What are some ways to end child abuse?

Answered Dec 26, 1019

I will list individual methods, and then general methods.

Individual

  • Turn eighteen years old, and walk right on out the door. And zero further in-person interactions with the abuser. Or better yet, no interactions of any kind.
  • Some abusers will continue after the “child” is of legal age, so it becomes adult abuse. The sense of entitlement never stops.
  • The child becomes old enough to notify police, child protective services, schoolteachers, doctors, etc. Although some do so, and still don’t receive help.
  • The child becomes physically larger and stronger than the abuser. Either actually defending themselves, or at least putting the abuser in fear. That is all some people comprehend.
  • In a two-parent family, the other parent needs to stop looking the other way, and protect their children. The same applies to other relatives.
  • A neighbour can call police or child protection agency. Although this doesn’t guarantee anything will be done.

General

  • Sex education. Teach teenagers (starting from maybe age twelve) how babies are made. And how to avoid making them. Include discussion of the heavy consequences of having unplanned children.
  • Teach teenagers (starting from maybe age twelve) that, they should NOT have dating/partner relationships with abusers. Many children are abused by baby-daddies, stepfathers, or random guys that the mother allows into the home. Many abusive relationshits result in unplanned children.
  • Contraception. Either single-use, long-term, or permanent. Universally available. With sliding scale cost, down to free. If the person is on welfare, offer them a payment to get an implant or sterilisation.
  • Stop the societal assumption and pressure that everyone “must” have children.
  • School monitoring could improve. Start with a default assumption that, any random child IS being abused.
  • All child emergency department presentations should have strong focus on abuse. Did she really fall down the stairs, or was her mother beating her?
  • A big, big issue is to stop the pervasive denial that, mothers are magically sweet and innocent. Maternal abuse and neglect is actually the biggest problem. Stop with the idea that “mommy” is pure and innocent. This would require females to cut their own umbilical cord to their mothers.
  • Monitoring of reported abusers. There are mothers who have already had their children taken away, and the pop out another one, to abuse.
  • Monitoring of home-schooling. This is an efficient way to isolate children, and get away with abuse.
  • Stop blaming child abuse survivors, and treating them like liars, or like they provoked the abuse.
  • Stop minimising abuse. And stop with the plausible deniability that, a parent hitting a child is just good loving discipline for bad behaviour by the child.
  • A large-scale comparison of how, a man punching his wife in the face is horrible, but a woman punching her child is somehow acceptable.
  • If you don’t want your children taken away, then quit beating your children.

None of these general points will ever happen.

And child abuse will continue. And the denial, and victim-blaming, and mommy-worship, will continue.

Why do Canadian and American law officials only use North American vehicles? Why don’t they drive foreign cars?

Updated Nov 20, 2019

Back in the early 90s, I asked a Southern California police officer why all of their new cars were the goofy-looking Chevrolet Caprice. Previously, there was a mix of earlier, boxy-looking Caprice, and also the Ford Crown Victoria.

He said that, by that point, the Chevy was the only model available with a “police package”. This meant a certain engine, plus a stronger wheel suspension, and stronger electrical system. There might have been a different automatic transmission system.

He called it the, “Shamu-mobile”.

What’s something you can’t believe you had to explain to another adult?

