Husband rips wife's eyes out after she refuses sex

[Diamond Cross]

What about defending oneself against a woman who intends to do bodily harm?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What about defending oneself against a woman who intends to do bodily harm?

If a man's significant other is attacking him, then he's done something severely wrong in the relationship. For the most part, the man is the one that leads the relationship. He makes all of the decisions and he is the protector and caretaker. If something goes awry, it's generally due to bad leadership.

That's my take anyway. I don't get into fights with people, quite simply, because I don't lead the relationship into fights. If something's about to take a turn for the worst, I end the relationship. But I guess not all guys, especially ones in western cultures, have such foresight, or they just don't recognize it.



On a more topical note, arranged marriages are statistically far more successful than our current marriage system. "Marriage based on romance" is a slightly new concept in humans, and it hasn't worked. I'm sure some of the psych majors have heard about this, so I'll let them chime in before I go over my opinion of why it's like that. What do you think?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

If a man's significant other is attacking him, then he's done something severely wrong in the relationship. For the most part, the man is the one that leads the relationship. He makes all of the decisions and he is the protector and caretaker. If something goes awry, it's generally due to bad leadership.

That's my take anyway. I don't get into fights with people, quite simply, because I don't lead the relationship into fights. If something's about to take a turn for the worst, I end the relationship. But I guess not all guys, especially ones in western cultures, have such foresight, or they just don't recognize it.

No equal partnership?

On a more topical note, arranged marriages are statistically far more successful than our current marriage system. "Marriage based on romance" is a slightly new concept in humans, and it hasn't worked. I'm sure some of the psych majors have heard about this, so I'll let them chime in before I go over my opinion of why it's like that. What do you think?

I think a lot of arranged marriages last not because they weren't founded on romance, but because if their culture arranged their marriage and they complied, they also are living under a culture where divorce is strictly forbidden. People can learn to love each other and get along. I think what you're trying to get at is marriage based on love/romance is emotional and doesn't work. But a marriage based on a purpose, to be a unit to raise a family and live a productive life is less emotional and therefore has a different outlook on marriage as a whole. I think you're wrong though, love/romance is a part of human nature and should be encouraged.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is one of those cases where I would say an eye for an eye. He should get jail time and he should have his eyes surgically removed. There is no punishment suitable besides that for what he did to his wife who will now be permanently blind.

That seems far too knee-jerkish and unsophisticated to me. I think punishments like that are just the result of someone not being able to come up with a clever punishment that is suitable for the crime. I feel the same way about hitting children. It's far too instinctive and primitive for me to ever respect such an action as "suitable punishment." These punishments are impulsive and reactionary, which is kind of ironic considering most of the crimes that they're punishing are the results of impulsive reactions as well.

It's been repeatedly proven that a Tit for Tat social system is the most efficient and beneficial one for society. All of our punishments should be reflective of that concept. This is why I am also against Capital Punishment unless it's for sanitation purposes, i.e., the same reason we might put down a rabid dog.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No equal partnership?

Of course I believe in equal partnerships. I just think that each partner serves different roles. Much in the same way - and I hate to sound like a broken record here - that "Tit for Tat" is all about equality, while being different.

I do not advocate codependency or anything like that. And I shouldn't have said "man" in my previous post. That was more of a generalization. Some women make better leaders than men. Whoever is leading the relationship is responsible for steering the relationship away from fights. I don't think that romantic relationships should be complementary at all.

I think a lot of arranged marriages last not because they weren't founded on romance, but because if their culture arranged their marriage and they complied, they also are living under a culture where divorce is strictly forbidden. People can learn to love each other and get along. I think what you're trying to get at is marriage based on love/romance is emotional and doesn't work. But a marriage based on a purpose, to be a unit to raise a family and live a productive life is less emotional and therefore has a different outlook on marriage as a whole. I think you're wrong though, love/romance is a part of human nature and should be encouraged.

Love/romance is definitely part of human nature. You're right about that. You're also right when you say why arranged marriages work. It is because they have a purpose. However, the thing that's missed is that when I talk about the "success" of the arranged marriages, I'm talking about how well the partners get along by the end of their life. They "learn to love," as it's said.

In my opinion, arranged marriages have worked because they're generally not monogamous. Yes, the marriage is between two people, and cheating is forbidden; that's all well and good. However, I think that marriages not based on romance indirectly encourage both partners to seek romance elsewhere. They learn to love each other because their other relationships fail. Their arranged relationship acts as a fall-back cushion at first, and eventually that cushion becomes comfortable enough to use it exclusively.

