On Domestic Violence Laws

[old man emu]

I create this thread to prevent the topic causing a drift from the thread "Scotty from Marketing".

 

Nomad said in that other thread, "a minority suffer from domestic violence. Our community identifies this is terrible. So we expect our government to fix this by passing laws against it."

 

We have always had laws to deal with the physical side of DV. When I began my police career, amongst the offences dealing with physical violence (Common Assault to Murder) there was a specific offence of "Assault Female". Later that offence was dropped so that such assaults fell under the umbrella of "Common Assault". Then the "Common" was dropped and we got to "Assault". So, if you touched a person without their consent, you assaulted them. Here endeth the Law Lesson.

 

The problem with DV when I began my career was Society's attitude to it. That attitude was "What happens behind closed doors, stays behind closed doors." As a result, police (who had received no training in order to deal with the problem in any other way) in many instances simply applied the steps to keep the Peace. This approach partly arose from the fact of the regular Pay Day call to the same homes due to the old man coming home after drinking his pay. The wife and children had no other recourse than to stay and put up with it for the sake of having a roof over their heads, and the inability of the housewife to obtain paid employment while looking after her children.

 

Over the next 25 years, at the end of the 20th Century, that attitude changed due, I'd say, the Women's Liberation Movement, which provided a stronger voice to wrongs against women. By the beginning of the 21st Century, the Assault laws had not changed, but more attention was being paid to breaking the cycle. Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders were introduced to  prevent physical and emotional assaults, and make it an offence to do so. You can't blame the Courts and Police for the failure of these bits of paper to do what they hoped to do. Once a wife-beater, always a wife beater. But now we have a generation of males whose behaviour has been fashioned by a diet of violent "entertainments" in their pre-adult lives, and who use stimulant drugs in their adult lives. When you observe the behaviour of these young males over a period of months, with repeat offences, you begin to think that they should be locked up in a mental institution rather than a gaol becasue they are psychotic.

 

So the Government has done a lot in one area to try to fix the problem. But laws don't apply to the lawless. Once again, I cry out for what I see as the solution to the root of violence in our Society - a complete ban on the possession of any sort of media that is based on overcoming others by the use of violence. Good-bye Batman. Good-bye Spiderman. Good-bye Marvel Super Heroes. Good bye Game of Thrones. And the list goes on, and on, and on.

 

Until acceptance of the use of violence is removed from this Society's culture through positive education programs and media-wide promotion, Domestic Violence will continue to curse it. 

[red750]

In 1953, singer Kitty Kallen had a No 1 hit with a song called "Little things mean a lot".

 

Part of the lyrics said, "Touch my hair, as you pass my chair, little things mean a lot."

 

Nowadays, that lyric would be, "Touch my hair, as you pass my chair, and I'll charge you with assault."

[nomadpete]

Thank you for starting tis thread OME.

I apologise for drifting the SFM thread.

I am aware that the local plods are still reluctant to turn out for DV events. And who can blame them? Too often the unfortunate policeman who arrives on the doorstep ends up getting turned upon by both the fighting couple!

 

My opinion on DV remains this .....

No normal person hurts their partner. Therefore DV is a result of unbalanced behaviour. It is all about mental health.

 

Further it is not solely due the the males. The feminists have hijacked the issue by convincing everyone that all females of the species are soft gentle peacemakers.

 

The problem must be addressed at a cultural level and as a first step, I agree that all violent entertainment should be tamed down a lot as it normalises violence as a conflict resolution answer to all disagreements.

 

Secondly, we should direct our anti-DV money to provision of far better mental health for everyone.

 

A candid clinical psychologist once said to me "We are all born at leastly partly FITH, but luckily most of us get over it.... to some extent."

Edited August 25, 2022 by nomadpete

[red750]

I see now there is a bar or club in Sydney which has banned staring without consent. You can be ejected for staring at someone if they have not given consent. Staring is considered harrassment.

 

For Pete's sake!!!

[nomadpete]

Thanks but I never said that!

[pmccarthy]

This topic seems to have petered out.

[willedoo]

16 hours ago, red750 said:

I see now there is a bar or club in Sydney which has banned staring without consent. You can be ejected for staring at someone if they have not given consent. Staring is considered harrassment.

