[glichman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...kdown.html

Bullying husbands who make their partners' lives a misery through emotional insults face up to 14 years in prison under a new crackdown on domestic abuse, Theresa May is expected to announce.
The Home Secretary is considering new powers which will put psychological abuse on a par with physical violence in the home, it was reported today.
Partners who use controlling behaviour, as well as violence, to subject their partners to a life of misery could be convicted of 'coercive control'.

Earlier this year a Labour frontbench MP suggested that husbands who constantly criticise their wives over their weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse.

I wonder if this law covers both sexes.

[Suits]

(11-25-2014 05:05 AM)glichman Wrote:  

I wonder if this law covers both sexes.

Nope.

[Mage]

Yo mama so fat your daddy got life!

[Mage]

(11-25-2014 05:05 AM)glichman Wrote:  

I wonder if this law covers both sexes.

That would be terribly misogynist.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Things are spiraling out of control at a rapid pace. 5 years ago I would have laughed at anyone who told me that such a law might one day be even suggested, let alone seriously implemented.

[Foolsgo1d]

Yo mama so fat that when she did a 360 her hubby did a life stint.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I've said this before, but I'll say it more articulately again. It's an explanation of why it's natural for men say things like "Your butt looks big" and how it actually benefits women.

1). My dad: Total asshole about my mother's weight and style. She "hated" him for it and always felt "pressured" to look good. But...she's in her mid-70s now, in perfect shape, and looks 50. Guys younger than me flirt with her. My folks just celebrated their 50th anniversary.

2). Me: Totally understanding when my ex-wife put on weight. The weight caused a myriad of health problems. One problem spiraled out of control. She ended up on disability. This caused a domino effect of more problems. Marriage eventually ended and she now looks way, way older than she is.

When all is said and done, who was really the better husband? The jerk or the nice guy? I'd say my dad comes out the winner here.

A law like this, if passed, will prove disastrous because of something I learned too late (but our granddads knew naturally). The role of husband and father is in part to be resident ass-kicker. Don't get fat! Don't quit the team! Better get into a good college -- or else.

Men might be hated for this while they do it, but in hindsight, they're often right. Take this role away from men, and you're left with someone who sits idly by and doesn't take charge when things fall apart. What man will want to sign up to be in a situation where he's the bit player in his own life?

And, finally, this all falls under something I've mentioned that I think we need to define: The criminalization of manhood. We should make a list at Return of Kings of all the things men enjoyed years ago that are either now illegal or socially unacceptable.

[Phoenix]

Lol, I can't remember the last time I heard the English pass a law that was good. However, they do keep passing laws.
Give it a few more decades and I think England is going to be a complete hell hole. Maybe even 'mad max' levels.

[Captain Gh]

I think I'll start to have nightmares about that dailymail.co web address!! Everytime I'm checking things out here and see this web address it's some bullshit story!

[Lemmo]

(11-25-2014 06:27 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I've said this before, but I'll say it more articulately again. It's an explanation of why it's natural for men say things like "Your butt looks big" and how it actually benefits women.

1). My dad: Total asshole about my mother's weight and style. She "hated" him for it and always felt "pressured" to look good. But...she's in her mid-70s now, in perfect shape, and looks 50. Guys younger than me flirt with her. My folks just celebrated their 50th anniversary.

2). Me: Totally understanding when my ex-wife put on weight. The weight caused a myriad of health problems. One problem spiraled out of control. She ended up on disability. This caused a domino effect of more problems. Marriage eventually ended and she now looks way, way older than she is.

When all is said and done, who was really the better husband? The jerk or the nice guy? I'd say my dad comes out the winner here.

A law like this, if passed, will prove disastrous because of something I learned too late (but our granddads knew naturally). The role of husband and father is in part to be resident ass-kicker. Don't get fat! Don't quit the team! Better get into a good college -- or else.

Men might be hated for this while they do it, but in hindsight, they're often right. Take this role away from men, and you're left with someone who sits idly by and doesn't take charge when things fall apart. What man will want to sign up to be in a situation where he's the bit player in his own life?

And, finally, this all falls under something I've mentioned that I think we need to define: The criminalization of manhood. We should make a list at Return of Kings of all the things men enjoyed years ago that are either now illegal or socially unacceptable.

If we've gotten to the point where we have to consider positive effects of criticizing a woman, we've already lost the argument. Any man should be free to call any woman a fat slob or worse with no legal consequences. If speech this trivial is criminalized, you no longer live in a free society.

They are also essentially outlawing marriage (probably a good thing) since, in addition to now having the power to divorce a man and seize his assets at her whim, the wife now has the power to have him jailed if he dares to utter a critical word. The UK seems to be abandoning any pretense that marriage is something other than male slavery.

[scorpion]

To build off of DOBA's post, I ask: in the end, what's the difference between a totally permissive husband/father and a husband/father who isn't there at all?

In either case the wife and children will be free to do whatever they want without the corrective guidance and reproach of the man of the house.

So basically, a husband/father who can't discipline his children (see: child abuse hysteria, Adrian Peterson, etc...) and who can't even verbally admonish his wife (this law) might as well be an absentee father in terms of his effectiveness.

