Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
War Machine's business is to close the gap and damage people, he will ensure it becomes a fist fight.

They will definitely need high-end equipment for this mark. I'm anxious to see how it turns out (assuming it isn't just a PR stunt by Dog).

His job is to close the gap and use his fists to damage other guys who are using their fists.

He's not trained to close the gap against dudes armed with tech that can drop a lion with the push of a button.

Martial arts is a useful tool to have, but even the strongest hand-to-hand fighters are no match against someone armed with a weapon who has even a modicum of training on how to use it.

And even if we discount weapons entirely, its not going to be a 1v1 fight. Its going to be 1 vs 5+.

Even the best MMA fighter is going to go down to those odds.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Anyway...

Saw a tweet where Dog challenged him to a fist fight while he was outside WM's house.

I'm sure he had a cunning plan involving bear mace.

WM: He wants to fight? Ok!

*goes outside and gets hit with bean bags then tazered and wakes up in jail*

Then Dog says something snarky to wrap it all up.

Almost certainly something along the lines of, "You need to find Jesus, brah."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Anyway...

Saw a tweet where Dog challenged him to a fist fight while he was outside WM's house.

I'm sure he had a cunning plan involving bear mace.

WM: He wants to fight? Ok!

*goes outside and gets hit with bean bags then tazered and wakes up in jail*

It would be so hilarious if he actually fell for something like that.

 Ahtman wrote:
But being a professional MMA fighter makes you invincible! They will have to nuke him from orbit, and even then his superior skills and fitness may keep him alive.

Pretty much, there seems to be some logic in this thread that MMA fighters are muscly and good at fighting and therefore they will beat up all who dare oppose them.

Except the reality is that while strange things happen sometimes, the advantage in any encounter is with the guy who is turning up prepared and with gear and a bunch of mates, while the guy on the crapper who just heard three dudes kick down the door of his motel room is at a massive disadvantage, no matter how muscly he is.

 Hordini wrote:
So maybe people should be afraid to date military and police as well then?

As already noted, rates of domestic violence are extremely high in the military.

The point is not to make a moral judgement about MMA fighters or soldiers or anyone else, but just to accept the reality of the situation and adjust as you need to. In this case it means being aware that those jobs train a violent response in to people, as well as coming with a large amount of stress that doesn’t exist in other jobs. This means spouses need to be a little more alert to possible warning signs that in other jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:
We're going to just sit here and pretend that pornstars that remain in relationships with abusive men after the first assault (let alone several more) are one hundred percent mentally stable?

Exactly why many women stay in relationships after being assaulted is complex and has been extensively studied, with many possible reasons offered, none of which are because the women are mentally unstable… for the simple reason that most women who stay are mentally stable.

So just please... stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
So maybe people should be afraid to date military and police as well then?

As already noted, rates of domestic violence are extremely high in the military.

The point is not to make a moral judgement about MMA fighters or soldiers or anyone else, but just to accept the reality of the situation and adjust as you need to. In this case it means being aware that those jobs train a violent response in to people, as well as coming with a large amount of stress that doesn’t exist in other jobs. This means spouses need to be a little more alert to possible warning signs that in other jobs.

Unfortunately, I'm well aware that domestic violence rates are higher in the police and military communities. I was more trying to play a bit of devil's advocate with the idea that a woman should be scared of or "should know better" than to date an MMA fighter or something of the sort.

I agree with you though - a bit of awareness and alertness to warning signs would be in order.

 Hordini wrote:
I agree with you though - a bit of awareness and alertness to warning signs would be in order.

Cool. I do agree that comments about girls 'knowing the risks' or whatever when dating MMA fighters aren't useful, because most MMA fighters aren't like that, and trying to make a blanket statement to that effect will probably do more harm than good. I just wanted to point out that like soldiers and some other professions, a greater than average number probably are, and without judging any individual in the profession, it does mean women need to be a little more conscious of warning signs.

Though the sad reality is that women need to be very aware of those warning signs no matter what their spouses do, because domestic violence is shockingly common.

