetish for the law.

Jay walking is against the law. Do you call the police on jay walkers?

Bring on the jelly I say!

No. That's when two CHICKS fight. In a bar. Topless.

Not all.

Yes, thus the key phrase "on a whole".

Yes they can. But the law must still apply. Or to put it bluntly, the legality of the defense is paramount. Standing up and saying "I'm a real man" just wouldn't cut it I'm afraid.

You clearly do not understand the psychology of the court. If this didn't work, we wouldn't have lawyers.

I pity her. I hope like hell I never have to face that kind of situation. In all seriousness, there is nothing on this planet that could make me kill my children. I would not want the last thing they see is their mother killing them.

But certainly you can understand, at least in part, her motivations, correct?

'Cos it's hawt!

Why do I have the feeling that if you are ever incourt, you sponteneously start singing: It's getting hot in herre so take off all your clothes?

Funnily enough, I don't sit there and contemplate the sensuality of my defecation. Strange I know, but I just tend to go in there, do what needs to be done, flush, wash hands and leave.

Well, clearly you are missing out.

Freud also never probably saw a small baby 'take a dump'. I can assure you, there's no joy there. Not for the child or for its parents who need to clean it up. Most will scream blue murder before, during and after the event, and that's just the parents. Most babies actually feel extreme discomfort before and during it and some can end up screaming blue murder as a result. After that phase passes and their bodies get used to the sensation, they still scream during and afterwards because it is uncomfortable to them. I guess they need to get to your age to feel it as a sensual experience.

I've seen babies laugh after poopin'. Never screaming, though.