Love means never having to say you're sorry

I have not written about the whole Chris Brown beating on Rihanna story because, so far, it's been more of a gossip/exploitation thing.

But, after watching CNN's Campbell Brown last night, and right now tuned to Oprah, it seems very clear that the sad saga is evolving into a useful hook to have the serious discussions about male-in-female violence that we haven't seen since O.J. Simpson was tried for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Mark Goldman.

Many people have raised the fact that Rihanna and Brown, both products of homes where there was domestic abuse, had a tempestuous relationship. There have been reports that she has publicly screamed at him and slapped him before this incident.

This has led the men's rights types to suggest that she invited the attack.

And maybe she did him before. But to put her in the hospital in return?

The guy could use a little anger management, no?

But now this is about much more than these two.

Frankly, they don't matter except that, their apparent reconciliation, her reluctance to incriminate him, and the fact that they are recording a duet together about the trials and tribulations of love, send the message that it's okay for a guy to put his hand on a girl.

With, as Oprah reported, one out of three high school girls in the US the victim of violence by boys, and the murders of many girls by spurned boyfriends, it's past time that this issue get pop culture and new media coverage so that the kids who need to see it see it.

Oprah is doing a sensational job right now.

Girls, if he is mean to you once, he will be mean to you again. If he makes you feel bad about yourself, he does not love you. If he makes demands on you that make you feel guilty for not meeting -- like not spending more time with him instead of your friends -- he is unreasonable and controlling. If he hits you once, he will hit you again. If he won't go away when you want him to go away, he will stalk you.

He may even kill you.

His saying ''sorry'' and he won't do it again and he loves you and yada yada is just a bunch of bull.

Actions speak louder than words.

Get out while you can.

BEAT UP ON HER DATE: What to make of this?

Hip-hop star Chris Brown’s arrest for allegedly beating singer Rihanna has sparked outrage in the media for weeks, but a survey conducted by the Boston Public Health Commission found almost half of Hub teens think she is to blame for the assault.

“Somehow young people have gotten the message that this is just part of a relationship,” said anti-violence advocate Deborah Collins-Gousby.

Of the 200 Boston youths (ages 12 to 19) surveyed last month, 51 percent said Chris Brown was responsible for the incident, 46 percent said Rihanna was responsible and 52 percent said both were to blame; 52 percent said the media was treating Brown unfairly; 44 percent said fighting was a normal part of a relationship; and a “significant” number said “Rihanna was destroying Chris Brown’s career.” Women blamed Rihanna as much as men did.

Quite apart from the fact that there's no explanation why some of those percentages don't seem to add up, am I the only one who finds it disturbing how many people blame Rihanna for breaking her own face?

Comments

[hysperia]

I had some trouble with the Oprah Show. I think it's problemmatic to cast male violence towards women in such individualist terms and not ever to mention the fact that hundreds of years of social, political and legal history sanctioned domestic violence and gave women no alternative but to stay or live in poverty and without any protection whatsoever; that many cultures even within Western culture still doom women to having no choice and that these attitudes play themselves out in the discussions we have. There is still a tendency for women to be disbelieved. There are too few choices for women who have left, too few protections and a great deal of realistic fear of further violence or abject poverty. The celebrity status of Brown and Rihanna doesn't make for a very good example and I'm still not sure we're having the conversation that most people, men and women, need us to have.

As well, it makes little sense to me that the violence in the lives of both these people is pointed at as the "reason" for their behaviour as happened on Oprah, when there are so many structural economic, social and political sources for it. If Rihanna left Chris Brown and castigated him publicly, it wouldn't cause a ripple in the lives of most women living with male violence. On the other hand, if a man like Chris Brown took full and appropriate responsibility for his actions, it just might help a bit.

I've been disheartened by some of the conversations in the blogosphere, as at Hugo Schwitzer's, where some commenters sidetracked the discussion to a "what about the menz" deal - women attack men too you know - and to the red herring issue of "provocation". There's a good article at Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/188353/page/1)about all of this which is cool, but some of the comments are, once again, disheartening.

[sooey]

The "women attack men, too" and "what about male victims" is just another attempt to discredit Feminism by claiming that, because Feminists advocate for women's rights, we don't care about men, always side with "the woman", yaddayaddablahblah. Then they trot out the usual "I was a victim of Feminism" claims that are somehow supposed to validate their specious reasoning.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia, Chris Brown is a violent guy, so is Rhianna...he took his violence too far and should be ridiculed accordingly.