"War Machine" has to be the douchiest name for a MMA fighter.

sebster wrote:

[Edit= removing all of the stuff I agree with]
*snip*
[/edit]

Exactly why many women stay in relationships after being assaulted is complex and has been extensively studied, with many possible reasons offered, none of which are because the women are mentally unstable… for the simple reason that most women who stay are mentally stable.

So just please... stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I absolutely disagree with your use of an absolute here. You say "none" which is incorrect. Also, studies have shown that while the reasons may be many, people who choose to stay in such relationships are usually suffering from being at the extremes of the self esteem scale.
(Too low self esteem = the powerless mentality of they deserve such or can't do better)
and
(Too high self esteem = the god/arrogance complex of I can fix him/her or others aren't able to understand him/her like I do.).

Additionally, many who choose to stay in abusive relationships suffer from denial that is extreme enough that it prevents them from seeing/dealing with the reality of their situation.

Finally, individuals who constantly choose to enter into or to stay in abusive relationships generally require "counseling" in order to overcome/break the cycle of their behavior.

To sum up:
Individuals who are 100% mentally stable generally don't stay in abusive/life-endangering situations.

100% mentally stable people generally don't require psychological counseling in order to stop self-destructive behaviour.

*Please to note that mental instability does not automatically refer to mental illnesses that are physiological in nature. It can refer to psychological/emotional based problems that are enviromentally induced.


Later,
ff

1) Mentally unstable is in no way a medical term. It is a pejorative term people use for people with mental health problems (Including emotional and psychological problems). It is unhelpful, inaccurate and adds to the problem as the abused are made to feel more at fault. Your using "mentally unstable" as a euphemism for weak.

2) Of course many people need help to escape and recover from abuse. Abusers are manipulative and controlling. They gain control over their victims (This goes for domestic violence, pedophiles, bullies and other types of abusers) and braking this control is hard. They brake down peoples will and self esteem slowly and carefully. People can go in to relationships perfectly happy, healthy people and be slowly broken down. The control and manipulation is the gap between being a violent/aggressive dick and being an abuser.

I suggest doing some research in to abuse and abusive relationships. The idea that "mentally stable generally don't stay in abusive situations" is one of the damaging things that perpetuates abuse. People hear this false idea again and again and don't leave telling themselves "I'm fine. I'm not like that. I can leave when I want. If I was it would be my fault. I'm strong, so it can't be abuse, I can leave when I want. If I'm not strong it is my fault so I can't put that on them and must stay". It's like an addict saying "I'm not addicted. I can stop when I want". Abuse is a complex matter and not a case of someone being "Mentally Unstable". It is a matter of manipulation, societal pressures, fear, and other issues. Yes, some people, due to past abuse (often in childhood), are more likely to enter an abusive relationships, partly because they are not aware of the warning signs, but anyone is at risk. The control and manipulation are slowly introduced and ramped up. The risk for people with childhood abuse or other issues is they do not notice the less subtle people, for want of a better phrase, less skilled abusers.

The idea that most porn actors/actresses are mostly "damaged goods" is a bit of a myth.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201212/porn-stars-and-evolutionary-psychology
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201301/the-personalities-porn-stars

 Steve steveson wrote:
1) Mentally unstable is in no way a medical term. It is a pejorative term people use for people with mental health problems (Including emotional and psychological problems). It is unhelpful, inaccurate and adds to the problem as the abused are made to feel more at fault. Your using "mentally unstable" as a euphemism for weak.

2) Of course many people need help to escape and recover from abuse. Abusers are manipulative and controlling. They gain control over their victims (This goes for domestic violence, pedophiles, bullies and other types of abusers) and braking this control is hard. They brake down peoples will and self esteem slowly and carefully. People can go in to relationships perfectly happy, healthy people and be slowly broken down. The control and manipulation is the gap between being a violent/aggressive dick and being an abuser.

