What do they want? What did they want in the Golden era?

[Gin&Tonics]

I have no idea why you insist on drilling this point into the ground. I really don't care if the original post I was replying to wasn't specifically speaking about this level of abuse- I replied to that and you replied to me. I then brought up a specific example of the level of abuse some individuals face and the two of us have been speaking to a very specific scenario that involved horrendous physical abuse since that time. Throughout this discussion you have picked apart an abuse victim's decisions, questioning her actions.

As far as your comment about if the person I know did something to assist, she tried, but the abuser blinded her in one eye with a wrench. She was 5 years old.

Well, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to try and discredit my comments when you picked about the most bizarre and extreme example imaginable to try and argue against my initial (and fairly innocuous, I would say) comment. So it's okay for you to come up with an arguably irrelevant and unquestionably outre example, but it's not okay for me to point out some odd facts about your example? It's okay for you to tar all law enforcement officers with the same brush by implying it would be impossible for her to report the criminal abuser to the authorities because "they'd all cover for each other", yet it's not okay for me to bring up points which tend to refute that suggestion?

I'm tempted to think you might simply have been trolling in bringing up this example in the first place, but I prefer to conclude that this is simply too personal a topic for you to discuss in an objective fashion, which I can well understand and sympathize with. I have drawn an admittedly fine line in my reasoning, and I can understand why it could be perceived, erroneously, as "blaming the victim". If you still conclude after everything I've said that I "blame the victim" in this or any other case of abuse, or that I somehow condone inaction on the part of those who could act to stop it, then I apologize for giving you that impression.

I have seldom heard a more deplorable and inexcusable example of criminal abuse, and the more you describe it the worse my impression becomes. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the victim and the most profound indignation at the criminal and his accomplices, and I do hope that there may yet be some justice done in this sorry tale you have shared. Perhaps you will be satisfied if we conclude on that note.

 

[Feraud]

Well, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to try and discredit my comments when you picked about the most bizarre and extreme example imaginable to try and argue against my initial (and fairly innocuous, I would say) comment. So it's okay for you to come up with an arguably irrelevant and unquestionably outre example, but it's not okay for me to point out some odd facts about your example? It's okay for you to tar all law enforcement officers with the same brush by implying it would be impossible for her to report the criminal abuser to the authorities because "they'd all cover for each other", yet it's not okay for me to bring up points which tend to refute that suggestion?

I'm tempted to think you might simply have been trolling in bringing up this example in the first place, but I prefer to conclude that this is simply too personal a topic for you to discuss in an objective fashion, which I can well understand and sympathize with. I have drawn an admittedly fine line in my reasoning, and I can understand why it could be perceived, erroneously, as "blaming the victim". If you still conclude after everything I've said that I "blame the victim" in this or any other case of abuse, or that I somehow condone inaction on the part of those who could act to stop it, then I apologize for giving you that impression.

I have seldom heard a more deplorable and inexcusable example of criminal abuse, and the more you describe it the worse my impression becomes. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the victim and the most profound indignation at the criminal and his accomplices, and I do hope that there may yet be some justice done in this sorry tale you have shared. Perhaps you will be satisfied if we conclude on that note.

Sheeplady is too respected and intelligent a member of this site to be accused of trolling.
You claim to not blame the victim but have spent way too many words nit-picking this story apart. I think it's obvious you don't believe her which is your right to. Your antagonistic attitude towards her is treading on thin ice.

 

[sheeplady]

Well, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to try and discredit my comments when you picked about the most bizarre and extreme example imaginable to try and argue against my initial (and fairly innocuous, I would say) comment. So it's okay for you to come up with an arguably irrelevant and unquestionably outre example, but it's not okay for me to point out some odd facts about your example? It's okay for you to tar all law enforcement officers with the same brush by implying it would be impossible for her to report the criminal abuser to the authorities because "they'd all cover for each other", yet it's not okay for me to bring up points which tend to refute that suggestion?