That's a good one. I suppose now, patrons who want to stare will have to approach the potential person to be stared at and say "Excuse me, do you mind if I stare at you for a while?" If permission is not granted, then the starer will immediately have to avert his or her eyes. If permission is granted, then the starer can return to their seat and commence the staring. But what happens if the person who has granted staring permission grows tired of being stared at? Do they do the right thing and approach the starer to notify them of consent withdrawal, or do they just complain to the management? I can see a lot of problems with it. Eventually, they might have to ban asking for permission to stare, as that could also be viewed as harassment.

[spacesailor]

You should use a ' gay ' bar, were every one is " HAPPY " .

All drinks are doubles !? LOl.

spacesailor

 

[octave]

I think it is easy to make light of any law by using the most trivial examples.    It is like saying that the laws against theft are stupid because if I take a pencil of my work colleagues desk I could be done for theft.    

 

I contend that staring can be a form of intimidation.     Many years ago when I was in the RAAF we were visiting Darwin.   One night a work mate and I went out to a pub for a drink.  On another table a group of rough looking blokes just started staring at us.   Their expressions were anything but friendly.   We eventually abandoned our drinks and left fearing they had something against servicemen.   

 

My wife used to travel to and from work on the train.    On one occasion a man sat opposite and just stared constantly, eventually my wife went into another carriage. This happened on more than one occasion.

 

Perhaps none of these instances would have actually been deterred by a law or would have led to any kind of legal action but there are many laws that are seldom used but serve the purpose of defining acceptable behavior.

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

49 minutes ago, octave said:

Perhaps none of these instances would have actually been deterred by a law or would have led to any kind of legal action

A law is only as good as the ability society has to enforce it. Considering the example given, which is more important to Society, enforcing staring laws or preventing people being assaulted by intoxicated bogans? It's getting to the stage where people are beginning to demand a Cop at their shoulder at all times. 

 

As for being stared at in a bar, the solution is to do what we do with lousy TV shows - turn them off. Or in this case turn your back on the person doing the staring. Most of us would admit to staring at the front of a person, either to read the facial messages, or the implied sexual ones. I doubt you would ever find a person with a spine fetish.

[octave]

I think this issue is actually about  this  NSW nightclub bans staring at strangers without consent | 9 News Australia

 

The owner of this night club seems to be a reasonable man.   He believes that this guideline he has instituted for his nightclub is justified. The business model basis of this venues is to provide a place for people to enjoy.   I am guessing he has not invented a problem where one does not exist.    If it proves to be unpopular then his business will suffer.   In fact he probably will lose some  trade (from the creepier customers) but perhaps gain trade from people who feel it is a nicer place to spend time.

13 minutes ago, old man emu said:

As for being stared at in a bar, the solution is to do what we do with lousy TV shows - turn them off. Or in this case turn your back on the person doing the staring.

 

In my example our concern was not the  staring per se but that the scowls made us suspect that these people were trying to intimidate us into leaving and that if we didn't a physical altercation may have occurred. It is not about having a cop at our shoulder but perhaps a more modern decent venue would have had a word to them and perhaps kept all of us as customers.

 

It is clear from the interviews I have seen with this nightclub owner that this was one measure out of many but this is the one that oafish television commentators find easiest to lampoon and exaggerate.    Comments like  "you have to avoid eye contact" or "you cant flirt"  are gross exaggerations.

 

This is a code of behaviour prescribed by a business just like "no running shoes" if that is still a thing. If people don't like it then they are free to go somewhere else.   If they prefer that atmosphere then  they may be more likely to spend time and money there. I know it creates great fodder for the eternally outraged media but that is the long and short of it.   

[Jerry_Atrick]

Staring is not the same as making eye contact or "checking out" a girl (or guy). it is persistent watching, of someone, or as the Oxford dictionary states, "look fixedly or vacantly at someone or something with one's eyes wide open.". Often, this can be in a threatning way, and often it is an attempt to unsettle or some other way intimidate someone - or even try to mentally abuse someone. It is not the same  as having a look,  maybe making eye contact and smiling, nodding, winking, or whatever they do these days to make a play.