I suggest doing some research in to abuse and abusive relationships. The idea that "mentally stable generally don't stay in abusive situations" is one of the damaging things that perpetuates abuse. People hear this false idea again and again and don't leave telling themselves "I'm fine. I'm not like that. I can leave when I want. If I was it would be my fault. I'm strong, so it can't be abuse, I can leave when I want. If I'm not strong it is my fault so I can't put that on them and must stay". It's like an addict saying "I'm not addicted. I can stop when I want". Abuse is a complex matter and not a case of someone being "Mentally Unstable". It is a matter of manipulation, societal pressures, fear, and other issues. Yes, some people, due to past abuse (often in childhood), are more likely to enter an abusive relationships, partly because they are not aware of the warning signs, but anyone is at risk. The control and manipulation are slowly introduced and ramped up. The risk for people with childhood abuse or other issues is they do not notice the less subtle people, for want of a better phrase, less skilled abusers.

1) Take another look at my post. I merely clarified that the term was not descriptive of a specific condition bit was mote "general" in that it is often used to describe various mental issues.
Also, I never tried to claim that it was any form of official terminology. Why?

Because obsessing on how wrong it is to use "general use" terms like "unstable/instability" is usually off putting. It makes one come across as attempting to assume the mantle of authority in an environment where verification of credentials is difficult.

As to the weakness comment. If an individual has an emotional or mental issue that leads to flawed decision making or perceptions then I have no problem in calling a flaw a flaw.

2)Except that we are talking about adults who choose to knowingly enter and/or knowingly stay in abusive relationships rather than children stuck with an abusive family member or classmate.
Really your analogy is just so wrong here that it boggles the mind.

In the case of children, when they are forced into an abusive situation it is without any choice in the matter. This is because they are not allowed to legally be in control of their lives. Same reason why they receive extra protections against abuse.

Spouse/partner abusive relationships often begin with the victim knowingly making the choice to enter into and/or stay with an abuser. Also, the victims are of an age where they should be developed enough to choose to get away from an abuser.

Point being, adults are supposed to be assertive enough to be able to tell the potential abusers "No" and if the abuser persists then take steps to remove themselves from the danger such as "Calling the police or leaving".

Any individual that is an adult but not able to assert themselves in self defense will likely have many issues and will need help.


3) Yes! I agree, that people who constantly return to abusive relationships have much in common with addicts. If you knew as much about the subject as you try to claim you would have noted that such was the direction I was going.

Btw, going off half cocked and (somewhat rudely)suggesting that someone go and research(read as-educate themselves) the topic is not conducive to good communication. It makes you come across as trying to assume and use the mantle of authority as a tool to silence someone who merely has a different opinion.


As to the term being the overwhelming reason as to why people stay in abusive relationships, "as you imply". I not only disagree, I feel that you are being incredibly contradictory as to your addiction analogy.

First thing an addict has to do in order to get help is to admit that they have a problem. That they are making bad decisions that they can not seem to stop themselves from making. When they admit such, they also have to admit that they have a problem(flaw).
If an addict tries to stop using without being able to admit these problems then their chances for recovery are almost zero. Basically, they have to realize, acknowledge and admit to the destabilizing influence of their addiction.

In this instance, the term mentally unstable is no worse or more pejorative than the addict having to admit that they are, indeed, an addict.


Now back your last part about those in abusive relationships. You are completely failing to recognize that a large number of the victims in these relationships have a pattern of seeking out such relationships and in more than a few cases will try to induce the abuse if the other person fails to become the abuser.

Really, the focus should be on getting treatment and help for the victims and the abusers. This is because both victim and abuser will often try to continue the cycle unless they receive treatment/counselling.


Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:

1) Take another look at my post. I merely clarified that the term was not descriptive of a specific condition bit was mote "general" in that it is often used to describe various mental issues.
Also, I never tried to claim that it was any form of official terminology. Why?

Because obsessing on how wrong it is to use "general use" terms like "unstable/instability" is usually off putting. It makes one come across as attempting to assume the mantle of authority in an environment where verification of credentials is difficult.

As to the weakness comment. If an individual has an emotional or mental issue that leads to flawed decision making or perceptions then I have no problem in calling a flaw a flaw.

The term "Mentally unstable" is pejorative and inappropriate. As inappropriate as using the term "slowed" or "slow" or "cripple". Thats not about assuming a mantle of authority, but disagreeing with an inappropriate and insulting term. It's not about "official terminology" but about applying inappropriate and incorrect labels to people that lessen them and place blame on them when they are wrong.

 focusedfire wrote:

2)Except that we are talking about adults who choose to knowingly enter and/or knowingly stay in abusive relationships rather than children stuck with an abusive family member or classmate.
Really your analogy is just so wrong here that it boggles the mind.

