Self Defense/Women Controls the Bonding Process-Is this a primary reason why women choose to remain in abusive relationships even if their is no economy involved?
Its a really complex topic and I'm risking my neck being lynched by feminists and the rape industry but you mentioned in my previous question that one of the reason why women traveling in groups is often not enough to prevent rape is:
"She thinks he's hot. In this case, she's going to follow the bonding process step of going off into isolation. And straight up -- since women control the process -- NOBODY is going to tell her no. Not society, not family, not friends and even cock blockers. She wants to go off with him, she's going off with him. (This ESPECIALLY if she's drunk and horny.)"
Now I've been reading yur other AllExpert responses and thus as an effect, I've also been reading various works you cited, namely Manwatching and Meditations on Violence.
Along with your response to my question, I can't help but wonder one thing:
Is the fact that the woman controls the BONDING PROCESS is a prime factor WHY so many women INSIST on staying in abusive relationships?
Before somebody else brings up details, yes I'm fully aware there are legit reasons for staying in a relationship beyond clinginess. Such as protecting the family reputation, having kids to look after, religion (specifically one where divorce is forbidden against he rules such as Roman Catholic), financial needs, etc.
But I notice from personal experience (and further research) that so many women CHOOSE not to leave an abusive relationship......
I'll bring in a good fictional example.
In "A Streetcar Named Desire", Stan was frequently abusive to Stella. Indeed Stella would break down and almost attempt to leave.
But in a frenzy of illogic, Stan would immediately grab Stella and kiss her. As in a kiss so romantic you'd think you're watching a romance movie (especially well-portrayed in the film adaptation starring Marlon Brando as Stan). And Stella would look at Stan romantically as in "oh my FUCKING GOD, he's so HANDSOME".
They'd reconcile and the relationship would go back to normal. However its a pattern that goes over and over. Its always when Stan acts so romantic and Stella can see his good-looking face headon that she's changes her mind.
Even after Blanche's sent into an institution, she still stays with Stan despite the risks of having a son's who is abused. The screenwriter of the Marlon Brando adaptation was in fact so both disgusted and could not believe such a clingy person could exist that he deliberately changed the story to have Stella leaving after realizing what an abusive asshole Stan was.
I am using this fictional example because I seen way to many relationship resemble Stan and Stella, if not being a real life replication-and this was before I ever heard of "A Streetcar Named Desire" .
Indeed even the part where the man romantically cuddles the wife after hitting her and the wife or girl could see his handsome face is what I notice often reerses any abuse that happens and lets the girl forgets about it in an instant.
When I witnessed this happening, it was so FUCKING STUPID to me. But even before I discovered your writings and learned of the "bonding process", I already had a hunch that the girl is still sticking with the man because she still find him attractive.
I'm going out for the night, but keep in mind by "finding the guy hot", I am not merely discussing looks (although by the way these events often turn out, I can't help but wonder if the girl's still insanely lustful after the guy despite his abuse because of stunning looks) but also discussing elements that the girl found so sexy about the guy int he first place such as being so romantic when he's facing you head-to-head and a whole lot of other traits (traits that most girls actually do find SEXY specifically the romantic gestures).
The fact that many of these abusive relationship were often forbidden by the family (or at least the head was frequently warning the girl about getting involved with the guy and was so uneasy as the girl finally gets married), makes me wonder if in the first place the guy was already showing signs of an abusive person and the girl was just too full of hots after him that she insisted on chasing him. And thats it only after prolonged stay that the abuse is finally becoming blatant but since the girl was so insistent on chasing him, she still find him hot even long after decades of marriage and getting hurt).
This is something so many people cannot understand. "Why can't she leave him? She comes from a wealthy family and doesn't have kids!" But when I observe these women they literally are displaying control over the process of bonding (despite being hurt). They have such control that (and I'm going to piss people off with this) its their fault they remain in the relationship most of the time. (More pissing people off) They just still find the guy to sexy to leave a lot of the times (especially being so enamored when he's acting so caring and romantic).
FUCK some of them even intentionally manipulate the guy (draining him emotionally) into the circumstances that cause him to hit them in the first place. And more importantly (the psychological and rape industries are gonna kill me for this), some women actually even enjoy being hit by a pissed off husband from my observations.
WHat would you comment on this? Am I simplifying things or am I spoton the mark about how neglected is the fact the woman playe da major role in abuse? Specifically she actually finds the guy too attractive to leave despite all the pain? When I asked some experts on this, I really got enraged responses and was called a sexist misogynist Republican. So I seek someone who actually has lots of experience with both women and violence such as yourself for their input.
Okay, you don't know it yet, but you're kind of asking a question that's like a kid realizing there is no Santa Claus.
How's that for a weird ass way to start an answer?
A term I use a lot is 'Lies to Children'
Telling a kid that the gifts come from Santa Claus is what a four year old can understand about trees, decorations, family and holidays. To the kid, magically stuff shows up. When in fact behind it all is a huge production, lots of work, bonding process, family unity rites and cultural solidarity. How do you explain that to children? Santa.
Where this idea of an overly simplistic tale of magical forces turns toxic is when the same idea is carried forth into adulthood. All the complexities, nuances and -- quite frankly -- shitty details are swept under the giant rug called "The Narrative."
The Narrative put forth by domestic violence 'experts' is it's always the guy. Further more that the woman is powerless, trapped, never-ever responsible, an active participant in the creation of the situation or, is herself, as fucked up as a soup sandwich.
There's a reason why I seriously maintain that any so-called 'expert' on domestic violence be forced to live in a trailer park for a year. Being on the ground and watching the interplay and dynamics of the participants you get a whole lot more information than just what the 'victim' tells you later in an interview. Like who hit first.
The Narrative is closely tied in with money. If you think of domestic violence like a big pie that's the whole subject. And it has some real complicated, wicked problems involved.
Well, there's only limited ice cream. So what the narrative does is scoop all the goodies onto one slice (theirs) and that is what they 'sell.' This narrative leaves out all the nasty complicated bits. The woman is always the helpless victim, she needs our help, she's in danger, yada, yada, yada. Bottomline, give us money and power to fix this 'problem.' A problem that we've tailored the definition of and controlled the information about so you will give us money.
I cannot stress this point enough: Fixing 'social issues' like domestic violence, rape and racism have become careers for people. Understanding that is critical for understanding the spin, bias, half-truths, edited truths and flat out lies we're told about the subject.
A fella by the name of Upton Sinclair once said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
I'm going to flip that around and say "It is difficult to get good information from a man when his salary depends on providing misinformation." He doesn't want you to understand the problem any more than what it takes for you to finance his career.
You were asking some specific questions and I know I haven't answered them. Well partly because the most accurate answer is "It depends." Yes, it happens. Yes is part of what is going on. The questions are how much? How often? In what circumstances? How often does it change? Quite frankly, these degrees are a case by case issue. In some cases, no not really. In other cases, it's a tapdancing elephant -- kinda hard to miss, much less ignore.
You're looking under the rug to see what's there. You're questioning Santa Claus
Know bringing this up, undermines the Narrative. A narrative that paychecks depend on. And a narrative that those who have bought into it will be used as cannon fodder to protect by those who get a paycheck from it. (Kind of like the Turks used to drive captives before their army so the opposing army would tire itself out slaughtering the captives. Then the fresh. Turkish Army would nail the tired army.)
So know you're onto something, but tread carefully looking into it.