[Diamond Cross]

So if something goes wrong in a relationship, it's always the man's fault, no matter what the circumstances?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So if something goes wrong in a relationship, it's always the man's fault, no matter what the circumstances?

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[Linzyhop]

If a man's significant other is attacking him, then he's done something severely wrong in the relationship. For the most part, the man is the one that leads the relationship. He makes all of the decisions and he is the protector and caretaker. If something goes awry, it's generally due to bad leadership.

wow. are you living in the 50's??? I don't know what kind of weak women you've been with (June Cleaver perhaps), but I could never be in a relationship where the "man" was the sole decision maker, protector and caretaker. Give and take. I prefer relationships that are equal, mind, body and soul. Granted there are women out there that just want to find a man to take care of them, and more power to them if they are happy with that sort of life, but I prefer to take an active role in any relationship I have. and don't flatter yourself too much by laying all the blame of a failed relationship solely at your feet. Loving relationships shouldn't be "led". Are you an engineer or something? that's a little too analytical for me, and maybe I'm just too romantic at heart, but having my love "led".... i dunno about that. doesn't sound too much like "love".

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

wow. are you living in the 50's??? I don't know what kind of weak women you've been with (June Cleaver perhaps), but I could never be in a relationship where the "man" was the sole decision maker, protector and caretaker. Give and take. I prefer relationships that are equal, mind, body and soul. Granted there are women out there that just want to find a man to take care of them, and more power to them if they are happy with that sort of life, but I prefer to take an active role in any relationship I have. and don't flatter yourself too much by laying all the blame of a failed relationship solely at your feet. Loving relationships shouldn't be "led". Are you an engineer or something? that's a little too analytical for me, and maybe I'm just too romantic at heart, but having my love "led".... i dunno about that. doesn't sound too much like "love".

But is it not that a woman have smaller brain than a man? Listen gypsy, the government scientist Doctor Yamaka prove that it is the size of squirrel.

[Stylerod]

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

But is it not that a woman have smaller brain than a man? Listen gypsy, the government scientist Doctor Yamaka prove that it is the size of squirrel.

no that's your penis.

i put a spell on you!

[Linzyhop]

twas a joke. jeez people.

[Diamond Cross]

I put a spell on you
Creedence Clearwater Revival.

[Rouger2]

Well! now getting back to the thread that guy should get the book thrown at him for blinding that lady.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

wow. are you living in the 50's??? I don't know what kind of weak women you've been with (June Cleaver perhaps), but I could never be in a relationship where the "man" was the sole decision maker, protector and caretaker. Give and take. I prefer relationships that are equal, mind, body and soul. Granted there are women out there that just want to find a man to take care of them, and more power to them if they are happy with that sort of life, but I prefer to take an active role in any relationship I have. and don't flatter yourself too much by laying all the blame of a failed relationship solely at your feet. Loving relationships shouldn't be "led". Are you an engineer or something? that's a little too analytical for me, and maybe I'm just too romantic at heart, but having my love "led".... i dunno about that. doesn't sound too much like "love".

Since you seem to have missed it...

I do not advocate codependency or anything like that. And I shouldn't have said "man" in my previous post. That was more of a generalization. Some women make better leaders than men. Whoever is leading the relationship is responsible for steering the relationship away from fights. I don't think that romantic relationships should be complementary at all.

I generalize and say that men lead the relationships because, quite frankly, that's generally how it is. Relationships should be set up in such a way that each partner's strengths are expressed and appreciated. As it just so happens, men are generally better at being leaders than women. That's not a matter of social status or misogyny or anything of the sort; it's a statistical analysis. How many women do you see on the Board Of Directors of the largest firms in America? How many women are coaching professional athletes? How many women have gained high ranking in the political world? I'm certainly not saying that women are intrinsically weaker or subordinate. I'm saying that when it comes to relationships, men tend to lead them, and the leader of the relationship is at fault when things go awry.

And again, I most certainly don't believe in codependency at all. That "you complete me" crap is a crock of shit, as far as I'm concerned. People ought to be independent before they enter a relationship. I don't think I would stay with a woman if I was under the impression that she needed me for something.

[Diamond Cross]

I agree that generally men are the eladers in relationships, but I do not agree that each and every single failure is the man's fault, no matter what.