I'm tempted to think you might simply have been trolling in bringing up this example in the first place, but I prefer to conclude that this is simply too personal a topic for you to discuss in an objective fashion, which I can well understand and sympathize with. I have drawn an admittedly fine line in my reasoning, and I can understand why it could be perceived, erroneously, as "blaming the victim". If you still conclude after everything I've said that I "blame the victim" in this or any other case of abuse, or that I somehow condone inaction on the part of those who could act to stop it, then I apologize for giving you that impression.

I have seldom heard a more deplorable and inexcusable example of criminal abuse, and the more you describe it the worse my impression becomes. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the victim and the most profound indignation at the criminal and his accomplices, and I do hope that there may yet be some justice done in this sorry tale you have shared. Perhaps you will be satisfied if we conclude on that note.

First, I did not tar all law enforcement officers. I tarred the sheriff and his deputy in a county far removed from my own county in a time period removed from ours. You know nothing about my relationships or interactions with officers of the law, period. Personally, I think these individuals weren't worthy of being law officers (or human beings). My comment about restraining orders stands; any good police officer will tell you to get one but not to expect it to protect you. I've personally heard this advice; and it was from someone I really respect, so I'm going to follow that.

Secondly, I did not say that you blamed the victim, I said you questioned her decisions. I feel that your questioning of her decisions was inappropriate at the level of detail your questioning. Anyone going through that type of abuse with no support is not going to be thinking logically. You don't think "correctly" when you are scared for your life. You just don't. If you had phrased the questions as "why didn't the cops help her?" instead of "why didn't she go to the cops?" you'd likely have gotten a different perspective. You could have gotten the same information without making it seem like you were placing the responsibility on the victim. I think it's more a matter of phrasing than anything else.

Third, I picked an example that I am somewhat familar with because I know one of the (former) children involved. You have basically called me a liar or a troll. I have to say that this is extremely hurtful to me because I was trying to have a factual discussion with you despite your questioning tactics, which I felt were unfair to the victim. I'm not going to provide any evidence for this case, because quite frankly the victims suffered enough. Although she is very open about her story, I'm not going to give you her name just to prove my point. At this point it is more important I protect her than "win" this argument.

Fourth, I feel that I've been pretty calm throughout this entire ordeal since you've chosen to attack my credibility. I admit I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that you sometimes seem to deny that this level of abuse could happen as you believe it may be "trolling." Sadly, I live in a place that is not utopia and unfortunately I've seen a lot of abused children and spouses both in my personal life and on the news. You are sending some mixed signals by the way you are questioning the details.

Fifth, I do know her abuser eventually was committed to a mental institution for about a decade. Thank you for finally asking what happened to him, rather than focusing on what the victim did. He has tried to connect with his daughters, but neither wants anything to do with him. He was diagnosed with an extreme form of bi-polar disease. Although, I have to say, I've known a lot of people with bipolar and they don't beat their families, so I think he may have just been an abusive jerk who happened to have a mental illness.

Sixth, I accept your apology. Thank you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?

Either that or something promoted by Cosmopolitan magazine. Wherever it came from it's ridiculous.

 

[sheeplady]

Sheeplady is too respected and intelligent a member of this site to be accused of trolling.
You claim to not blame the victim but have spent way too many words nit-picking this story apart. I think it's obvious you don't believe her which is your right to. Your antagonistic attitude towards her is treading on thin ice.

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Nobody has to believe me and I can understand being suspicious of strangers on the internet.

I can say with a clear conscience nothing I have said is a lie or even a half truth. The woman I know in the story (she was a young girl when this happened) and I initially bonded over stories of how our aunts treated our mothers and our grandmothers treated our mothers. I can see my mother being betrayed by her sister or her mother in a case like this, so I have that advantage of personal experience to understand the story and how that can happen. I also grew up in a very rural place and have seen time and time again how the system can sometimes work in the favor of one person because of blood or marriage relatives, and backfire on another because of a lack of these. Both of those things mean that I can really understand how it could happen, which makes the story very plausible and real to me. (Besides the fact that I believe the young woman in question, because she has always been honest in our relationship.)

For me, I've always tried to watch out for my friends in relationships, because outsiders "see" things that someone inside the relationship can miss. But after hearing this story and getting to know this young woman, I've gotten much more assertive about it.