That said, this isnt' about violence against women. It is about violence, which is a human trait. Although Brown went too far in his defence, I wonder why she feels she can hit him with impunity (alledgedly)?

Of course, many if not all of the women on your blog have abused their significant other in some form. Pychologically or physically in one of many forms. Especially if we use the feminist definition of violence. Punching, slapping, kicking, throwing phones, cups, glasses, keys.

Telling your mate he's inadequate, doesn't make enough money, bad father, poor husband, bad lover controlling behaviour, who he can hang out with, what he does in his spare time, what he does for hobbies. Many of these pychological scars last longer than any physical scar. (for both men and women)

You women know who you are.....you're not innocent, so stop pretending.

[Antonia]

Um, would you be the same MensRightsNow who made this comment the other day:
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/03/she-asked-for-it.html?cid=6a00d8341bf8f353ef01127946437d28a4#comment-6a00d8341bf8f353ef01127946437d28a4

''Apparently Rhianna initiated the physical violence against Chris Brown by repeatedly slapping him. She should go to jail too.

''What she learned? Don't hit people, or you'll get hit back.''

Posted by: MensRightsNow | March 10, 2009 at 05:24 PM

[Dale Curd]

Having grown up in a household where I both witnessed and received physical abuse I know firsthand the complex dynamics which keep two people intertwined in a destructive relationship dance. Now as a professional working primarily with men, I am reminded daily of the impact of adults who act irresponsibly; adults who choose to lead their lives from their reactions, adults who choose defend emotional boundaries with their fists. Mostly, I see their shame at reaching the razor's edge of their inner limits and in doing so, causing severe pain to loved ones and themselves.

Chris Brown has an opportunity here to open a door for millions of men by walking through his shame, stepping up as a man and taking full responsibility for his actions, and by any means necessary learning how to express his feelings responsibly, rather than manage or deny them. Rihanna too has an opportunity here to open a door for millions of women by walking through her pain to take responsibility for her part in co-creating a relationship where abuse and violence occur alongside love.

Relationships are the hardest work we engage in as human beings because our relationships reveal the truth about who we are and often that truth is very uncomfortable to stand in.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Antonia,

I prayed for a long time - which is rather pointless for me - for you to cover this story, then, when I first saw it posted, did not want to comment, was fed up with the whole mess. However, I could not resist for long.

Yeah, all evidence points to Brown being an abuser. He is a creep, full stop. That being said, there is more to this.

Rihanna is reported to be violent, agressive and abusive, men in her life claiming to have been assaulted by her. If this was the case in his relationship with her, then Chris Brown should have bailed. Once Brown started hitting back, Rihanna should have left. The fact that these two stayed together, are still together, is evidence of their immaturity and stupidity.

People keep comparing Brown and Rihanna, if only in passing, to Ike and Tina Turner. I think they are more like Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungon, minus heroin, plus teams of handlers and better wardrobes. Ike and Tina survived their tumultuous relationship, while Nancy died as a direct result, and Sid as an indirect result, of their relationship.

(Stupid selfish kid + stupid selfish kid) * "Love" = Disaster!!!

[Antonia]

Thanks Sebastien. You are, of course, correct.

[neko]

I have a question about this whole thing.

It's my understanding that Rihanna began the entire thing by slapping Chris. That does NOT condone his reaction to her... but if I flip out and beging striking at a man, isn't it his right to defend himself appropriatly (by restraining me or walking away or something)? I know many women who feel that it is their right to strike or throw heavy/breakable objects at their boyfriends when they are upset, but if he were to lay one hand on her (and I mean a gentle hand meant to halt the slapping and not meant to hurt at all) it is "abuse".

Shouldn't this conversation involve discussion on how it isn't right to hit regardless of gender?

[Libby]

I'm an avid reader of this blog and I usually agree with your posts. I disagree, however, with the idea that anger management therapy is an answer to domstic violence. Men who beat women don't necessarily have anger issues. To suggest this misrepresents domestic violence. It is not about anger, it is about control. If a man has anger issues, it will be visible in other aspects of his life. Chris Brown, for example, would not beat another man his own size or larger, suggesting his anger management is not so poor that he would put himself in danger.

