Wednesday, July 29, 2009


Blogger Trust said...

Too much hypocrisy all around.

1. If it were reversed, he'd be prosecuted.

2. If it were reversed, they would point to his abuse as a reason she would cheat on him--i.e, the kind of person he is.

3. It's sickening that only 53% think she should be prosecuted based on the would be closer to 93% if reversed. I suspect almost every women and most men that voted "no" would suddenly think it was inexcusable.

4. I doubt the police would have had equal sympathy sympathy.


9:41 AM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger # 56 said...

She will be prosecuted.

12:58 PM, July 29, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's sickening that only 53% think she should be prosecuted based on the poll...

I bet all the men and only a tiny fraction of the women voted yes to prosecution. I presume the women want to retain the "boiling water" option should they so elect.

2:43 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@randian said... I bet all the men and only a tiny fraction of the women voted yes to prosecution. I presume the women want to retain the "boiling water" option should they so elect.

A goal of feminists is for men to have obligations and women to have options, including the option to physically harm men with little if any consequence.

4:17 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Tom P said...

Ex did that to me. Hurts a LOT! One reason she's an ex.

5:28 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Helen said...

Tom P.

That's awful, glad you didn't stay with someone that cruel.

5:35 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Bob Sorensen said...

The comments after the original article are vicious. "He deserved it", jokes, that sort of thing. Not only a double standard, but it's simple that an assault of that nature is just not funny.

5:48 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

I agree with stormbringer. I saw comments like "she should have saved some to pour on his face too." Most of such comments come from members of the kinder, more compassionate gender.

5:52 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Captain Cornelius said...

Give her the Chair

8:12 PM, July 29, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've tried to imagine myself with boobs. I don't know, I just can't see it.

Oh, wait a minute. I read the article. Now I get it.

9:05 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger BR said...

It's amazing to see this kind of thing in action. While no where near as bad as boiling water on my crotch, my live-in girlfriend recently left me less then two months after convincing me of the need for almost $20k in renovations to my condo. Now I'm faced with the choice of selling or taking on a roommate to pay the bills for said renovations. The response of our mutual friends has been pretty universally, "Yeah, these things happen. It's a shame. But don't worry, you'll learn to be friends with her. You'll have to, because we don't intend to stop inviting her to parties."

Does anyone think that if I had moved into her condo, and left her with a $20k renovation loan to pay, they'd be nearly so mild mannered about it? Not a chance.

9:30 PM, July 29, 2009  
Blogger Tom P said...

Helen said "That's awful, glad you didn't stay with someone that cruel."

Big problem was protecting the kids and getting them away from her. Paritally succeeded - got my son out but not my daughter. Took a few years to manage it.

These things are not always as easy as "well, just LEAVE her", nor is the victim always innocent - but that kind of assult is never called for, IMO, and should be consistently punished, regardless of sex (or gender, if you are PC). It's a "Law" thing, as in "Nation of Laws, not a Nation of Men (or Women)"

1:51 AM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Tom P said... These things are not always as easy as "well, just LEAVE her"

I agree. I don't think people realize how complex and even pain this is for a man given the current landscape of laws and courts. Losing access to your kids, the psychological damage of footing the bill for your ex and her new stud to live happily ever after in your house with your kids on your dime, etc...

6:46 AM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

"Losing access to your kids,"

And just, or perhaps more important, your kids losing access to you. Kids with live at home dads do better at practically everything. And they are cheaper, far cheaper for the government (read our tax dollars.)

If the current crop of ego maniacs in DC really wanted to save money they would implement a live at home dad incentive. OK, I am too small government to write that without gagging, simply eliminating the single mom subsidy would do. It would do a lot.


8:27 AM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

my ex has full custody. my children spend significantly more time with me though.....because they want to.

no law in the land can change my children`s minds on that one.

she took full custody as a "win" and said so to me. i told her not to try to convince the children of that.

i have much more faith in love as an active force in this world, than any laws written by a certain type of man or woman (bureaucrat.) they just don`t know what love is.

these are the same people who make city by-laws that keep people of city soccer fields unless you have a permit.

the brand new artificial turf fields sit unused all day for this reason....though my tax dollars and sports fees went toward paying for thier existance.

the couple in the article above were busy punishing eachother repeatedly and the boiling water episode was merely the most recent at point of record.

11:24 AM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

I caught this comment in the article: sgamerino Jul 29, 2009 2:14:25 PM "I have seen many men get extremely sensitive to this story. But why is it when a man harms a woman, you guys make such fun of guys can dish it out but you definitely can not take it. Now I am in the mood for boiled hot dog....haha."

