Every one knows that smoking causing cancer, but they still have the 'Smoking causes cancer' campaign.
But TBH not every knows they don't have to be hit. You only have to see some of the replies in this thread to see the amount of people who have let their partners hit them.
Why do you want to stop the campaign? Does it hurt you?
I wasn't aware there was a campaign to stop (nor does there need to be), but if it was hurting me, I like to think that whatever I do about it would be up to me, not you or anyone else.
Ok, let's humour it for a minute. Why should the Govt. interfere in someone's relationship to the extent that they practically make it mandatory to kick a partner (were you limiting it to partners, or would you extend it to children, parents, friends etc? Let's assume just partners for simplicity sake) out if they hit you? How would then define what counts a 'hit'? No Govt. has ever been able to define what counts as 'reasonable chastisement', so how can they tell someone where to draw the line between a playful punch and a malicious whack? The anti-smoking campaigns continue because the medical research and associated campaigns are simple and un-ambiguous. No lines need to be drawn, no grey areas need to be considered. Smoking does cause cancer. Not in everyone, but it's proven to be a cause. So, the info is out there and people make their own decision whether to smoke or not, just as everyone knows about domestic violence, and that they have the option to leave if they wish. I'll say again, it does not need the Govt. to tell people to end a relationship.
Unlike many others here, I don't have an issue with your idea, and if I saw it in a campaign, I would not question it. Of course, the context of matters, but I knew a man whose girlfriend who used to punch him "playfully" even in public. I always wondered about that and if there was more going on.
It was probably just playful, me and my boyfriend are forever punching each other.
Back on topic, I don't think the one size fits all approach works to be honest. The idea that a 20 year relationship should automatically because one partner hits another once doesn't work.
I wasn't aware there was a campaign to stop (nor does there need to be), but if it was hurting me, I like to think that whatever I do about it would be up to me, not you or anyone else.
Ok, let's humour it for a minute. Why should the Govt. interfere in someone's relationship to the extent that they practically make it mandatory to kick a partner (were you limiting it to partners, or would you extend it to children's, parents, friends etc? Let's assume just partners for simplicity sake) out if they hit you? How would then define what counts a 'hit'? No Govt. has ever been able to define what counts as 'reasonable chastisement', so how can they tell someone where to draw the line between a playful punch and a malicious whack? The anti-smoking campaigns continue because the medical research and associated campaigns are simple and un-ambiguous. No lines need to be drawn, no grey areas need to be considered. Smoking does cause cancer. Not in everyone, but it's proven to be a cause. So, the info is out there and people make their own decision whether to smoke or not, just as everyone knows about domestic violence, and that they have the option to leave if they wish. I'll say again, it does not need the Govt. to tell people to end a relationship.
To be fair he's not talking about government intervention but a campaign to get victims to decide to leave.
To be fair he's not talking about government intervention but a campaign to get victims to decide to leave.
Not explicitly, I agree, but my point is that seeing as everyone over the age of about sixteen will be well aware of domestic abuse (or whatever they call it in schools, youth clubs etc), then I don't see what else can or should be done. The OP's fixated on the idea that there should be a campaign to inform people that one punch is enough for someone to end a relationship, but I'd say everyone already knows that, just not everyone chooses to exercise it, which is what the OP wants to see. Short of making it law, though, I don't see what else he thinks can be done to make that happen, that isn't already.
Every one knows that smoking causing cancer, but they still have the 'Smoking causes cancer' campaign.
But TBH not every knows they don't have to be hit. You only have to see some of the replies in this thread to see the amount of people who have let their partners hit them.
Why do you want to stop the campaign? Does it hurt you?
Stop which campaign? I thought you were proposing a new simplistic and unrealistic "One Hit and OUT" campaign aimed right across the board at all relationships from the cradle to the grave..Do you intend that this should enforced by law?
Have you any idea of the work already done and the facilities already in place for victims of domestic violence? People are generally NOT unaware either.
I'm lost off with smokers, quarries, NHS staff and who knows what else being used as some kind of comparison to the complex subject of relationships.
You can be damn sure that if my partner threw boiling hot pan of whatever over me, she wouldn't just be getting a slap, she'd be finding a new bloke. Ridiculous overreaction right there, particularly as a result of a sarcastic response to what sounded like an order. Who the hell orders their partners to do things in that way anyway?
A reasonable response Paul, maybe I remember the incident only hazily, she'd probably been digging me out for being a "lazy bastard" all evening.
Perhaps she'd said, "Right, for that I'd LIKE you to Hoover the house."
The upshot was, I pushed her buttons, knowing that it would probably provoke a reaction.
I asked for it, but I didn't expect what I got.
To misquote an Americanism which doesn't go down well on here, my bad, my very, very, bad.
sorry but if somebody provokes me or even intends to hurt me, he will end up with a broken jaw, if it was her she'd get a slap.
hell even my wife agrees with me *shakes fist
If someone you are in a relationship with provokes you, then you should leave them rather than hit them as they are obviously not in love with you or they wouldn't provoke you in the first place.
Self defense is another matter, but again if someone is going to hurt you physically then again they are the ones who are going to hit first, and again why would you want to go out with them?