[christine nectarine]

Libby, I think you are right that abuse is ultimately a control issue. Good anger management counselling should help a person to examine the reason they act so angrily, which will often lead to a greater understanding of the power and control dynamics involved.

While it seems undeniable in the particular case of Rhianna and Chris Brown that both are acting abusively, this does not change the fact that women and children are disproportionately the victims of domestic abuse. It's an important topic that merits discussion, and I don't think that doing so precludes the importance of violence toward men.

If we ignore the role of gender in the issue of domestic violence, we miss out on a vital understanding of the systemic impact of this issue. In the same way we cannot discount such factors as race, class and ability etc. I think a feminist perspective is inclusive of these factors.

[mozo]

From your blog entry: "Girls, if he is mean to you once, he will be mean to you again. If he makes you feel bad about yourself, he does not love you. If he makes demands on you that make you feel guilty for not meeting -- like not spending more time with him instead of your friends -- he is unreasonable and controlling. If he hits you once, he will hit you again. If he won't go away when you want him to go away, he will stalk you."

Antonia are these your words or Oprah's? Regardless I think they are incredibly simplistic and counterproductive. Except, perhaps, the hitting sentence.

[Paul]

Rihanna attacked Brown from the passenger seat, while Brown was *driving the car they were riding in* thus endangering both their lives. Brown retaliated and put her in the hospital.

Before we plug that scenario into our pre-fab scripts of school girl paddycake vs. a tooth loosening fists, imagine the rage behind that kind of recklessness, to batter the person who is in control of a motor vehicle in which you are riding.

It doesn’t take a “Men’s Rights Type” to point out the double standard in the way this is played out. Brown is held to a higher moral standard than Rihanna because he is bigger. Frankly, women who make a claim on personal responsibility and accountability, should see the lowered expectations there as condescension.

The fact that Rihanna went to a hospital ward is not because Brown conducted himself any less shamefully than she did (though many feminists would argue that violence in self-defence, or even “pre-emptive” murder – Burning Bed anyone? -- is an act of heroism when the target is a man). Nor is it because Brown was in any less danger than she was, driving a car – it’s because he was physically bigger – because he was a guy.

I have been in several physical confrontations that I did not choose and in which I was unable to talk my way out of or escape. For those of you who don’t know what that is like, I’ll assure you that the response you mete, will roughly match the ferocity that you were attacked. If you watch any fight, you’ll see that they generally escalate slowly – starting with shoving – with both sides shoving. Once someone hits with a fist – the other responds in kind. And once it gets into a total fur ball, there is no high ground to take – you hit with all you have, with whatever you have. Once you pass the point where a measured response is practical, this is where the physical size will make a difference.

If feminist advocates against domestic violence *truly* gave a rat’s ass about understanding the nature of violent relationships to better reduce their occurrence, then they would finally abandon the distracting and misandrist script that frames this as some extension of men’s misogyny. It takes a three word Google search to access the multitudes of studies that show domestic violence exists at at least the same rate in gay and lesbian relationships. If that is the case --which it is-- then how does a script that frames this in terms of men vs. women serve the needs of victims, and how does it help perpetrators reform? It doesn’t – and considering the amount of advocacy efforts that are poured into that dry well, I can’t think of a bigger tragedy for the victims of domestic violence, or a greater societal disservice to them to have such funding and efforts misspent to such a degree. Meanwhile their so-called advocates do their best to brand critics of such reckless waste and pointless hatred as sexists.

Here’s an illustrative anecdote of how complex this domestic violence scenarios really are, from personal experience…and I swear it is true – you are going to love this…

I met the woman who is now my wife, when she was the director of one of Canada’s most venerable feminist theatres. The theatre was staging their annual domestic violence play, which is big around Marc Lepine day – and is invited to various city high schools and colleges as part of their sensitivity programs. It is chock full of various non-vetted, Oprah-disseminated, feminist panic myths (like the % of women that will be raped or assaulted in their lifetimes) though that’s beside the point. The format is a stage show that artfully depicts various scenarios of men beating women in domestic or familiar settings. I’m sure I don’t need to spell out the caricatures to anyone in this forum. It is followed by a Q/A with the audience about how to stop the cycle. “Get out!” “Get involved!” “Silence is violence!” etc. In short – the idea is to stop being a silent witness to this stuff and urge or shame attackers and victims to change their situation. Its focus in mainly on shaming men – either for doing the beating, or somehow not stopping their male friends from beating women. We’re all familiar with the script, I’m sure.