This person thinks it is when it happens to a woman it is a joke? Has she never heard of all the Lorena Bobitt fans? I can't think of a time when a man has done it to a woman that it has been a joke, but I know many women who think the Bobbit snip was hilarious, as was the girlfriend who stabbed her ex while sleeping (you may recall, Doc H said that the people she told the story to were horrified, until she revealed the victim was male, then they laughed).

Yup, we only take abuse against men seriously, but it's funny only when it happens to women.

And sgamerino, I have a beach house in Alaska I'll sell you for $100 cash... just get your bikini on and follow I-5 1,000 miles north of Anchorage. Let me know when you get there. Enjoy the sun.

1:17 PM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

"But why is it when a man harms a woman, you guys make such fun of it......"

I do not have much experience with guys laughing and cutting up about men beating up women. I wonder where sgamerino gets that idea.


1:50 PM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

it depends what you mean by
'beating up'......

2:25 PM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@dr.alistair said... it depends what you mean by 'beating up'......

Maybe it's one of those definitions that changes the day, week, or month after based on how she feels. Maybe so chauvinistically manhandling her by grabbing her wrist as she's trying to ram a knife in your jugular. Mary Winkler's husband may have abused her by bleeding on her shoe.

6:10 PM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger mmaier2112 said...

If this guy were to blow this foul b**** away, I'd say "Good riddance".

Like Vox likes to say, minorities and females are children in the eyes of the law, with massively decreased culpability. He's completely right.

6:41 PM, July 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One has to choose his battles these days. Finding the right life partner is no easy task. The eventual outcome is no more predictable than the flip of a coin. I have heard it said many times that a man falls in love with a woman for who she is, and how she is at the time he makes his decision. I must admit, I agree with that, and based my own decision to "pop the question" on that very criteria - after a few years of exposure to the individual I married. I have heard it said a woman marries a man fully believing she can change him, mold him into what she wants him to be once the ring is on the finger. I was exposed to that shortly after the marriage and for its duration. Is this deceit from day one, a difference in how the male and female minds work, or change that occurs as a natural progression of two different personalities rubbing against each other over time? The institution of marriage is a crap shoot. The odds are against the survival of each individual marriage. The male is the loser most often, although the entire family suffers should the marriage contain an extended family. Society as a whole suffers via welfare, crime, etc.

I have found that it is not worth it, junkets to Vegas are cheaper, and the freedom, sublime. All I need to do now is get to the bottom of some primal feelings I have about wanting to be connected at the waist with a member of the opposite sex. The nude female form, especially if well cared for, is the most powerful thing I know of. In my experience though, the beauty, the incredible body, and the great sense of humor all slowly disappeared once the ring slid on the finger. The stupid things men do because of it....I could be the poster child. I have three wonderful kids, the only thing making it worth the 25+ years of marriage that exploded instead of just fizzling out.

Of course, the many other things that get discussed in this blog on the male - female topic, the system, etc. need not be brought up again at this moment. We all know them well.

Marriage is a battle I will never again participate in. Considering those who populate the White House and Capitol Hill at this time, there are even bigger fish to fry.

6:28 AM, July 31, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...


I was always told when people, wives in particular, got married that would almost instantly change. I never believed it, but having been married 5 years, I can pinpoint our wedding as the moment of drastic change.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what is meant by "change." People aren't magically different, they are the same person reacting differently to different circumstances and options. An extreme example would be something like this:
Scenario 1:
*Frail man: "give me your wallet"
*Me: Screw you.

Scenario 2:
*Man pointing gun at my head: "Give me your wallet"
*Me: Yes, sir.

It wasn't that I was changed by the event, it was that my options in dealing with the circumstances were different and I responded accordingly.

Same with dating vs marriage. Before marriage, men and women a like could dump each other and the other would have no recourse. Keeping them required work and positive incentive. It required compromise and effort.

Flash forward to after the wedding. Now, a man can't dump his now wife so easily. His options are to suck it up and deal with it, or leave and have his life ruined by a good lawyer and the psychological abuse of paying to support his ex and her new boyfriend. Conversely, now that a woman has recourse against her husband, she no longer has to keep him happy to keep him, and even if he dumps her she can sue his ass and make him provide her the benefits of marriage while she isn't a wife (or worse, while she's banging and/or living with someone else).

Had I know then what I know now, I'd have done a prenupt. Not to control her, but to increase her desire to make the marriage work for both of us, and not just for her. I'm not saying my wife is a bad woman, but I am saying that she is aware that with the marriage and two infant children that I'm obligated to her for life regardless of how she behaves.

My grandfather was a great husband and spent his life working to provide my grandmother for all her wants. However, she knew full well that if she didn't treat him right she'd lose everything he provided. What is wrong with that, and why did laws have to change it? Why should anyone, man or woman, be entitled to what someone else provides without any obligation to them?