Updated Fri, Dec 27, 2019

So many things I have found myself explaining to (alleged) adults…

  • It is possible for an adult to live someplace that is a long distance from the town where they were born, or from anywhere they lived as a child. Actually living in that place, not merely a brief, temporary vacation.
  • Extended from the previous item, it is possible for an adult to pack up and move to a new town, city, state/province, or even country. To actually live, not a vacation.
  • The US military has a pervasive practice of requiring servicemembers (and, by extension, their children) to pack up and move to new places, long distances, repeatedly. It is normal within the context.
  • There are other job fields involving high rates of geographic mobility. Which results in children becoming accustomed to the concept of relocation.
  • When an adult relocates to another country, she will generally continue speaking with an accent from her original country. It doesn’t instantly change, and she isn’t obligated to change it. She gets tired of hearing, “You have an accent” over and over. Also, claiming that, native-born New Zealanders don’t speak with any accent is totally ignorant.
  • Some people’s parents don’t live together. Or anywhere near each other.
  • If you are eighteen, and your mother is moving to rural NothingTown, with very poor job prospects, it is reasonable and legitimate to move a long distance to your father, who lives in a city with much better job prospects. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is the mature, responsible thing for some people to do.
  • There are eighteen-year-olds who are mature and responsible enough to be living completely independently of their parents, voluntarily. Working, paying the rent, etc. And, being eighteen, they are legally adults, and within their rights to act like it. Some people have to start supporting themselves younger than that.
  • It is possible for an adult to live a long distance from her mother, and to be quite satisfied with that situation.
  • Extended from previous item, it is possible for an adult to permanently refuse any contact of any kind with her mother. And to be quite satisfied with that situation.
  • There are mothers who don’t love their children. There are mothers who physically beat their children in a manner that constitutes a crime. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate, and make you into a moral accomplice to the abuse.
  • It is possible to travel to an unfamiliar area, whether across town, or to a new city. And to navigate one’s self, without another person giving directions. This involves the use of a thing called a map, which some people actually possess the basic skill to use.
  • Rubbish and recycling pickup may be scheduled for very early in the morning (so the truck is no longer blocking the street by the time people are driving to work). A neighbour knew this, since she stated that, she had attempted to put her rubbish out on the way to work, but the truck had already been past. It happened at least twice. She saw me placing my rubbish out on the evening before pickup day, and said, “That’s a really good idea”. She hadn’t bothered to read the printing on the official council bags that said you could put them out starting 5PM the evening before. She was in her 40s, and my guess had been dependent on her now-former husband for this simple task and knowledge.
  • When at a retail store, you may need to wait your turn in line to checkout. Barging up to the counter, demanding that the cashier stop in the middle of a transaction with the person ahead of you, and let you proceed first, is unrealistic.
  • There are jobs that pay more than minimum wage. Often in exchange for more than minimum effort, skills, and attitude.
  • There are jobs that pay for more than 8 hours x 5 days/week of work. This is perfectly legal (with some safety limitations, e.g. transportation), and there are employees who are actually willing to do this. The fact that you aren’t willing to do so is irrelevant.
  • There are jobs (e.g. courier services) that involve physically going to different locations throughout the day. Including on-demand orders, without any fixed route or pre-set itinerary. The worker may even go to locations that she has never been to previously (see item regarding maps). The fact that you cannot psychologically handle such a job is irrelevant.
  • There are jobs that pay on productivity (commission, piecework, etc), without any hourly wage. And, with some of these jobs, it is possible to earn enough money to support one’s self. The fact that you don’t feel willing or able to do so is irrelevant.
  • Even on an hourly wage, it is reasonable that an employer will expect you get a commensurate dollar-value worth of work done. There isn’t any rule requiring them to pay you to just show up and sit around all day long.
  • There are jobs that involve working at night, so the person must sleep during the day. Calling them on the phone in the daytime, and being informed that you woke them from sleep, does not somehow indicate that they are lazy.
  • Generally, a telephone is not a leash for you to randomly jerk. If you call an acquaintance, or your “booty-call” person, without prior agreement, you might receive the voicemail, for a variety of reasons. Acting offended or victimsed is inappropriate.
  • Depending on income and expenses, it is possible to put a portion of one’s income into a savings account, and leave it there. Then gradually build up savings over time. Without just compulsively spending every dollar between paycheques.
  • When someone requires her car to get to work, or during the workday, she should prioritise finances to keep it running. Saving aside money for the next possible repair does not mean she “wants” the car to break down. It also does not mean she chooses to be constantly miserable.
  • Buying lottery tickets is a very poor strategy for attempting to improve one’s finances, or to pursue financial goals. Claiming that it is the only viable strategy, and denigrating someone who doesn’t buy lottery tickets is inappropriate.
  • Some people live in bad neighbourhoods because they are working poor with a low income. Not because they are somehow bad people who enjoy the atmosphere. Not everyone can afford to live in a nice, middle-class neighbourhood.
  • There are adults who can not simply call the Bank Of Mommy And Daddy for a withdrawal anytime they are short on cash. And this does not automatically make them bad people.
  • There are people who don’t use any recreational/addictive drugs, and don’t drink alcohol to excess.
  • When you openly throw large numbers of cigarette butts around the outside of a small apartment building, your neighbours have the right to react negatively. This includes when your butts keep landing in your neighbour’s vegetable garden. When you flick still-burning butts onto the grass, you are creating a fire hazard. Don’t lie and claim that they aren’t your butts, when you do it openly, are the only person in the building who smokes, and there is a trail from your parking space to your door.
  • Some people have views on religion that are different to yours. For example, some don’t believe in any god or afterlife. And that doesn’t automatically make them evil or dangerous.
  • People have the right to refuse to have sex with you. In a specific manner, on a specific occasion, or at all. They have the right to assert boundaries (sexual or otherwise) within a sexual relationship, including the right to unilaterally terminate the relationship. I once explained this to a middle-aged woman, who still refused to understand.
  • Within a relationship, a person has the right to respond negatively when you attempt sexual coercion or assault. Including dumping you to prevent a repeat.
  • Ordering your sex partner (“booty-call”) to barge into her doctor’s office, and coerce a prescription for magical breast-enlargement pills is inappropriate. She isn’t somehow victimsing you by refusing to comply with this demand.