In the case of children, when they are forced into an abusive situation it is without any choice in the matter. This is because they are not allowed to legally be in control of their lives. Same reason why they receive extra protections against abuse.

Spouse/partner abusive relationships often begin with the victim knowingly making the choice to enter into and/or stay with an abuser. Also, the victims are of an age where they should be developed enough to choose to get away from an abuser.

Point being, adults are supposed to be assertive enough to be able to tell the potential abusers "No" and if the abuser persists then take steps to remove themselves from the danger such as "Calling the police or leaving".

Any individual that is an adult but not able to assert themselves in self defense will likely have many issues and will need help.

Seriously, it is not that simple. Most abused people DO leave abusive relationships, once they realize they are abusive. You don't seem to understand the power abusers have over their victims. They often don't feel they can leave. Many issues mean they feel powerless and stay, from control, fear, housing, money, whatever. This is NOT the same as being weak or "mentally unstable".

 focusedfire wrote:

3) Yes! I agree, that people who constantly return to abusive relationships have much in common with addicts. If you knew as much about the subject as you try to claim you would have noted that such was the direction I was going.

Btw, going off half cocked and (somewhat rudely)suggesting that someone go and research(read as-educate themselves) the topic is not conducive to good communication. It makes you come across as trying to assume and use the mantle of authority as a tool to silence someone who merely has a different opinion.

I suggested you do some research as your reasoning and understanding is so flawed. That people who are abused have mental and personality problems. The abuse may result in mental health issues, but that is not the same as assuming people entering or in abusive relationships are "mentally unstable". Your use of pejorative terms and "just walk away" attitude (assuming that people knowingly chose to stay in abusive relationships) makes me think you don't understand the issues.

 focusedfire wrote:

As to the term being the overwhelming reason as to why people stay in abusive relationships, "as you imply". I not only disagree, I feel that you are being incredibly contradictory as to your addiction analogy.

First thing an addict has to do in order to get help is to admit that they have a problem. That they are making bad decisions that they can not seem to stop themselves from making. When they admit such, they also have to admit that they have a problem(flaw).
If an addict tries to stop using without being able to admit these problems then their chances for recovery are almost zero. Basically, they have to realize, acknowledge and admit to the destabilizing influence of their addiction.

In this instance, the term mentally unstable is no worse or more pejorative than the addict having to admit that they are, indeed, an addict.

The word "addict" is an understood, medical term for a specific issue. However, calling it a flaw is not appropriate. An illness is a much more appropriate term.

"Mentally unstable" is a pejorative term with no clear definition, use to to imply general mental health problems and an unstable personality. It is just as pejorative as calling someone "Crazy" or "Cripple" or similar words.

We are back to the discussion had in the thread about Robin Williams. Mental health, emotional and any non physical problems problems are seen as "being a weak person" and a personal failing rather than an illness that needs to be dealt with, and a person who needs to be supported.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 stanman wrote:
The girl clearly has some serious daddy/self-esteem issues going on, all that's missing in the article is drugs and alcohol and it hits all the key points on the roadmap to disaster.

Stay classy.

Nice cherry picking skills bro.


Next time you might want to include the rest as it gives the context.

1 The excessive tats
2 super douche boyfriend
3 porn

The girl clearly has some serious daddy/self-esteem issues going on, all that's missing in the article is drugs and alcohol and it hits all the key points on the roadmap to disaster. Not placing any blame as the boyfriend is clearly a whack job, but I hope that as terrible as this experience is that in end it helps provide a turning point that she can use to get things turned around in her life and hopefully get off that path.

I worked at a women's rehab clinic and in many, many cases substance abuse, violence, and chaotic life choices all went hand in hand. This stuff is far too common but we tend not to hear much about it until it involves a highly publicized case. I hope she not only recovers from her injuries but also has access to the help she'll need in getting her life back together, there's a lot of mental wounds created in an incident like this that can be much greater then the injuries inflicted on the body itself.

 trexmeyer wrote:
We're going to just sit here and pretend that pornstars that remain in relationships with abusive men after the first assault (let alone several more) are one hundred percent mentally stable?