 

[Feraud]

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?

Well it does have a Seinfeld-eque ring to it.

 

[sheeplady]

I think that this is very much true. I have a very high opinion of marriage. My parents have been married since 1988, grandparents on Dad's side since 1951 and on Mom's side since 1963. All couples are still together and love each other regardless of their faults. Folks want to give up on a relationship because things get tough, and the married people in my life, my mother in particular, have always told me that you don't just throw a relationship away, you take the good with the bad and know that everything isn't always perfect. Anybody remember the song "Rose Garden" by Lynn Anderson?

They've done studies comparing Gen Xers and Millenials views on marriage at the same ages and Millenials are much more positive about marriage. I'm personally a huge fan of marriage, as with the right person, it can be the most beneficial relationship you have with an individual. Getting married was the best decision I've ever made in my life, and I've made a lot of good decisions and am a very happy individual. But most people in my peer group were much more hesitant about getting married, which is understandable, as some of them had witnessed some really bad relationships.

They say that boomers had the highest rate of divorce (particularly among the middle class) because girls were raised "you should have a career" and boys were raised "you should marry a woman who stays home." When you put these boys and girls together, and they got married, this created a lot of conflict because the man wanted a SAHW and the woman wanted a career. Following generations have seen women who stayed home and women who worked while raising their families, so it's not a conflict issue anymore.

ETA: by "they" I mean there is a large body of research that has traced this to be the biggest reason for the high divorce rates of boomers. They followed a large number of families from childhood through adulthood, and then did surveys on separate groups of people, and this is the one really strong correlate with the likelihood of getting a divorce as a middle class boomer.

 

[Edward]

I'm rather glad I've got a thick skin about it all, to be honest. I've seen some people get incredibly hurt by suggestions they are cocking a snook at the institution of marriage when they would desperately love to go there, if only they could meet someone with whom they were a match. It's rather on a par with the accusatory tone with which so many asked a couple who were friends of a friend "why don't you have children yet, you've been married for years!?". These folks had been trying for years and proven unable.

Common-law marriages weren't uncommon in the Era -- if you lived with someone for a particular amount of time, varying by the state, you were considered married in the eyes of the law. Probably the most famous person involved in such a marriage was newspaper/radio personality Walter Winchell, who never legally married his wife June -- although they lived together for over forty years without a formal marriage, they were considered married so far as the state was concerned.

I can imagine they may well have been much more common than many are aware. Certainly, it is much more acceptable nowadays for people to openly have a pre-marital sexual relationship, or cohabit without marriage. Back in the day when it was much easier (as we have discussed in other threads) to change your name / records, combined with more common societal disapproval of individual relationships being conducted outside the norms - not to mention divorce and remarriage being much harder for the on-rich - it's certainly possible that a lot of people could have been co-habiting without anyone else ever realising.

Incidentally, while I gather it has now fallen out of favour, Scots law for many generations embraced the notion of "marriage by custom and repute". In other words, if someone who did not know the individual especially well but knew them on sight and about as a member of the community could simply assume that the partnership was a marriage, then in law it assumed that same status. Of course the unfortunate nature of the best is that marriage and family law is really less a matter of supporting relationships of any sort and more to do with the sad business of equitable resolutions in the event that they break down.

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?

Seems so. I've never run into anyone in real life who pays it any sort of mind.

Either that or something promoted by Cosmopolitan magazine. Wherever it came from it's ridiculous.

Cosmopolitan magazine is a sitcom.

 

[John in Covina]

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?

Actually some time ago I investigated some of the LA match making companies about 20 years ago and in the literature they wrote that any relationship in the dating stage that did not include sex by the 3rd or 4th date was off track. It seemed to point to the idea that just meeting people wasn't going to get you to this goal and that their clientel were happy with using it as some sort of make or break point as the decision was made to move on to a different potential partner.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So basically, these "match making companies" are in the procurement business? "Get Lucky or Double Your Money Back?"

 

[John in Covina]

So basically, these "match making companies" are in the procurement business? "Get Lucky or Double Your Money Back?"

Well, they were all about the scientific algerithms for selection but it was basically a meat market in that sense.