  • There are some females who sexually abuse and assault (sexually and/or non-sexually) their female partners. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate, and make you into a moral accomplice to the abuse.
  • There are people who socialise and try to meet new people for platonic friendships, and not necessarily for sexual relationships.
  • People have the right to refuse to be friends with someone they don’t like.
  • If you want to establish or maintain a friendship or relationship, it is reasonable that you will be required to contribute positively to the other person’s life. And required to not use or abuse them. See previous items.
  • When meeting a new person socially, immediately saying, “I can only talk to you if you promise that, anytime I tell you to do something, you will do it”, is a very poor strategy for making new friends.
  • Empathy, kindness, openness, and generosity are not a deliberate invitation to use and abuse the person. Those things are also limited, and may be exhausted or withdrawn.
  • It is reasonable to pay one’s credit card and other bills, in order to maintain a positive credit history, which is a valuable thing to have.
  • In a classroom full of adult students, it is reasonable to expect them to behave in a civilised, respectful manner. Such a not continuously carrying on irrelevant conversations at the top of their lungs. A more civilised student has the right to respond negatively to out-of-control classmates who degrade the education for which she is paying in money/time/stress.
  • There are people who don’t attend any formal schooling as children, and who still learn the same amounts and types of skills and information. Such as partly being taught (e.g. a parent teaching the child to read), and also by independently reading and studying.
  • Don’t physically touch an acquaintance, classmate, coworker, etc, without their consent. They have the right to respond negatively if you do this.
  • There are women who have never done sexual activity in exchange for money.
  • There are women who never have any children, and are quite satisfied with being childfree. And this is not a deliberate affront against you. There is zero obligation to have unplanned children just because somebody else did.
  • There are women who remain single (not married or partnered), without just desperately marrying/partnering with any random available person.
  • It isn’t reasonable or realistic to expect people to just hand you resources, merely because you believe that they possess those resources.
  • The fact that a person has a job does not automatically mean that they can afford to, or are obligated to, hand you any amount of cash you feel entitled to.
  • The fact that another person possesses a car does not automatically make them your personal, on-demand, free limousine.
  • When you are a passenger in a moving car, it is highly inappropriate to suddenly waive your hand in the driver’s face, so that she has to quickly jerk her head back to avoid being hit. When I was a teenager, I had to explain this to my middle-aged mother.
  • When you are living on someone else’s couch, openly abusing and threatening them is conducive to being thrown out on the street. If you don’t like the conditions, rules, or host, your recourse is to go out and find a living situation that you feel is more satisfactory.
  • When you threaten to commit a violent crime against someone, it is reasonable to expect that they will take steps to avoid that. Which may include contacting the police.
  • Physically beating someone is still a crime, even if you don’t put them in the hospital.
  • There exist people who actually will start an unprovoked confrontation with a stranger on the street, which may escalate to an unprovoked physical assault. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate.
  • If you want to reduce your future chances of arrest and incarceration, you should consider reducing the amount of idiotic crimes that you commit.
  • Your manner of dress and hairstyle will affect your chances of being hired for a job. Deliberately wearing dirty clothes, refusing to bathe daily (despite access to facilities), and stinking up the area will affect many people’s willingness to interact with you in any way.
  • If you walk into a store and attempt to steal something, the employees and owner have a reasonable position to prevent you from doing so, or to otherwise respond negatively.
  • Your drug problem is just that – yours. Other people don’t just exist to enable you.
  • If you approach a taxicab driver, wanting a free ride, it is reasonable that s/he will refuse. If you take a cab ride and then evade payment, it is reasonable for the driver to respond negatively. If s/he suspects that you are likely to do this, there are regulations stating that s/he may require an estimated payment before the trip starts.
  • There are passengers who take taxicab rides to score drugs. And, no, driving them to the police station isn’t a smart idea. And some other passengers will rob and/or assault the driver, who has the right to be paranoid.
  • It is possible and allowable for a middle-aged person to go to university.
  • It is possible for a person to learn new skills and procedures, for a new job.
  • It is viable to live in an apartment that consists of a single room plus bathroom. It is possible to sleep and to prepare food in the same room. And no, this is not somehow equivalent to living in a cardboard box on the street.
  • Stealth camping on public land, for an extended period, is a viable option for some people.
  • It is possible to resign from a job for legitimate reasons, and is not automatically lazy or irresponsible. For example, moving to another city, enrolling at university, or just getting a better job.
  • If your employer is having lowered profits, and shrinking (e.g. a retail chain that shuts down some store locations), it is perfectly legal for them to make you redundant/laid-off, and no longer employed there. You can lose your job without personally doing anything wrong, and you have zero recourse.
  • The fact that someone else feels stuck in a job they hate, or a location they don’t like, or other miserable life situation, does not obligate everyone else to set their lives up that way.
  • Openly insulting someone you just met is not a good way to make friends and receive admiration.
  • Demanding financial information, medical information, or similar private information from someone you just met socially is inappropriate.
  • A person’s money is theirs, to use in the manner that they choose, without being dictated to by some random acquaintance, such as you.
  • A person’s time, physical body (including medical care), sexuality, physical appearance, and tastes/preferences belong entirely to them, without being dictated to by some random acquaintance, such as you.
  • People have the right to walk down a public street, minding their own business. The fact that you don’t like their physical appearance is irrelevant.
  • It is viable to live without owning a television set. Including long before the World Wide Web or video streaming were invented. Even with a computer, it is viable to simply not watch mass-market television shows. There are actually other activities that can be done in one’s leisure time.
  • There are adults who voluntarily read books, nonfiction, adult-level. Some people actually enjoy reading.
  • When you blatantly lie to someone, it is reasonable that they will never trust you on that issue, or anything else.
  • The limits of your life are yours. What you have or haven’t experienced or witnessed, what you feel capable of, etc, are not the universal limits of everyone else’s life.
  • There is only one guarantee in life – that it will eventually end. Everything else involves some level of ambiguity. And that fact is not a personal vicitimisation against you.
  • Different behaviours are conducive to different results. Things don’t just “happen”.