What are we to assume? The single-mother epidemic has been so effective in destroying society that our hostile elites have decided that even men who do stick around to be husbands and fathers should be legally neutered in order to render their families essentially fatherless anyway. The goal is for all children to grow up without strong father figures, to render the entire population broken and emotionally stunted, and hence easy to manipulate and control, and willing to consume tons of material goods to fill the void in their souls.

[sixsix]

The left is winning. Their clearly stated goals of destroying the traditional family and Western society are quickly and surely being reached. From an article, previously discussed here, about Marxist Feminism:

Quote:

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Having an argument is now emotional abuse.

Telling a lie during seduction is now rape.

Funny thing is, women are more emotionally abusive by a long shot.

They're a lot smarter or intuitive than men, when it comes to psychological manipulation. They primarily get what they want by nagging their beta husbands or boyfriends.

This is the complete infusion of personal relationships with governmental oversight. It is beyond crazy that someone thought about it, suggested it, and it being actually accepted. I wonder how this plays out.

[Troll King]

Marriage is retirement for women. Simple solution: DO NOT MARRY!

If you want kids, knock a couple women up and pay child support. If you can be there for them, great. If not, oh well.

[Sonsowey]

At least we have the first ammendment here.

[glichman]

Quote:

They're a lot smarter or intuitive than men, when it comes to psychological manipulation. They primarily get what they want by nagging their beta husbands or boyfriends.

Has a woman's ability been dissected/defined on the manosphere, of their ability to psychological manipulate men, simply with words. I guess I'm talking 'shit tests'.

I've suffered this for years but I still can't define it. If I raise my voice it's abusive and so on, its easy for her to raise as a defect (you are this, you do that).

How do your define - her going on and on and on until you want to rip your ears off so you do not have to listen anymore. At a superficial level its 'nagging' but its much more than that.

[Sp5]

What is especially bad about it is that there is no limitations period.

So she can bring up "controlling" behavior from ten years ago.

Plus, what is "coercive financial control" if she's not working, or making less than you? Does that mean she can spend as much as she wants?

"Verbal abuse?"

I can't imagine how they could prosecute this unless there was another crime, like threats and violence involved.

In the USA, this law would not be possible - too vague for due process and covers constitutionally protected stuff..

[jimukr104]

Quote:

In the USA, this law would not be possible - too vague for due process and covers constitutionally protected stuff.

True..too many religious fanatics here as well.

In wedding vows doesn't women say they will obey?

Also a marriage is a partnership..in partnerships the other can veto how money is spent. By making this law they are basically admitting that money isn't marital property. This can backfire.

I can see divorce lawyers in the future saying that women have NO RIGHT to any of guys assets due to the fact that she has complete control over her own money.

Canada is next... they are more socialist feminists then even UK. Thank god the republicans are taking back the gov't and Obuma has 2 yrs left.

So if she refuses sex and it makes me feel bad and fearful..can I get her arrested?

If she says my cock is small/smaller can I get her arrested?

I figured out their plan. Remember what i said it is the corporate elites that support and promote this BS. By reducing the birth rate , countries will have to allow more immigration. UK immigration from 3rd world countries means cheaper labor costs.
Politicians win by being bought by the corporations and getting favorable votes by the new immigrants that they supported.

Marriage becomes obsolete in the middle class so more independent consumers. In
20 years after the bill becomes law , you will have to deal with living in a country where the new adults were all babies of he lower poor immigrant class.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I think that the law is coming everywhere - the US constitution is long gone in practice.

The youtube account calls itself "THIS IS ABUSE", meaning that women have to actually be educated about what is really abuse or what is not.

Of course most women engage in far worse verbal abuse. But as Scorpion pointed out - it essentially neuters husbands even if he is around.

Destruction of the family going on as planned..... via laws, indoctrination etc.

[ABCDEFGH]

If a woman is getting "emotionally insulted" in a serious way then she should just get out of the relationship. Simple as that. If she sticks around long enough to give a man 14 years in jail (or any jail time really) then she only has herself and/or the authorities to blame. So I would say that means jail time for this offence can never be justified.

[kaotic]

(11-25-2014 11:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

At least we have the first ammendment here.

Yeah....until SJW's get ahold of you.

Allowing only PC speech is NOT freedom of speech.

Unfiltered speech is a "hate crime".

Saying hello to a girl is "abuse and assault"

Calling someone out online for lying is "bullying"

Telling the truth is "spinning a story"

[Foolsgo1d]

Video has comments disabled. How fitting. I wonder if the male half of the abusive relationships that go unheard of and laughed at had anything to do with it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(11-25-2014 03:12 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Video has comments disabled. How fitting. I wonder if the male half of the abusive relationships that go unheard of and laughed at had anything to do with it.

Not allowing comments on a video is admitting "We don't have a good argument and know we'll get major criticism, so we're silencing everyone."

Here is how you can get undermine that:

1). Get Video Download Helper if you have Firefox or Video Cache View if you don't.

2). Use these programs to download their video.

3). Then put it back up on YouTube or DailyMotion with the same title -- but add some commentary like a spoken word intro so you're not just ripping them off. See what happens in the comments section.

[zaqan]

(11-25-2014 11:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

At least we have the first ammendment here.

And to think they werent sure if it was necessary.

The UK has basically become a democratized absolute monarchy. Its the same unlimited power that King John abused, but now its legitimized with elections. Thats why the UK has become so totalitarian.

[Frank Rook]

If only the femos spent all that energy looking for ways to be offended converted into actually building stuff..