Here’s the kicker, and I swear it’s too perfectly sad for me to dare making up. One of the participants in this collective process play was a lesbian in a relationship, and she was obviously battered by her domestic partner – who was indeed a very physical, angry person – known peripherally for her own involvement at the feminist theatre. And none of these feminist actors, in a feminist theatre, in an annual performance about domestic violence, on Marc Lepine Day, in a series of educational settings – not one of them – did a damned thing, or said a thing to be involved in ending this abuse as it occurred over the weeks of preparation. It didn’t fit the script. The battered woman stayed in the relationship. Her partner gave her bruises. And together they put on a play about men beating women, lecturing men and audiences around the city and county.

If those feminists, doing all that, couldn’t extract themselves from the situation, nor see fit to intervene in a situation of domestic battery, nor even alter their script to include it – then how is their pious message going to help anyone else? In framing complex issues of domestic violence in such an antagonistic and debunked dogma, they serve to distract research and advocacy from truly understanding it and prescribing remedies, while dividing the efforts of advocacy with their relentless and poisonous misandry. This hurts their female victims, not to mention the others (because they don’t matter or don’t fit the script) more than helping, and once again, sets up the neo-Victorian infantilism of women – the root of chauvinism.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

your comments in various threads have really slapped me awake. It is easy to forget that there was once powerful Feminist contingent that successfully promulgated the notion that All Men Are Evil, Full Stop.

I am too young to have been directly exposed to this stand, but old enough to have heard the echos of the mantras, the most sinister of which being "All heterosexual sex is an act of violence against women". These types of attitudes now live more on the fringe, but obviously do affect the more mainstream Feminist agenda. And they have certainly managed to influence general opinion over the long-term (see common female chauvinist assertions that women are better people managers, are more emotionally intelligent, are less likely to be abusive or aggressive).

[Paul]

Regarding Oprah:

You should reserve a healthy scepticism for statistical claims and sound bites from advocacy groups featured on the Oprah Winfrey show.

Lest we forget, it was The Oprah Winfrey show that fertilized myths such as the Satanism Scare of the 80’s, that passed on groundless feminist advocacy panic stats about countless women being beaten by men on Superbowl Sunday, and which gave forum for the ridiculous and frightening “1 in 4 will be raped” figure – which resulted from a questionnaire administered to a self-selected and tiny sample of Ms Magazine readers – where the editors ended up deliberately changing the respondents’ answers anyway to better fit their thesis. To this day, you will find those frightening and incredible statistics cross-propogating to nearly any feminist rape victim advocacy group in North America – under the guise of “empowerment”. We’ve all heard them, but few know how they were actually created.

Oprah has done some good work, but her publicity liaisons are/were not equipped to properly vet the sociological research that used to be trotted out by social advocacy groups and their flacks across her show in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia...ya I wrote that, and fully stand by it....don't hit people...it was taught in kindergarten!

[Antonia]

Wow great discussion.

Couple of points:

Libby, you're right. Anger management is not the answer, at least not always. I do acknowledge the control issues. That plus how research shows that most men who kill their spouses do so when they are depressed. It's a security/ego thing. They are rejected. No wonder they often commit suicide after.

Mozo, those are my words. As somebody who has been in two bad relationships, and who has been stalked by a spurned ex, I speak from experience.

[Paul]

Sebastian, I'm 38, not much younger than you. I was in Women's Studies electives in the early 90's, and ran with a Liberal Arts crowd well after.

Now, just as then, criticism of feminist rhetoric is either dismissed as "backlash", or dismissed as "fringe". It's much easier than engaging the argument.

Feminists are quick to claim the benefits of prior progressive politics thinkers as their own (ie Mary Wollstonecraft, Virgina Woolf) and just as fast to scatter when criticim hits them square - It's like punching water. It's always a finger pointing game where a chorus of feminists say "That's not MY feminism!" Well whose is it then?

If the so-called mainstream feminists are unable or unwilling to dissaccociate themselves from the "fringe element" of bad feminists who speak for them, then we are better off without the movement altogether. Essentially, that's what's happening now - it's the reason why the "mainstream" has abandoned it as a dirty word. They aren't deluded, or disrespectful to what's gone before... they are right! Feminism isn't the first 40 year old revolution to end up becoming what it hated.