That was very uncalled for.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

1) Take another look at my post. I merely clarified that the term was not descriptive of a specific condition bit was mote "general" in that it is often used to describe various mental issues.
Also, I never tried to claim that it was any form of official terminology. Why?

Because obsessing on how wrong it is to use "general use" terms like "unstable/instability" is usually off putting. It makes one come across as attempting to assume the mantle of authority in an environment where verification of credentials is difficult.

As to the weakness comment. If an individual has an emotional or mental issue that leads to flawed decision making or perceptions then I have no problem in calling a flaw a flaw.

The term "Mentally unstable" is pejorative and inappropriate. As inappropriate as using the term "slowed" or "slow" or "cripple". Thats not about assuming a mantle of authority, but disagreeing with an inappropriate and insulting term. It's not about "official terminology" but about applying inappropriate and incorrect labels to people that lessen them and place blame on them when they are wrong.

Ah, so you believe that Political Correctness > Correcting the health problem.

If you ever get into a position of being a part of a recovery/support group you might find that censorship tactics like being PC is often harmful to the process. The individuals need to feel free to honestly express themselves first and foremost. Teaching them the PC or correct clinical lingo is much lower on the priority list.

Also, side note about the term in question and the ones you mentioned. A better term might be outdated. Unstable was one of the earliest clinical diagnosis for mental or emotional problems. Same goes for slowed. Now slow was actually an early attempt at being PC(sensitive about public labels). Point I'm getting at is that the terms are not in and of themselves a problem but how society tends to use them. I suspect that with the way that average people use disabled as means of negative reference and limitation, it too will eventually become politically incorrect.

Ironic anecdote- Have an associate that is very PC and constantly jumps on anyone who uses the term "handicapped" but still calls the blue rectangle parking handicapped parking. He's not even aware of it and I don't point it out.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

2)Except that we are talking about adults who choose to knowingly enter and/or knowingly stay in abusive relationships rather than children stuck with an abusive family member or classmate.
Really your analogy is just so wrong here that it boggles the mind.

In the case of children, when they are forced into an abusive situation it is without any choice in the matter. This is because they are not allowed to legally be in control of their lives. Same reason why they receive extra protections against abuse.

Spouse/partner abusive relationships often begin with the victim knowingly making the choice to enter into and/or stay with an abuser. Also, the victims are of an age where they should be developed enough to choose to get away from an abuser.

Point being, adults are supposed to be assertive enough to be able to tell the potential abusers "No" and if the abuser persists then take steps to remove themselves from the danger such as "Calling the police or leaving".

Any individual that is an adult but not able to assert themselves in self defense will likely have many issues and will need help.

Seriously, it is not that simple. Most abused people DO leave abusive relationships, once they realize they are abusive. You don't seem to understand the power abusers have over their victims. They often don't feel they can leave. Many issues mean they feel powerless and stay, from control, fear, housing, money, whatever. This is NOT the same as being weak or "mentally unstable".

A)Please stop putting words in my mouth. Have never said weak.
S) People can have weaknesses without being weak. Your outlook here is very >Black & White".
C) Never said most don't leave, just that many do stay or end up in a repeating cycle of abusive relationships until they get treatment / counselling. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with Battered Person Syndrome (originally Battered Woman/Wife Syndrome) and the emotional / psychological issues that both produce this phenomenon and arise from having such.
and
D) Notice how you said they feel powerless. Now who is calling them weak?

See this why they become unstable, The situation produces an emotional state where they incorrectly view themselves as powerless(weak).

 Steve steveson wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

3) Yes! I agree, that people who constantly return to abusive relationships have much in common with addicts. If you knew as much about the subject as you try to claim you would have noted that such was the direction I was going.

Btw, going off half cocked and (somewhat rudely)suggesting that someone go and research(read as-educate themselves) the topic is not conducive to good communication. It makes you come across as trying to assume and use the mantle of authority as a tool to silence someone who merely has a different opinion.