It was probably just playful, me and my boyfriend are forever punching each other.
Back on topic, I don't think the one size fits all approach works to be honest. The idea that a 20 year relationship should automatically because one partner hits another once doesn't work.
The idea is for people in new relationships rather than those already in a relationship.
The point is that most people say that abuse is a pattern, well the best way to stop a pattern is not to start one.
The idea is for people in new relationships rather than those already in a relationship.
The point is that most people say that abuse is a pattern, well the best way to stop a pattern is not to start one.
I get what you are trying to say but i would rather back a campaign aimed at the person hitting. Otherwise, you're just moving the problem onto the next relationship the abuser gets into.
I would hope most people know not to stick around if it were that serious. As I say, me and my boyfriend are always punching each other but if it ever got serious, he would be out of my house for sure.
I get what you are trying to say but i would rather back a campaign aimed at the person hitting. Otherwise, you're just moving the problem onto the next relationship the abuser gets into.
I would hope most people know not to stick around if it were that serious. As I say, me and my boyfriend are always punching each other but if it ever got serious, he would be out of my house for sure.
There is a campaign aimed at the abusers.
The 'This is abuse' campaign. Most people know that abuse is wrong, but they still have the campaign because some people can not see what abuse is sometimes.
For instance the lad seems to think it is OK to grab his girlfriend by her hair just because she won't 'put out'.
But then if he could see himself doing it he would probably be horrified at what he was doing.
But in the same way, some people don't realise that they don't have to allow someone to hit them. For instance on this thread some people say they deserved it because they provoked their partner.
So what's to stop another person believe they provoked their partner's anger just because they were talking to another man/woman?
Some people do believe that, and they need to know that there is no provocation for violence.
The 'This is abuse' campaign. Most people know that abuse is wrong, but they still have the campaign because some people can not see what abuse is sometimes.
For instance the lad seems to think it is OK to grab his girlfriend by her hair just because she won't 'put out'.
But then if he could see himself doing it he would probably be horrified at what he was doing.
But in the same way, some people don't realise that they don't have to allow someone to hit them. For instance on this thread some people say they deserved it because they provoked their partner.
So what's to stop another person believe they provoked their partner's anger just because they were talking to another man/woman?
Some people do believe that, and they need to know that there is no provocation for violence.
BIB Now you've clarified what you actually mean it makes a lot more sense. I totally agree on that level. If drugs or alcohol are involved it makes no difference either. Of course family history often attract victims of violent abusive upbringings to unconsciously seek out the familiar in a partner, male and female. That is the real hurdle.
FM's commenting on here have not suggested long term violent relationships, when they say they've stayed together. My sister found out her husband had been cheating on her for 3 years , many years ago. She beat him around the room with the nearest object to hand. First and last time and they have now been married for 43 years.
It should be taught from an early age that if a partner or even a friend ever hits you, then that should be it and the relationship should be ended.
Of course no one should ever hit another person, but this is about making sure that any potential victims understand that they do not have to forgive or try to understand the other person, and that it really should be as simple as 'One hit and OUT!".
You say "from an early age" so presumably you think this rule should also apply to young children. Would that include siblings?
The rule is for the person who has been hit, not for the law.
If everyone said to themselves, "The first time someone hits me, is the last time." then hopefully things would never get worse.
As people say, it is a pattern, and the best way to stop a pattern, is not to start one.
It's a creeping pattern, testing with a push a slap, blaming you, for example for behaving like a total idiot, swearing it will never happen again... but you've just just consented to violemce being acceptable.
Don't be a punchbag for anybody, ever.
It's a creeping pattern, testing with a push a slap, blaming you, for example for behaving like a total idiot, swearing it will never happen again... but you've just just consented to violemce being acceptable.
Don't be a punchbag for anybody, ever.
Yes that's the way it all starts and because it is a creeping pattern it is difficult to see when the line has been crossed.
It would be better if the line could be when mental abuse happens but that is even harder to define than physical abuse, which is why I suggested a 'One Hit and Out' guideline.
Yes that's the way it all starts and because it is a creeping pattern it is difficult to see when the line has been crossed.
It would be better if the line could be when mental abuse happens but that is even harder to define than physical abuse, which is why I suggested a 'One Hit and Out' guideline.
But who are you trying to aim this campaign at, sorry but you are seeing things to black and white.
I've been in one of these black-or-white discussions with K before (too).
There are grey areas in life. You may hold positions that are justified in themselves but have mutual inconsistencies. It's actually a feature not a bug, to have horses for courses.
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
I think there are times when an abuser deserves a second chance provided it is only a second chance and there are no more chances regardless of how many apologies are then made. If a man or a woman hit their partner but up until that point had been a perfect partner and they immediately apologize and more importantly took steps to prevent it ever happening again then maybe they would deserve forgiveness. An apology and presents to try and make up for it isn't enough but an abuser explaining how they are going to prevent it happening again might be. When Koantemplation says one hit and out I don't think he is including what benbanalen described as joke hitting although what people define as joke hitting may vary.