 

[sheeplady]

Incidentally, while I gather it has now fallen out of favour, Scots law for many generations embraced the notion of "marriage by custom and repute". In other words, if someone who did not know the individual especially well but knew them on sight and about as a member of the community could simply assume that the partnership was a marriage, then in law it assumed that same status. Of course the unfortunate nature of the best is that marriage and family law is really less a matter of supporting relationships of any sort and more to do with the sad business of equitable resolutions in the event that they break down.

Some states in the U.S. used to have similar laws- if a couple presents themselves as husband and wife for a certain time period they are considered (legally) husband and wife. I'm not sure if many states still have that law- some states don't even have common-law marriage anymore. (I have really mixed feelings on common-law marriage laws.)

The only law I know that is still in use that is in a similar vein is that you can legally change your last name through use and presenting yourself as that name for a period of time through bills and other records. Or at least you still could about 15-20 years ago in NYS.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

As soon as I heard it, I thought Seinfeld.

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?

Well it does have a Seinfeld-eque ring to it.

 

[Edward]

Some states in the U.S. used to have similar laws- if a couple presents themselves as husband and wife for a certain time period they are considered (legally) husband and wife. I'm not sure if many states still have that law- some states don't even have common-law marriage anymore. (I have really mixed feelings on common-law marriage laws.)

The only law I know that is still in use that is in a similar vein is that you can legally change your last name through use and presenting yourself as that name for a period of time through bills and other records. Or at least you still could about 15-20 years ago in NYS.

It's as good as anything else. I'm actually quite in favour of marriage, myself, though our modern notion of "traditional marriage" is rather skewed as it has meant so many different things to so many different cultures over time (even often within the same culture: the modern concept of a "traditional" Christian marriage is certainly rather different from that presented throughout most of the Bible, for instance). The common thread, of course, is an intention to commit to the relationship, but what that means legally speaking (if anything) has varied considerably.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Sheeplady is too respected and intelligent a member of this site to be accused of trolling.
You claim to not blame the victim but have spent way too many words nit-picking this story apart. I think it's obvious you don't believe her which is your right to. Your antagonistic attitude towards her is treading on thin ice.

You will note that I did not accuse her of trolling if you read carefully what I said. You will also note that I never said I disbelieved any point of her story. What I said was that there are aspects of the story which strike me as highly odd, not that they were untrue. When I say that I find it odd that nobody contacted the authorities in a country where there are hundreds if not thousands of different law enforcement agencies overlapping their jurisdictions, it doesn't imply I think she's lying, it simply brings up a point she refuses to acknowledge.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

...Third, I picked an example that I am somewhat familar with because I know one of the (former) children involved. You have basically called me a liar or a troll. I have to say that this is extremely hurtful to me because I was trying to have a factual discussion with you despite your questioning tactics, which I felt were unfair to the victim...

Okay, on the other points you bring up we may simply agree to disagree and call it a failure to see eye to eye, but here I really have to stop you. I have never said at any time during this discussion that you were lying. There was no point at which I questioned the veracity of the facts you presented; on the contrary, I have taken the information you have presented totally at face value without questioning its truthfulness because I simply do not think you are lying.

Secondly, I never accused you of trolling. I said that I am tempted to conclude you were trolling for the sake of being inflammatory because the example you picked is so extreme and unusual as to be arguably irrelevant to the original topic, BUT that instead I chose to conclude that your motivations were sincere and that your point of view was highly coloured by your closeness to the incident in question.

I would appreciate if you and others on the forum would take the time to read carefully what I've stated before falsely accusing me.

 

[sheeplady]

It's as good as anything else. I'm actually quite in favour of marriage, myself, though our modern notion of "traditional marriage" is rather skewed as it has meant so many different things to so many different cultures over time (even often within the same culture: the modern concept of a "traditional" Christian marriage is certainly rather different from that presented throughout most of the Bible, for instance). The common thread, of course, is an intention to commit to the relationship, but what that means legally speaking (if anything) has varied considerably.