 

Press needs eyeballs to sell advertising, eyeballs need a headline (MSM equivalent of clickbait) to get the eyeballs..

 

[old man emu]

What have these young women, in that club, done to discourage being stared at?

 

I wonder how many patrons (male and female) took bets on how long things would remain in their holders.

 

And now I'm being judgemental. I should be defending the right of those young women to express themselves in their preferred fashion style.  But what was their intention when selecting those outfits. It definitely wasn't to keep warm.

 

I always find it ironic that women are carefree about appearing on a beach like this  yet panic when the wind gets under their dresses 

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, octave said:

If people don't like it then they are free to go somewhere else. 

That applies to mask wearing requests, but somehow many folks don't see it that nicely

[nomadpete]

26 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I always find it ironic that women are carefree about appearing on a beach like this  yet panic when the wind gets under their dresses 

That aspect of modesty has always puzzled me.

It smacks of double standards.

 

[octave]

17 minutes ago, old man emu said:

And now I'm being judgemental. I should be defending the right of those young women to express themselves in their preferred fashion style.  But what was their intention when selecting those outfits. It definitely wasn't to keep warm.

 

So what do you think their intention is?  If a man wears speedos on the beach is the intention to be stared at or be ogled by women or perhaps gay men for that matter.

24 minutes ago, old man emu said:

What have these young women, in that club, done to discourage being stared at?

 

Most people like to be considered attractive regardless of age or gender.  My wife still will sometimes wear a low cut top but this is not to impress anyone or to attract attention. Some men are so bad at understanding the "it is not all about them"   Apart from that we are not necessarily talking about a furtive or even flirtatious look we are talking about the pest.   We surely have witnessed the way  some men behave.

 

OME you may recall we discussed my wifes experience at the local table tennis club with a rather "handsy" fellow.    My wife although she really resented this started wearing baggy cloths to the club.  This did not work.   Ultimately she left.     

 

I guess my question would be would standard or style of clothing would in your opinion be appropriate in order to not be considered fair games for comments or over the top unwanted attention?  Perhaps women should adopt the Islamic Birkini.        

44 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I always find it ironic that women are carefree about appearing on a beach like this

 

44 minutes ago, old man emu said:

yet panic when the wind gets under their dresses 

 

It is surely about context, I wear bathers at the beach but I wouldn't walk down Flinders street in my speedos. 

 

 

 

My wife has long said that as a women you have to spend a lot of time and energy ensuring that you don't "give out the wrong signals" and how easy it is to do this unintentionally    It seems reasonable to me that if women must carefully consider what they ware perhaps men could meet them half way and consider with kindness and empathy what their effect behaviour has on others.

[onetrack]

The bloke with the nightclub obviously well understands the initial words leading to a big punch up, are - "WTF are YOU looking at??" - followed by a threatening glare.

 

I was walking down a footpath with my wife in Broome, about 15 or so years ago and young woman came towards us - sporting some of the most amazing tattoos you could wish to see (or not see). She had tattoos from A to B.

I couldn't help but stare at this unbelievable level of personal adornment (or self-abuse, whichever you believe it is) - but as she approached, I got a vicious glare and the, "WTF are YOU looking at??" ....

 

I was completely lost for words - not only with the outlandish tattoos - but the aggression that came with it. We passed, and I said nothing. It was pretty obvious she had some serious mental health and self-abuse problems.

The part that gets me, is tattoos are installed specifically to send a visible message - mostly aggressiveness towards others - but the effect of a major level of tattoos is simply that it makes people look at the tattoo-wearer even more than you normally would!

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by onetrack

[Old Koreelah]

Tattoos are a method of recording your changing mental state for all to see, forever.

[Marty_d]

Trouble is, skin changes shape too...

[Bruce Tuncks]

Once, I was having a beer with a retired Darwin cop, who had responded to a DV callout by himself. He walked in to see a little woman cowering and crying on the floor, with a big bruiser of a man standing over her.

While he was handcuffing the bloke, all his lights went out...  the little woman had hit him from behind with a cast-iron cooking pot.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, he regrets going in by himself...  he said he was on his way home and the place was handy.