I suggested you do some research as your reasoning and understanding is so flawed. That people who are abused have mental and personality problems. The abuse may result in mental health issues, but that is not the same as assuming people entering or in abusive relationships are "mentally unstable". Your use of pejorative terms and "just walk away" attitude (assuming that people knowingly chose to stay in abusive relationships) makes me think you don't understand the issues.

I would suggest that my reasoning is less flawed and more from practical experience, while yours is more of a purely text book/ internet google nature.

Really, it is a matter of cause and effect that a decision tree would easily explain.
1)Person is in relationship and there are warning signs. They either choose:
A) To assert themselves and tell their partner to knock it off
or
B) Stay quiet/ignore the warnings to try and keep a peaceful relationship

2) If person Chose A) and partner continues abuse then they can either:
A) Demand that they both get counselling
B). Leave and get counselling
C) Both A) & B)
D) Just leave.
or
E) Choose to stay and try and live with/ignore the problem.

3)If the person chose either 1)B) or 2)E) then they are making a conscious choice to remain in said abuse relationship when they knew there was a problem. Such choices would be viewed as poor ones that denote a lack of assertiveness(passive- enabling). People who are passive in such situations are choosing to do so from what would be clinically viewed as flawed reasoning. The reasoning is flawed because they are in an emotional state that has them either denying or justifying the abusers actions/problem.

4)If the victim / potential victim chose 1)A) and then 2) A), 2)B) or 2C) then they are being assertive and making healthy decisions. Though, they have still been through a traumatic experience and should get counselling and education on how to handle the emotional issues that are possible from experiencing such.

5) If the person chose 2)D) then they run the risk of carrying that experience into their next relationship. I cannot stress enough how important getting some form of treatment is when someone has endured abuse.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

As to the term being the overwhelming reason as to why people stay in abusive relationships, "as you imply". I not only disagree, I feel that you are being incredibly contradictory as to your addiction analogy.

First thing an addict has to do in order to get help is to admit that they have a problem. That they are making bad decisions that they can not seem to stop themselves from making. When they admit such, they also have to admit that they have a problem(flaw).
If an addict tries to stop using without being able to admit these problems then their chances for recovery are almost zero. Basically, they have to realize, acknowledge and admit to the destabilizing influence of their addiction.

In this instance, the term mentally unstable is no worse or more pejorative than the addict having to admit that they are, indeed, an addict.

The word "addict" is an understood, medical term for a specific issue. However, calling it a flaw is not appropriate. An illness is a much more appropriate term.

"Mentally unstable" is a pejorative term with no clear definition, use to to imply general mental health problems and an unstable personality. It is just as pejorative as calling someone "Crazy" or "Cripple" or similar words.

We are back to the discussion had in the thread about Robin Williams. Mental health, emotional and any non physical problems problems are seen as "being a weak person" and a personal failing rather than an illness that needs to be dealt with, and a person who needs to be supported.

A0 Addict is"currently" accepted, just as handicapped and slowed "used" to be. In the future it could just as easily change. The use of the word flaw/flawed is still in use and considered valid terminology for when describing an abnormal or unhealthy decision making process.

B) Unstable has a clear definition. The mentally or emotionally descriptors of the word unstable are just terms of clarification. I will admit that the term is outdated, but again, I wouldn't interrupt a group just to point that out. As its use being pejorative, I disagree in that it is no more or less so than many current terms. It all comes down to where your priority is in the treatment process.

C) What discussion are "we" back to?
I have had no discussion with you about any such thing in that thread.

You might not have such an antagonistic attitude over this if you would leave what was said by other posters in the other thread out of our discussion.

Later,
ff

The title made me envision a rogue tank being pursued by a cloaked man riding a massive dog....

 gossipmeng wrote:
The title made me envision a rogue tank being pursued by a cloaked man riding a massive dog....

This wins the thread

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
We're going to just sit here and pretend that pornstars that remain in relationships with abusive men after the first assault (let alone several more) are one hundred percent mentally stable?

That was very uncalled for.

Let me guess, you're one of those people that operates under the false pretense that pornography is empowering for women and not a single woman in the business has suffered emotional trauma that led to her decision to pursue that career?