[Linzyhop]

I generalize and say that men lead the relationships because, quite frankly, that's generally how it is. Relationships should be set up in such a way that each partner's strengths are expressed and appreciated. As it just so happens, men are generally better at being leaders than women. That's not a matter of social status or misogyny or anything of the sort; it's a statistical analysis. How many women do you see on the Board Of Directors of the largest firms in America? How many women are coaching professional athletes? How many women have gained high ranking in the political world? I'm certainly not saying that women are intrinsically weaker or subordinate. I'm saying that when it comes to relationships, men tend to lead them, and the leader of the relationship is at fault when things go awry.

men are only the leaders if you're with a woman willing to be led. A lot of reasons women aren't in the forefront of politics or sports or firms is because of a well-known glass ceiling that exists for women. Sports is obvious. women coach women's teams plenty, but how many professional women's teams do you see out there? I work in finance and there are more and more high ranking women in companies every day, but it has taken a while since the 70's for that to happen. There still is a difference between what men make and what women make, but it's getting smaller every day. as far as politics, women are gaining more and more ground. look at Pelosi and Hillary. Two firsts. I'm not saying it's equal or close to it. obviously it's not but you can't erase over 2000 years of gender bias in a matter of 30-40 years. but the "Can-do" attitude of women has definitely changed in these last 40 years. something you can't deny.

women weren't always the weaker ones either. in pre-roman days in Britain there used to be war colleges run by women, and the islands, Britain and Ireland, were ruled over by warrior queens who passed their rule down through their daughters, not their sons. Unfortunately Christianity came about and perpetuated this mis-belief that all original sin came from Eve, hence making women the spawn of the devil and elevating men to the dominating role. Ever since then it's been an uphill battle for women.

Lovely.

and i'm not even a feminist.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

men are only the leaders if you're with a woman willing to be led. A lot of reasons women aren't in the forefront of politics or sports or firms is because of a well-known glass ceiling that exists for women.

What, are you living in the 50's?

Sports is obvious. women coach women's teams plenty, but how many professional women's teams do you see out there? I work in finance and there are more and more high ranking women in companies every day, but it has taken a while since the 70's for that to happen. There still is a difference between what men make and what women make, but it's getting smaller every day. as far as politics, women are gaining more and more ground. look at Pelosi and Hillary. Two firsts. I'm not saying it's equal or close to it. obviously it's not but you can't erase over 2000 years of gender bias in a matter of 30-40 years. but the "Can-do" attitude of women has definitely changed in these last 40 years. something you can't deny.

Note that I also said that the tendency was due to externalities, not genetics. The social environment for women has changed significantly, which is why there's a few up at the top. But even still, those few at the top are "the exception, not the rule." Surely you acknowledge that there is a disproportionate amount of men that are obtaining leadership positions, right? And by extension, you'll admit that it's perfectly acceptable to base generalizations on that acknowledgment, right?

women weren't always the weaker ones either. in pre-roman days in Britain there used to be war colleges run by women, and the islands, Britain and Ireland, were ruled over by warrior queens who passed their rule down through their daughters, not their sons. Unfortunately Christianity came about and perpetuated this mis-belief that all original sin came from Eve, hence making women the spawn of the devil and elevating men to the dominating role. Ever since then it's been an uphill battle for women.

I know this isn't really on topic for this thread, but you'll like this story...

The Celts had 10 forms of legal marriage, and only 3 of them were permanent. It was fairly common for female heirs to take a temporary husband to continue the bloodline without sharing power.

But, according to legend, when the High King cast aside his (permanent) wife Vennolandua for another woman (and a Saxon slave at that), she raised an army against him, led them into battle, killed him in a Champion's duel, and claimed the throne for herself to avenge the insult. "And though it had never before been the custom for women to ride into battle, it was their right thereforth."

She even kissed him - or rather, kissed his severed head - soundly on the lips, saying "You swore yourself to me alone, my love, and I to you. Mine shall be the last lips that taste of yours."

She never remarried.

The Legend of Vennolandua is my favorite story from The High Kings by Joy Chant. It's a retelling of ancient Breton tales in their pre-Christinized forms. It's also interspersed with nuggets of history, like the quote above, and so awesomely illustrated that I think of it more as classical illumination. There's also a quote from a Celtic noblewoman to one of her Roman peers: "We consort openly, with the best of men; you in shameful secret, with the worst."

[Linzyhop]