[onetrack]

I can recall a country town where one couple fought like the centre ring of a country show boxing tent, every night. They'd both hit the booze on a large scale, then it was on for one and all.

But the racket that came with it was what got all the neighbours. Regular screams, cries of pain, repeated banging and bashing noises, yelling, such as "THE BASTARDS KILLING ME!! AAARRRRGHHHH! HELP!! HELP!! HELP!!" Bang! Bang!!

 

So the neighbours would call the Police ... and the instant the Police rolled up, the woman would be first out of the house, abusing the Police with language that would make a wharfie blush, and even throwing items at them.

So the Police would retire ... the woman would go back inside .... and then the screaming and screeching and banging and yelling would recommence ....

[red750]

Tattoos on a woman are like scratching your name on a brand new Mercedes with a screwdriver.

[nomadpete]

On 26/08/2022 at 8:16 PM, octave said:

So what do you think their intention is?  If a man wears speedos on the beach is the intention to be stared at or be ogled by women or perhaps gay men for that matter.

Simple. Men wear speedos to maximise the display of their physique. Just look at the derision that older less muscular men get if they dare to wear speedos.

 

Women dress to look attractive.

I have yet to meet a woman that doesn't want to look attractive when they go out in public.  Or one that doesn't smile when complimented on their attractive appearance (by either gender person).

 

So, Octave, since women's clothing is seldom particularly practical, just what are these women setting out to attract?

 

I posit that we are all dressing in a manner to attract mates. We call it fashion, to avoid admitting that we are following the same instincts as all other mammals.

 

If fashion was simply a 'dress code' that made all persons look artfully decorative, our women would be making certain that their men were dressed (decorated) the same as they do themselves. Perhaps fashion might even trend toward practical clothing for all, but it doesn't.

Our present fashion highlights the female's breeding potential (displaying such attributes as waist to hip ratio, milk glands, the genetic strength of a fine set of pins, and child bearing hips).

 

Of course we all pretend this is not so. We pretend we are not just another mammal, governed by mammalian instincts.

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by nomadpete

[octave]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Simple. Men wear speedos to maximise the display of their physique.

Efficient bathers tend to be form fitting, whilst fashion may be part of the reasons there is also a practical reason. These days I tend to wear a top for reasons of minimizing sun exposure. This top is tight fitting because who wants a baggy top flapping around in the water.     I would suggest that even modest one piece bathing suit is likely to show a woman's shape this does not mean she is asking to be leered at or commented on.   Little girls sometimes wear bikinis and they are not trying to be sexually provocative

 

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

just look at the derision that older less muscular men get if they dare to wear speedos

I think people should mind their own business.

 

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Women dress to look attractive.

I have yet to meet a woman that doesn't want to look attractive when they go out in public. 

 

When my wife and I go out to dinner my wife will dress up.   She still is physically fit and in great shape and still wears the occasional low cut top.  The point is though that this is not to attract any old bloke, she wants to look sexy to me.   She may also want to generally look good but she has no obligation to any person.    She is not asking to be intimately commented on or stared at.  I guess my point is why cant a woman (or man) dress attractively for their partner or for themselves or even the be generally thought of as being attractive without surrendering the right to go about their evening in peace. 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Or one that doesn't smile when complimented on their attractive appearance (by either gender person).

 

Nothing wrong with an appropriate complement.  I think sometimes people don't really understand the social rules.  By way of example there is a waitress at my local cafe that I personally find attractive.   I get on very well with her and when the cafe is slow she sometimes has sat down a the table with me for a chat.  We chat about what she is studying at uni, she does seem to like me.    I would not comment her attractiveness because I cannot imagine that the opinion of a chubby 60 year old man would something she is craving.  I think she probably chats to me because I don't make these kind of comments.  Many of my fellow men seem to overestimate the value of their opinions.

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

 

So, Octave, since women's clothing is seldom particularly practical, just what are these women setting out to attract?