Yes, some gains have been made across the 90's thanks to the work of sociologists and cultural theorists like christina Hoff Sommers, and the incredible work from Canadian sociologist Dr John Fekete, but these outmoded advocacy theories still squat over victim support groups, defending their turf like pitbulls. They manage government portfolios. The are contracted by StatsCan to do violence studies, such as the disgraceful PanCan study - which then was and is used to inform our government policies. This isn't something that happened a long time ago - they have an effect on our government right now, and they were fast tracked into tenure positions in lib arts programs at our universities, where they continue to foist their dogma. Neither women or men are particularly well served by them. Just last year, The Star ran another article on Marc Lepine day about candlelight vigils for mens violence against women in Guelph, and routinely, they get as much or more coverage than Rememberance Day. There have been many school shootemups since then- did they fire up a candle for them?

You also seem to misunderstand my usage of the word "chauvanism". I don't mean it in the sense of "reverse sexism" -as you indicated in the examples you provided and as we often see in the posts of MensRightsNow on this blog. This isn't a case of Queen for a day where we sex our chickens and then try to see who can rack up the biggest loser score.

No, I mean it in the sense of how women's advocacy as it is practiced today is directly subverting the gains for women that were fought for and won by the activists of the 60's and early 70's, before the feminists jumped in bed with the Right Wing Moral Majority. By mollycoddling women, by encouraging men and women to lower our expectations of what women are capable of, the full range of human behavior and performance, by treating them as infants in the eyes of the law, in sexuality, in job performance, in conflict - treating them that way demeans and dimishes women. This is what women fought AGAINST, when they realized they were better than that, and that being better than that, they deserved respect. You can't have equal respect without having equal responsibility. Which is why I look at issues like domestic violence - where feminists tolerate a lower standard of behavior from women - as being harmful to women.

The lesson from feminists is that it's ok for women to hit first rather than talking, because they'll have your back - because women don't need to be concerned with accountability in this regard. That's shameful, and moreover, it's not the way violent relationships actually work - so it's a poor armour when they start the fisticuffs. That message doesn't help women, and if taken to heart, puts them in danger.

[sooey]

And there you have it, Antonia - Feminists are to blame when women get beat up by men.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"before the feminists jumped in bed with the Right Wing Moral Majority."

Saint Paul,

Oh come, come. Feminists will ally with the most extreme types of Islam before being seen in the same dimension as the "Right Wing Moral Majority" - to the ultimate detriment of us all.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

I agree. Perhaps those young women who publicly, loudly, disassociate themselves from Feminism are not as silly, naive or self-centered as they first appear. They may very well have at least an intuitive understanding that a revolution has a best before date, and it is time for Feminists to move on, and whole-heartedly join a larger movement fighting for improved consciousness and human rights.

I think the very fact that people talk about a 40-year revolution is a sign that something is not quite right. A revolution is one -relatively - short sharp shock, and what we have seen, post-70's is a sad post-revolutionary stasis.

BTW, I used the word "Chauvinism" with no reference to your usage. I understand chauvinism to mean the belief that one group, usually "one's" group, is superior to others. My impression is that the practical applications of Feminism in the 70's (when regular working women, moms, etc., began expressing Feminist principles in their real lives) resulted in female chauvinism - the belief that women are superior to men.

[Adam]

It's an interesting scenario spread across the news lately, and it seems both members are in the wrong. Antonia, abuse is abuse. Chris Brown may have put her in the hospital, but it's much the same as a continuous stream of slaps/kicks/punches/etc. and verbal abuse that while not worth going to the hospital for, are very serious. Both of these 'artists' need help.

I also have a bit of an issue with parts of this paragraph:
"Girls, if he is mean to you once, he will be mean to you again. If he makes you feel bad about yourself, he does not love you. If he makes demands on you that make you feel guilty for not meeting -- like not spending more time with him instead of your friends -- he is unreasonable and controlling. "

I don't know if you were just writing on emotions or whatever, but that's pretty much 100% ridiculous(at least, if taking into consideration about 40 of the 56 girls I know well). There's not much use in talking about absolutes in situations were subjectivity is involved. I'm sure you'd say the same about women, so it's not like I'm calling you out on a bias or anything. Just wondering how you can honestly say that when, (for instance, just using one example of a personality trait) there are enough people in the world who have self-conscious tendencies, and the above would play on those often baseless fears and anxieties.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Feminists are to blame when women get beat up by men."