In some cases, multiple different items above were explained to one person. Some items were explained to multiple different people.

Even when explaining these principles, some people still didn’t comprehend. Some adamantly argued, and insisted that I was the ignorant one.

Are violent people mentally sick?

Answered Oct 24, 2019

It depends on the sex of the violent person.

If a man beats his wife, then he is automatically, 100% sane, and responsible for his actions. He is an evil thug.

If a woman beats her child, then she is automatically an innocent victim, of anything and everything. Such as being labeled mentally ill. Although that is a distant third, after denial and victim-blaming.

This extends to any and all other situations where, either a man or a woman, commits physical violence.

Why are there so many homeless people in San Francisco?

Updated Oct 8, 2019

It’s partly about two physical layout issues – one general, and one specific. Plus a perceptual issue.

San Francisco is very compact and crowded. Lots of very different people, crammed into a relatively small space. Many of whom take public transport, and also walk around. This includes tourists and other visitors.

Walk down Market Street during the daytime. You will see a large number of people, of all kinds. You won’t necessarily really register and remember the large number of yuppies, hipsters, tourists, etc that you pass by. But, disheveled-looking bums hanging around, aggressive beggars, visible drug use, urination, etc, will make a much stronger impression. Even if that is a relatively small per-capita percentage of the city’s population.