This thread is full of great Dakka Dakka victim blaming. It is almost a poster chld for what an OT thread should look like.

Isn't it obvious from her tattoos, career choice, and relations that while she didn't deserve this, she had it coming???

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
We're going to just sit here and pretend that pornstars that remain in relationships with abusive men after the first assault (let alone several more) are one hundred percent mentally stable?

That was very uncalled for.

Let me guess, you're one of those people that operates under the false pretense that pornography is empowering for women and not a single woman in the business has suffered emotional trauma that led to her decision to pursue that career?

You're one of those people then who think that all women in porn are forced to have sex with men? Sasha Grey might want to disagree with you.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
We're going to just sit here and pretend that pornstars that remain in relationships with abusive men after the first assault (let alone several more) are one hundred percent mentally stable?

That was very uncalled for.

Let me guess, you're one of those people that operates under the false pretense that pornography is empowering for women and not a single woman in the business has suffered emotional trauma that led to her decision to pursue that career?

I do think that the problem with your statement, as has been pointed out multiple times even though it appears to have gone over your head (gotta work on those reflexes), is that you are automatically implying that pornstars are more likely to be mentally unstable than the thousands of people who make the same choice who are employed in many different occupations. There are abused spouses in all manners of employment, many in fields with a gak-ton of authority and respect. There are abused police officers, nurses, doctors, soldiers, clergy, managers, CEOs and many others out there who are victims of partner abuse. You are basically taking the blame away from the perpetrator and laying it on the victim. It might not be your intention, but that is what your message is saying.

The other problem with your statement is that you are also pointing out the fact that she remained in the relationship as a sign that she is mentally unstable. Which also places the blame on the wrong person. A hallmark of intimate partner abuse is that the abuser doesn't just physically abuse the partner, but they physically and psychologically control the person. They are usually expert manipulators who manage to exploit pre-existing insecurities and are often able to create new ones in order to have full control over that person. They don't leave because they enjoy being beaten or because they are to mentally unstable to realize "gee, I should leave the person that abuses me", they don't leave because they have been manipulated to the extend that they truly believe that they don't have any options.

It's not like they people go out on a first date and the guy punches her in the face going "you are mine, I shall beat you and you will like it" and the woman goes "gee, that doesn't seem right. But I'm in porn so that has caused me to become to unstable to leave, I guess I will let him beat me" before inviting him in for punch.

So again, while it may not be your intention, your statement reads very much like you are taking at least part of the blame and putting it on the woman who must be unstable because of a choice she made in her career that you don't agree with and made a choice that many abused partners make due to being manipulated by their abuses.

When a person maliciously beats another person over the span of multiple hours, cuts her with a knife, tries to rape her, beats her again and again then it is 100% that persons fault, irregardless of the victims mental status, job, or previous decisions.

 Easy E wrote:
This thread is full of great Dakka Dakka victim blaming. It is almost a poster chld for what an OT thread should look like.

Please explain in great detail how suggesting Christy Mack might have self esteem and other emotional issues is equivalent to saying she is responsible for this? I can't wait to hear this.
Should she have stayed in that relationship after the first assault? Obviously not.
Does that mean this beating is her fault? Hell no and it's insulting that anyone would even suggest that.

This is what happens in every thread. Something bad happens. Someone suggests a reason why it happened. Someone pulls the victim blaming card. Everyone wrings their little hands and sobs loudly while expressing in no uncertain terms how good they are for not criticizing the victim in anyway because obviously everyone alive is a saint.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This thread is full of great Dakka Dakka victim blaming. It is almost a poster chld for what an OT thread should look like.

Please explain in great detail how suggesting Christy Mack might have self esteem and other emotional issues is equivalent to saying she is responsible for this? I can't wait to hear this.
Should she have stayed in that relationship after the first assault? Obviously not.
Does that mean this beating is her fault? Hell no and it's insulting that anyone would even suggest that.

This is what happens in every thread. Something bad happens. Someone suggests a reason why it happened. Someone pulls the victim blaming card. Everyone wrings their little hands and sobs loudly while expressing in no uncertain terms how good they are for not criticizing the victim in anyway because obviously everyone alive is a saint.

