On abuse - the importance of 'sane' in SSC

[thir]

Erin Pizzey (Prone to Violence) concluded from years of work running a women's refuge that many of them returned because they were hooked on the excitement of a dangerous partner: they were conditioned to process abuse as love. She was hated by feminists because they said she was blaming the victims, or saying they were happy where they were, which she wasn't; she was saying that, in her experience, the problem was more complicated than just providing a safe space.

I think it is important to remember two things about Erin Pizzey: That she grew up in a violent family where especially her mother hated her, and that she is no proffessional. Among other things she thinks that people who enjoy pain are brain damaged:

"If a child experiences consistent pain and sexual abusive in the very early years the neural pathways in the brain fail to develop normally and thereafter the child will seek pleasure through pain."

None of this has ever been proven. Her theories are based on her talks with people through many years in refuge shelters, and surely that should be listened to, but not taken as gospel truth, especially in the light of her own childhood.

I believe what she says is that both women and men can be violent, which is a fact but one which radical feminists objected to for what seems to be political reasons.
She also says that there is often a dysfuntional relationship between the parties when there is domestic violence, and I am sure this can also be true, because we are surely programmed to some extent in our families as to what 'normal' is. But some saw it as blaming the women, after years of fight to get the topic of domestic violence out in the open but that was, by all accounts, not what she meant; she was part of the hard end of this fight for many years.

Someone who is emotionally damaged to the point where they can't break free is both abused and, in the strict legal sense, consenting (in the sense that an alcoholic consents to taking another drink); which just shows that consent isn't an infalible test of right and wrong.

There is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Consent can only be given by relatively normal and informed people. And who are they? Well - most of us! But not all.
But who is to say who aren't?

[leo9]

There is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Consent can only be given by relatively normal and informed people. And who are they? Well - most of us! But not all.
But who is to say who aren't?

"Friends don't let friends do bad things." You can't stop a legally competent adult making what looks to you like a really bad mistake, but you can warn them in any way that works, try to make them look at the situation with clearer eyes, maybe show them facts they didn't know. It may not work at the time, but help them later when they start having secod thoughts for themselves.