Compare that to a view of Los Angeles, where everything and everyone is spread out. And that view may also be through the windows of a car (including if you are a tourist or other visitor).

Next is the specific location of homeless services, such as soup kitchens, and many of the SRO buildings that San Francisco uses to warehouse the homeless and borderline-homeless. And, of course, some of the street corners where you can openly buy crack and heroin. You can also do various activities such as sleeping or defecating on the sidewalk, without being in front of the homes of any yuppies who might complain to police. This concentration is a charming neighbourhood called the Tenderloin district.

The Tenderloin is conveniently located a very short walk from Market Street. Including the Market and Powell cable car turnaround, which attracts large numbers of tourists. It’s also next to the Financial District, as well as the areas where a visitor might pass through on the way to Chinatown and to North Beach. Spare any change?

In contrast, the Los Angeles Skid Row district (with soup kitchens, shelters, etc) is located very far away from LA’s tourist attractions and other places for visitors. It is also segregated from the middle class, affluent, and struggling-hipster residential neighborhoods.

This leads to a difference of exposure.

With that said, I also agree with many of the other factors in the other answers here.

At what age, and how, did you come to realize your mother is abusive and different than most other mothers?

Updated Jul 24, 2019

These are two different questions/issues.

Age 11, when she directly stated that she beat all three of her children not for discipline”, but rather, because it “made (her) feel better”.

I figured out, after years of violence… “She isn’t beating me because I’m a bad person … But rather, because she is a bad person”.

Years later, when I was twenty, I learned about the massive denial, victim-blaming taboo that is endemic among women.

I naively assumed that, the average adult woman had awareness and understanding of the pervasive reality of maternal child abuse.

It was at that age that I learned that, females who didn’t experience maternal child abuse are all in a state of denial and victim-blaming. Non-survivors live in a fantasy-world. And that was a realisation almost as profound as the realisation of my mother’s abusive nature.

Those people are effectively accomplices to the abuse. And, due to their numbers and pervasiveness, cannot be jettisoned with anything near the ease that the one direct abuser was dismissed from my life when I was eighteen.

What do I do to make a guy in his early twenties understand consent?

Answered Jan 8, 2019

Here is one of the most important life lessons I’ve had.

If an adult, of any age, male or female, doesn’t understand or respect consent by the time I meet them, they are never going to do so. And there is absolutely nothing that I can say or do to teach them.

If an adult, of any age, male or female, doesn’t understand that, bad behaviour leads to bad consequences, by the time I meet them, they are never going to do so. And I cannot teach them, even by imposing those consequences.

I’ve also learned that, it doesn’t really matter whether the person can or cannot “understand” consent. What matters is that they don’t care.

In looking back on certain interactions, I would find myself saying things like:

  • Sometimes, you are going to want something, and my answer will be “no”, and you will just have to accept that.
  • I have the right to say “no”, and other people have the right to say “no” to you. I, and they, aren’t victimising you, just because you feel disappointed, hurt, or angry.
  • Sometimes, you are going to want something, and you will have to wait for it, rather than expecting immediate compliance.
  • Complying with a demand in the past is not a promise to comply with that same (or any other) demand in the future. Each time you want something, you will need to separately ask (not demand). With the understanding that, this particular request might be denied.
  • Different behaviours will lead to different consequences. Coercive and abusive behaviour will lead to consequences that you don’t like.
  • I have repeatedly, consistently, clearly, and firmly said “no” to this demand. Why are are treating me exactly as if I said “yes”?
  • I don’t see the situation the same as you see it. And I don’t view the “rules” of relationships/friendships the same as you view them.
  • Your belief that you “need” something, or the fact that you fantasized about me giving/doing/tolerating doesn’t create any kind of promise by me, or obligation.
  • My money, physical possessions, physical body, and time belong to me, not you.
  • The fact that you “can’t” control your behaviour, doesn’t require me to stick around and tolerate it. My rules, limits, and boundaries don’t magically disappear just because you “can’t” respect them.
  • Telling me that my boundaries are dysfunctional doesn’t constitute an entitlement to violate them.
  • My primary responsibility doesn’t revolve around complying with your demands. My primary responsibility is take care of my own needs, including my own financial self-support, and my own physical safety. That includes the responsibility to stay away from parasites and abusers. Because allowing some people into my life is like deliberately getting into a cage with a large, rabid animal.
  • The subject of this conversation is consent. And how you behave when I say “no” to you. This conversation is not about pestering or gaslighting me into saying “yes”.
  • You need to accept the limits and boundaries I set for what I will give/do/tolerate. And if you can’t or won’t, then the limits and boundaries will become even more restrictive, up to ceasing all contact. Accept what is offered, or you will get nothing at all from me.
  • I don’t have to be in this relationship/friendship. I have the right and the ability to abandon you at any time, for any reason. Such as if you don’t start respecting my boundaries. Or even just because I don’t feel like interacting with you anymore. This is a unilateral decision to be made by me, and doesn’t require your permission.