Comments
Ok, let's humour it for a minute. Why should the Govt. interfere in someone's relationship to the extent that they practically make it mandatory to kick a partner (were you limiting it to partners, or would you extend it to children, parents, friends etc? Let's assume just partners for simplicity sake) out if they hit you? How would then define what counts a 'hit'? No Govt. has ever been able to define what counts as 'reasonable chastisement', so how can they tell someone where to draw the line between a playful punch and a malicious whack? The anti-smoking campaigns continue because the medical research and associated campaigns are simple and un-ambiguous. No lines need to be drawn, no grey areas need to be considered. Smoking does cause cancer. Not in everyone, but it's proven to be a cause. So, the info is out there and people make their own decision whether to smoke or not, just as everyone knows about domestic violence, and that they have the option to leave if they wish. I'll say again, it does not need the Govt. to tell people to end a relationship.
It was probably just playful, me and my boyfriend are forever punching each other.
Back on topic, I don't think the one size fits all approach works to be honest. The idea that a 20 year relationship should automatically because one partner hits another once doesn't work.
To be fair he's not talking about government intervention but a campaign to get victims to decide to leave.
Stop which campaign? I thought you were proposing a new simplistic and unrealistic "One Hit and OUT" campaign aimed right across the board at all relationships from the cradle to the grave..Do you intend that this should enforced by law?
Have you any idea of the work already done and the facilities already in place for victims of domestic violence? People are generally NOT unaware either.
I'm lost off with smokers, quarries, NHS staff and who knows what else being used as some kind of comparison to the complex subject of relationships.
hell even my wife agrees with me *shakes fist
A reasonable response Paul, maybe I remember the incident only hazily, she'd probably been digging me out for being a "lazy bastard" all evening.
Perhaps she'd said, "Right, for that I'd LIKE you to Hoover the house."
The upshot was, I pushed her buttons, knowing that it would probably provoke a reaction.
I asked for it, but I didn't expect what I got.
To misquote an Americanism which doesn't go down well on here, my bad, my very, very, bad.
If someone you are in a relationship with provokes you, then you should leave them rather than hit them as they are obviously not in love with you or they wouldn't provoke you in the first place.
Self defense is another matter, but again if someone is going to hurt you physically then again they are the ones who are going to hit first, and again why would you want to go out with them?
The idea is for people in new relationships rather than those already in a relationship.
The point is that most people say that abuse is a pattern, well the best way to stop a pattern is not to start one.
Yes I saw my dad abuse my mum for over 45 years.
So I know first hand how 'complicated' relationships are.
I get what you are trying to say but i would rather back a campaign aimed at the person hitting. Otherwise, you're just moving the problem onto the next relationship the abuser gets into.
I would hope most people know not to stick around if it were that serious. As I say, me and my boyfriend are always punching each other but if it ever got serious, he would be out of my house for sure.
There is a campaign aimed at the abusers.
The 'This is abuse' campaign. Most people know that abuse is wrong, but they still have the campaign because some people can not see what abuse is sometimes.
For instance the lad seems to think it is OK to grab his girlfriend by her hair just because she won't 'put out'.
But then if he could see himself doing it he would probably be horrified at what he was doing.
But in the same way, some people don't realise that they don't have to allow someone to hit them. For instance on this thread some people say they deserved it because they provoked their partner.
So what's to stop another person believe they provoked their partner's anger just because they were talking to another man/woman?
Some people do believe that, and they need to know that there is no provocation for violence.
BIB Now you've clarified what you actually mean it makes a lot more sense. I totally agree on that level. If drugs or alcohol are involved it makes no difference either. Of course family history often attract victims of violent abusive upbringings to unconsciously seek out the familiar in a partner, male and female. That is the real hurdle.
FM's commenting on here have not suggested long term violent relationships, when they say they've stayed together. My sister found out her husband had been cheating on her for 3 years , many years ago. She beat him around the room with the nearest object to hand. First and last time and they have now been married for 43 years.
You say "from an early age" so presumably you think this rule should also apply to young children. Would that include siblings?
Yet they are doing a campaign to try to educate people to stop swimming in quarry ponds.
From the Women's Aid site, 'On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.'
Which needs a campaign the most?
It's a creeping pattern, testing with a push a slap, blaming you, for example for behaving like a total idiot, swearing it will never happen again... but you've just just consented to violemce being acceptable.
Don't be a punchbag for anybody, ever.
Yes that's the way it all starts and because it is a creeping pattern it is difficult to see when the line has been crossed.
It would be better if the line could be when mental abuse happens but that is even harder to define than physical abuse, which is why I suggested a 'One Hit and Out' guideline.
But who are you trying to aim this campaign at, sorry but you are seeing things to black and white.
I've been in one of these black-or-white discussions with K before (too).
There are grey areas in life. You may hold positions that are justified in themselves but have mutual inconsistencies. It's actually a feature not a bug, to have horses for courses.
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Me and my GF like to joke hit!
That is good and I hope it stays at that level.
But for the sake of just having a campaign, wouldn't you want to do all you could do to stop something like this from happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvYpUIXq3VA
Perhaps if she had left him as soon as he showed his temper things might not have got so bad?
Or if they are 'lucky' they will have to become a killer themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtbG1_pWHdk