Without getting too far off topic, the options thing factors into violence as well. Did this woman have any real fear of significant punishment for permanently maiming him? I guarantee, if he so much as slapped her, no matter how provoked, he'd be punished.

It saddens me how many womens upport biased laws. They should be offended that the legal and court systems see them as children.

11:01 AM, July 31, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too many perhaps, don't care how they are seen, as long as they see the green.

I give what I think it's worth, pay as you go, no strings or bands attached. Easy!

12:13 PM, July 31, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

I think unbiased people, if they are being honest with themselves, can see how the landscape of family law and court (and also legal law and punishment in cases of violence) impact behavior.

If a husband is being treated badly and tells is wife that if she doesn't treat him better he will leave, she doesn't need to shape up, if he doesn't stay she can sue him for the house, kids, money, alimony, child support, and ruin his life.

If a wife is being treated badly by her husband and tells him if he doesn't treat him better she'll leave him, he'll need to shape up unless he wants to lose the house, kids, and all his money.

Women strive to get married more, and they abandon their marriages more. If anyone thinks the laws favoring women so overwhelmingly does not impact, if not outright cause, the statistics, they are either blind or lying to themselves.

I don't advocating making the laws pro men, I advocate making them fair. If each person stood a 50/50 chance at being worse off and losing their kids, instead of 99/1, both sides would work at it. Both sides are necessary, because any time one person in a partnership has everything to gain and nothing to lose by failure, they cease to be a partner.

it's easy to get off topic, so let me tie it to the orginal post by saying the treatment of women as children in court is part of the same problem that has lead to wives behaving like spoiled children in their marriages... me, me, me and more, more, more. And men would be as bad if it were reversed.

Fix the laws, which will fix the incentives, which will balance the scale and make both parties equally as committed to making the marriage work, and you will fix the problem.

1:05 PM, July 31, 2009  
Blogger Tom P said...

Trust Said: "Fix the laws, which will fix the incentives, which will balance the scale and make both parties equally as committed to making the marriage work, and you will fix the problem."

The problem is only a problem for one side, the side less inclined to reliably vote in blocs for the properly phrased offers of more security and government control. Why fix a problem when it is only a problem to people who don't matter and won't get loud or organized enough to matter?

Politicians are motivated by threats to their power. Men are not threat.

1:34 PM, July 31, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Tom P has stated, I don't see divorce lawyers and women voluntarily giving back a portion of their winnings just to be fair. It isn't about honesty, integrity, or fairness.

I know I've said this at least a dozen times in various threads on this great blog over the last 3+ years, yet it always bears repeating. If you're a male contemplating marriage, first spend a week of full days sitting in the last row of your local divorce court. It is doubtful that many deciding to tie the knot ever expect to be seated at the tables at the other end of the room. But the things that happen to the men who do!

With marriage being the 50 / 50 (at best) crap shoot that it is, the only reason for marriage as one of two available choices - were there only two - would be that the other is certain and premature death.

11:51 AM, August 02, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@br549 said... As Tom P has stated, I don't see divorce lawyers and women voluntarily giving back a portion of their winnings just to be fair. It isn't about honesty, integrity, or fairness.

I agree with that. It will be a tough fight.

Dr. H. had a clip of a politician trying to change the laws so that a man found not to be a biological father of his wife's child should not be obligated to pay child support. Further, it talked about the "double whammy," where a man would pay child suppport for over a decade for a child that is not his, and then the mother sues the biological father for back child support--getting paid twice because of adultery and lies.

What stuck in my mind was how this politician was grilled by another politician that it was the most anti-child legislation he had ever seen. The politician that called it anti-child was a man who thought that men should be obligated to pay child support to their adulterous ex wife for children fathered by another man outside the marriage. I don't think the supporter agreed with what he said, I think he was pandering to women for votes. (Though I don't recall the political parties, I bet the idiot was a Democrat--I'm sure enough I'd bet my dog on it, but not my playstation).

That's a long winded way of saying there will be great resistance. Not just from man-hating feminist, but from women who like the benefits, chivalrous men, and men pandering for votes. It is not goign to be easy, and if anyone succeeds in righting the wrongs, they will probably pay of it with their career.

1:04 PM, August 02, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trust, there's a fellow at work, ten years my junior (I'm 56) who is on his third marriage. This particular marriage is of 2 years duration. She, too, has been married and divorced more than once. They met in church (!) and married after dating only 3 or 4 months. Sex has long fallen off from a daily ritual to having sex once a month, whether he needs it or not. It's an obvious chore for her. She'd rather read Harlequin novels and garden, and otherwise be left alone. They don't even talk. It's crazy.

2:10 PM, August 02, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His house, his flower beds, his garden - at least until they got married, anyway.

2:26 PM, August 02, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home