The fact that I was in a position to even say those things to a series of adults was a huge red flag. And none of it ever worked, or led to any of them understanding anything.

Sexual consent is a very high-stakes situation. Many, many people have been guilt-tripped, gaslighted, and coerced into sex acts that they didn’t want, in the context of a relationship. Many, many people have been violently raped in the context of a relationship. This guy is waving a huge red flag of an impending assault.

A related category of red flags is the general disrespect of you making your own decisions. Including things like micromanaging your appearance. That is an early sign of serious control issues that can gradually escalate to sexual coercion and violence. I want to emphasise that, you need to take all of his red flags, and all of his arrogance and entitlement and imaginary “rules” very, very seriously.

After he rapes you, there will be nothing that you can say or do to teach him that he did something wrong. And for you, it will already be too late, because it will already have happened. And no amount of arguing will erase the permanent impact upon you.

There are people sitting in prison for rape and other violence, who still refuse to comprehend, and who see themselves as innocent victims of the situation. They still believe that they were just exercising their “right” to do whatever they want, and have zero consideration for their victims.

When getting into a new relationship, or a new platonic friendship, it is vitally important to see how the person responds to being told “no”. You cannot confidently predict this until it happens. Things might seem to be proceeding OK for weeks, as long as you have been consistently saying “yes”. And then, you come to your first refusal (e.g. “No sex tonight, because it’s late and I’m physically too tired to do it”). Or they demand a new sex act that you don’t want. And that may be the turning point when you suddenly find out their attitude about consent.

But also look for a “no” situation that doesn’t involve sex. And do so before getting sexually involved.

People of all ages, and both men and women, can totally disrespect consent. I once knew a middle-aged female who believed that she was entitled to sex on demand from female partners. She sexually assaulted at least one, and probably more, and was completely unaware that she had done anything wrong. And couldn’t even imagine anyone dumping her to prevent a repeat.

She had two views about people saying “no” to her. One was that, the person had a “hangup”, and just wouldn’t admit to secretly wanting it. The other was that, people refused because they were too stupid to understand how much fun sex in general (or particular sex acts) would be. And that, pestering, gaslighting, arguing, and eventually using physical force was either giving them what they “really” wanted, or would be justified because they would learn that they enjoy the experience.

Nothing that anyone said or did ever got through to her. She burned through relationship after relationship after relationship (or really, more like a series of “booty-call” situations). With zero ability to learn from consequences, zero inclination to honestly examine her attitudes, and zero interest in changing her behaviour. She was convinced that, everyone who said “no”, or who set boundaries, or who dumped her, was dysfunctional. And that they refused to appreciate what a great partner she was.

Like your boyfriend, she believed that, anyone saying “no” to her was an act of abuse. And a violation of the rules and promises that supposedly come with entering a relationship. She believed that, if you don’t want to be assaulted, the burden is on you to say “yes” to literally any demand.

I disagree with the suggestions of game-playing (forcing him to eat, proposing the strap-on, etc). That makes it seem like some kind of negotiation, or mutual disrespect, or fight over the subject. He very likely is completely clear about his own right to say “no” and to enforce it. Because his wants and entitlements are central to his experience of the relationship, while viewing you as existing to serve him, and give him anything and everything he demands, without limits.

I also disagree with the comment about violence (i.e. stating the intent to kill them if they try to assault you). I’ve encountered people who will completely tune out that statement, and act like they didn’t even hear it.