I have mixed feelings about common law marriage. On the one hand, it's good because if a couple lives as husband and wife, both parties get a fair deal made for their relationship, particularly if one dies suddenly and there were inequalities in property or income. On the other hand, it's bad because if a couple is not getting married because they want to avoid the legal negatives of marriage, they shouldn't be married against their will just because they live in the same home for 7 years or some artificial time period. There's a case currently in Quebec, which if found in favor of one of the parties, will automatically marry a huge portion of the population who actively chose not to be married. Many couples in Quebec actively choose to not be married (it's a cultural thing, I'm told). To me, a marriage should be an active choice, not something that you are forced into with someone you'd rather live with without the legal ramifications of marriage.

You will note that I did not accuse her of trolling if you read carefully what I said. You will also note that I never said I disbelieved any point of her story. What I said was that there are aspects of the story which strike me as highly odd, not that they were untrue. When I say that I find it odd that nobody contacted the authorities in a country where there are hundreds if not thousands of different law enforcement agencies overlapping their jurisdictions, it doesn't imply I think she's lying, it simply brings up a point she refuses to acknowledge.

Where I grew up, there was a NY state trooper that covered 6 counties and a sheriff (elected) and his self-appointed staff of two deputies. That's not uncommon in rural areas- most towns don't have a separate police force, particularly not towns under a couple of thousand, yet alone villages. If you called the state troopers (back before emergency services were integrated into 911) you were redirected to the sheriff's office because they outnumbered the trooper who had six times the amount of area covered.

 

[sheeplady]

I would appreciate if you and others on the forum would take the time to read carefully what I've stated before falsely accusing me.

I apologize if I misunderstood your statement.

 

[Flicka]

I have mixed feelings about common law marriage. On the one hand, it's good because if a couple lives as husband and wife, both parties get a fair deal made for their relationship, particularly if one dies suddenly and there were inequalities in property or income. On the other hand, it's bad because if a couple is not getting married because they want to avoid the legal negatives of marriage, they shouldn't be married against their will just because they live in the same home for 7 years or some artificial time period. There's a case currently in Quebec, which if found in favor of one of the parties, will automatically marry a huge portion of the population who actively chose not to be married. Many couples in Quebec actively choose to not be married (it's a cultural thing, I'm told). To me, a marriage should be an active choice, not something that you are forced into with someone you'd rather live with without the legal ramifications of marriage.

We have a middle way system. If you live together under what the law calls "marriage-like circumstances", there is a certain law on cohabitation that applies to your relationship from the day you move in with each other. It states that you should split the home (and the home only, no other property) as if you were married if you separate. You can however write an agreement that states that this law should not apply to your relationship, so if you want to avoid it, it's not very difficult. There's no way of getting a legal system equivalent to marriage without actually doing the deed.

It is a cultural thing, obviously. I think we're fairly monogamous, it's just that people traditionally do not see the need to involve anyone else in their private business. You also need to remember that Sweden is probably the most secular country in the world. Me, I am not at all against marriage, but my ex had issues with it (the ceremony and legal framework, not a monogamous relationship) and flat out refused. It's not at all uncommon here so I respected that. If it matters, I can add that my outlook is extremely monogamous. However, I don't pass judgement on people who have a different view.

I think anyone who has a successful relationship can only be congratulated and yes, it takes hard work. However, it's also about being fortunate in meeting someone you can make it work with. I think many people who have seen a bad, harmful or abusive relationship up close, directly or indirectly, can vouch for the fact that one person cannot make it work on their own, no matter how much they are willing to make it about Us or even You, rather than Me. I also think you need to understand that the emotional resilience is limited in most humans and that people may have painful experiences that you don't know about, and may not even be able to imagine.

Love is a wonderful thing and comes in many shapes and shades. We should try to give it where we can -- to partners, children, parents, siblings, friends, people in need... I think love in any shape can make a life worthwhile, actually. And it's not about getting, it's about giving. It's not about being loved, but loving. That outlook, when shared by both parties in a relationship, I think is vital in making it successful.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I apologize if I misunderstood your statement.

Apology accepted. I tip my hat to you and wish you well.

I'm also very glad to hear that the criminal in question was finally locked up.