 

Well let me say what they are probably they are NOT trying to attract, and that is any and all males.   Repeating myself my wife dresses FOR ME and herself.     My wife had a situation which I alluded to in another post, She joined the local veterans table tennis club.   She really enjoyed playing but unfortunately one old fellow kept coming on to her and he also used to get a bit hands on under the guise of giving her playing tips.   He started comment on her form fitting clothing (which was totally appropriate for playing).    This caused her much anguish.  As a new member she did not feel confident complaining about a long serving member.  She starting wearing baggy and impractical clothing but eventually quit, it was all too hard.    My point is this.  Whether or not my wife was dressing too sexily or not, surely the best solution would have been for this man to understand that just because he found her attractive it does not give him the right to make her uncomfortable.   She tried to use body language and to change the conversation when he started going on about what she was wearing.  Why is it solely her responsibility?    

 

 

 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I posit that we are all dressing in a manner to attract mates. We call it fashion, to avoid admitting that we are following the same instincts as all other mammals.

 

I think there is some truth to this but clearly it is not the only reason we dress up.  Once we have a mate we don't suddenly stop dressing up.  A little girl who puts on a pretty dress is not necessarily on the pull.   Yes we do have some of the same instincts as other mammal but we have more than that, we have intellect and empathy. A 15 year old school girl may have the body of a woman and may be able to procreate but we surely wouldn't be ogling her are staring (well I wouldn't).   We make fun of traditional Muslim practice but this seems to be on the same spectrum.    The women must wear the right clothes and behave in the right way or men wont be able to help themselves, whether it be pestering or something worse.

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

 

If fashion was simply a 'dress code' that made all persons look artfully decorative, our women would be making certain that their men were dressed (decorated) the same as they do themselves. Perhaps fashion might even trend toward practical clothing for all, but it doesn't.

Our present fashion highlights the female's breeding potential (displaying such attributes as waist to hip ratio, milk glands, the genetic strength of a fine set of pins, and child bearing hips).

Well my wife cares about how I look and dress when we go out.  We do a lot of cycling and we both wear practical cycling attire.    The fact is that baggy clothing is not practical for cycling.   My wife wears tight fitting cycling shorts or leggings as I do.    The fact that this attire shows her shape is incidental.  She just wants to cycle without people staring because they think they can just make out the outline of something.  Of course emotionally mature men don't do this.   As my wife says she does not care what people think but, and you may disagree she feels that UNWELCOME Staring or comments are tiresome and she does not believe that it is herself that should  have the responsibility.  

 

As the "waist hip ratio" and "milk glands"  having been a musical instrument teacher far most of my working life and having taught many many teenage girls I can say that these attributes appear quite early.  I certainly would not stare at one of my students.

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Of course we all pretend this is not so. We pretend we are not just another mammal, governed by mammalian instincts.

Sure we have instincts but as we have evolved, we also have reason  logic and empathy.   

 

Getting back to the post that started this sub topic.   A Club owner imposes a series of guidelines  that he believes will make  people feel safer and more likely to enjoy their time in his establishment.  I would suggest that this is his right to do and if enough people don't like then it will show in the profit and loss statement.  The likes of Skynews have portrayed this as if people are going to be wrestled to the ground and thrown out for a furtive look.   If a patron feels they are being stared at menacingly surely no one could have a problem with staff member tactfully having a chat to the people involved.

 

It is not about regulating the conversation between men and women.   I have many female friends whos appearance I may comment about some of them even in a sexual light hearted way however  if I detected the slightest discomfort on their part I would not do it and I certainly would  be extremely cautious with a stranger.  I someone told me I made them feel uncomfortable them I would back off.

 

Lest anyone think I am some kind o prude I should point out that (and this is probably way too much information) my wife and I have for most of our marriage had an "open marriage" although there have been wild times in the past we haven't done anything like that for a few years now.  These we are busy with each other. 

 

I was once walking along with my son who was at the time in his early 20s.  We passed a woman who was beautifully dressed and I will say sexually appealing,  I almost turned around to look and my son who is a kind empathetic man grabbed my arm and said "just put it in you spank bank and move on"   wise words I think. 

 

Anyway that turned out longer than I had anticipated.   Bottom line for me is this,  my right to stare at someone or make comments is conditional on how recipient feels about it.   I would also expect the same in return.     Apart from that experience tells me that if you want to get together with a potential partner then kindness and empathy is the most successful aphrodisiac.