Sooey Sweetie,

That's only the tip of the iceberg.

[Chris]

"Feminists are to blame when women get beat up by men"

Where'd you read that? They seem to have some very reasonable points which you attempt to side step with this simple one liner.

[Paul]

Sooey, it is an axiom of feminist violence advocacy that "understanding the problem" will take us closer to correcting it. Surely you've listened to the holy violence stats chanted from a loudspeaker while lighting up your candle, or read one of the pamphlets, yes? "Knowledge is empowering" or some such.

Well, what is willful ignorance then? Once you get outside of the Womyn's Studies, the rest of the world generally thinks you can't have it both ways.

1. The domestic violence studies that examine both genders (as opposed to one) find that women and men initiate violence at every level of severity at an equivalent rate. (planned lethal violence is very rare at a sociological scale - and when women make the decision to do it - they often involve a male to do it for them, which means it is underreported).

2. The domestic violence studies that examine same sex relationships find that gays and lesbians initiate violence at the same rate as men and women in hetero couples.

These two points, especially the latter (given the lesbian association with the feminist movement and women's victim's advocacy), debunk the age old script of men beating women - or rather - recontextualize it in such a way as to reveal the gender assumption to be an irrelevant factor. These data have been available since the early 90's, and they simply are incompatible with the feminist script to which you - and most feminists - subscribe.

Feminist advocacy that perpetuates domestic violence as a gender war *obfuscates* the issue of domestic violence, and in many cases, deliberately so.

It seems, with those studies in mind, the white ribbon script is more effective at misandry than it is with helping victims of violence - even female ones. What can possibly be served by dividing the efforts of anti-violence advocacy in an irrelevant way?

So yes, Sooey, the longer feminists continue to be willfully obtuse in perpetuating gender hatred while leading us away from understanding this social pathology - the longer this problem will continue. Feminism's outdated and obtuse anti-violence advocacy script is most certainly perpetuates this problem, especially when they work so hard to silence anyone who appeals for a more effective approach. And yes, that would include a more effective approach *for women*.

[mozo]

Mozo, those are my words. As somebody who has been in two bad relationships, and who has been stalked by a spurned ex, I speak from experience.

Antonia, although I agree that the initial situations you describe all have the potential to lead to the outcomes, I still feel the statements are simplistic, and in this blog you have plenty of space to expand your arguments.

Speaking from my experience I have on more than one occasion not left a female companion when she asked because I was worried about her safety. She was in a severe depressive state. Should I therefore conclude that all women asking to be left alone are depressed and capable of self-harm?

[mozo]

You know, if you take Paul's post on March 16 at 11:13 am and substitute the word "capitalist" for "feminist" or "female" we may have a new socialist dialectic.

[Paul]

--"If he makes you feel bad about yourself, he does not love you."

As a teen, cautioned my girlfriend about her substance abuse, about a rough crowd of older guys she was hanging with, and about the consequences of her bulemia. In my twenties, I lingered in a Gong Show of a relationship with a gorgeous woman who cheated on me monthly (though I stayed, thinking each time it would be different). In both relationships, there were discussions that, in one way or another, were interpreted as "me, making them feel badly about themselves". Should these women have been concerned? Criticism often makes us feel badly about ourselves - especially when it is warranted. It can also be an indicator of care. In a lot of cases, it's just easier to walk away.

"--If he makes demands on you that make you feel guilty for not meeting -- like not spending more time with him instead of your friends -- he is unreasonable and controlling."

Depends on whether his demand is unreasonable in the context of the relationship and the behaviors, don't you think? If my wife spent every weekend out and away from me - I would likely demand that she show up for the relationship.

"--If he hits you once, he will hit you again. If he won't go away when you want him to go away, he will stalk you."

Here, the general advice holds true in most cases, notwithstanding certain ones such as mozo suggested.

[Antonia]

Mozo, again, about the situations I outline. Yes, I could have expanded and expanded on them. But i don't think anybody is reading this blog for psych advice. I think my general points, like Paul says, have been made.