If her being a porn star or going back to him doesn't make her responsible for what happened to her, then why bring it up as a sign of potential mental instability.

You know, if it is 100% a non-factor.

Like I said: It might not be what you mean to say, but it is the message that comes across.

 stanman wrote:
Sounds like she had the living hell beat out of her and is going to require a lot of corrective surgery and recovery time. I have a feeling she'll likely end up a bit disfigured from it.

I hope that catch that douchebag as there's lot of dudes in prison who'd like to see just how tough he is outside the ring. As for Dog, the guy makes/made a living tracking down criminals who skipped bail if he can find him great but I don't think he's any special consideration that makes him any more scary then having the police after you. I hope he gets caught soon and without any further incidents causing harm to anyone else.

1 The excessive tats
2 super douche boyfriend
3 porn

The girl clearly has some serious daddy/self-esteem issues going on, all that's missing in the article is drugs and alcohol and it hits all the key points on the roadmap to disaster. Not placing any blame as the boyfriend is clearly a whack job, but I hope that as terrible as this experience is that in end it helps provide a turning point that she can use to get things turned around in her life and hopefully get off that path.

I worked at a women's rehab clinic and in many, many cases substance abuse, violence, and chaotic life choices all went hand in hand. This stuff is far too common but we tend not to hear much about it until it involves a highly publicized case. I hope she not only recovers from her injuries but also has access to the help she'll need in getting her life back together, there's a lot of mental wounds created in an incident like this that can be much greater then the injuries inflicted on the body itself.

This is the post that started it.

Somehow the following:

The girl clearly has some serious daddy/self-esteem issues going on, all that's missing in the article is drugs and alcohol and it hits all the key points on the roadmap to disaster. Not placing any blame as the boyfriend is clearly a whack job, but I hope that as terrible as this experience is that in end it helps provide a turning point that she can use to get things turned around in her life and hopefully get off that path.

Where is the victim blaming? It isn't there. He even stipulated that he isn't placing any blame on her. He even stated that he hopes she uses this as a turning point. Whether or not you think pornography is good, bad, whatever, how can you justify jumping down his throat with the victim blaming card?

You're jumping at shadows.

"I'm not saying it's her fault, but she is clearly unstable because she is a pornstar and went back to him."

If you are not blaming her for it, then why bring it up as being relevant to the situation?

Again, it might not be your intent to blame her, but that is the message you are sending with that statement.

The written medium is complicated, and nuances are often lost.

Edit:

Again, just to clarify. I don't think that you believe that she had it coming or deserved it, or that you believe that what she does takes any responsibility away from her abuser. I'm just trying to explain why your message sounds that way.

 d-usa wrote:
"I'm not saying it's her fault, but she is clearly unstable because she is a pornstar and went back to him."

If you are not blaming her for it, then why bring it up as being relevant to the situation?

Again, it might not be your intent to blame her, but that is the message you are sending with that statement.

The written medium is complicated, and nuances are often lost.

Simply put, a women was almost beaten to death. That's it.

Note: she didn't go back to him. They broke up waaaay back in May.

Her profession, tats, whatever should have no bearing as to why she was beaten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Again, just to clarify. I don't think that you believe that she had it coming or deserved it, or that you believe that what she does takes any responsibility away from her abuser. I'm just trying to explain why your message sounds that way.

I'll second what d is saying here...

We *know* you enough that we're sure you didn't mean that... but, the message did sounded that way.

I didn't even bring it up. Stanman brought it up, had a mini victim blaming train run on him, and I just agreed with him and said this thread was about to turn into flamebait.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I didn't even bring it up. Stanman brought it up, had a mini victim blaming train run on him, and I just agreed with him and said this thread was about to turn into flamebait.

Oh... I see it now.

Sorry.

There is something about this crime and others like it that causes people to look for problems in the victims life, and to give her the Miley Cyrus sideline psych evaluation.

Everybody has problems. Everybody has issues. If you scour every domestic violence case for pychological problems on the part of the victim, you'll always find them, because everyone has psychological problems, period. Not everybody gets beaten near to death, and noone deserves it, no matter what problems they may have. Whatever issues this lady may have are basically irrelevant.