Many, many people view sexual relationships, or platonic friendships as a one-way deal. They are here to take, and you are here to give.

Like your boyfriend, they are adamant that, relationships and friendships have universal, obvious “rules” that you have agreed to obey, simply by getting involved. Common relationship/friendship “rules” are that:

  • You never have the right to say “no” to them. About anything.
  • You don’t have the right to set any requirements, demands, or standards of your own.
  • You don’t have the right to impose any negative consequences for their abusive behaviour.
  • You don’t have the right to ever abandon them. Or even to have any restricted availability when they demand attention.

Naturally, those rules only apply to you, and not them.

Disrespect of consent applies to many things besides sex. That’s the problem with the “cup of tea” video, which I’ve seen before. I don’t believe for one second that that video (or similar approaches) will teach these people anything.

I have received severe disrespect of my right to say “no” to all of the following:

  • Being platonic “friends” with openly abusive individuals who contribute nothing but aggravation.
  • Buying into someone’s mindless grudge against a third party.
  • Handing over cash money, any time, any amount, for any purpose.
  • Allowing someone to live rent-free in my home.
  • Being people’s free, on-demand, personal limousine.
  • Alternately, being expected to accept “offers” of being given a ride home from a social situation, getting into a car with some creepy guy I don’t know.
  • Enabling and paying for other people’s drug habits. Including committing serious crimes.
  • Being guaranteed available any time they call and want attention or a favour.
  • Living in a geographic area that I don’t want to live in. Including being told that I was obligated to spent the rest of my life in an impoverished, small-minded small town in the middle of nowhere.
  • Moving to a “nice” low-crime neighbourhood that I couldn’t afford.
  • Having ongoing contact with my abusive mother. Including being told that I “have to” live in the same town as her, or even under the same roof. While also being bullied to go around lying about what a wonderful parent she was.
  • Quitting a job, merely because the other person wouldn’t be capable/willing to do it. Or otherwise behaving badly at a job (e.g. refusing to get work done), merely because the other person would do so.
  • Remaining stuck in a minimum wage, bottom-of-the-barrel job for the rest of my working life.
  • Being told how I can and cannot spend my money.
  • Disclosing private information, such as exact income and other financial details.
  • Disclosing my physical home address to people I just met.
  • Being treated like I should have dropped out of university, without finishing a degree, merely because the other person didn’t feel capable, and wouldn’t even attempt it.
  • Being told “you will continue to attend a low-quality, unprofessional, abusive institution that I call Low Rent Polytechnic, at which I had already had a very negative experience (described in another of my answers). Including signing up for remedial courses that I didn’t need, wouldn’t benefit from, surrounded by morons, while running up a huge loan. Just because said polytechnic was desperate for students who were actually capable of passing academically. (I headed straight to a far better institution).
  • Being told that I didn’t have the right to resist (or even complain about) open, physically threatening sexual harassment, which occurred at the aforementioned polytechnic.
  • Being told that I “have to” own and watch a television, merely because somebody else can’t think of any other leisure activities.
  • Having an acquaintance dictate what kind of clothing I am allowed to wear.
  • Personal space invasions, including physical touching without my consent, by people I barely know.
  • Generally being married or partnered, including claims that I “have to”do so, even if it isn’t with the person disrespecting my consent.
  • Having children that I don’t want, and cannot afford to support.
  • Being told to completely remove myself from society, merely because some acquaintance has a massive envy problem.
  • Being told to kill myself, merely because some acquaintance has a massive envy problem. And that wasn’t just one person who did that.
  • Having an acquaintance dictate what kind of medical care I may access, involving my body and my money.

Numerous people seriously expected me to slavishly comply with those bizarre, abusive demands. I’ve had people make demands that would have obviously had disastrous consequences if I had obeyed, with zero chance of benefit to anyone. Things that weren’t at all compatible with real-world adult functioning. All the way to things that were physically impossible. I’ve had people make some of those demands in the first conversation upon meeting.

Some people lock onto a demand, and just keep repeating it over and over and over. With escalating condescension, indignation, and agitation. Thinking that, they will wear you down, and exhaust your supply of “no”, until just cave in to get the argument to stop. Some will directly tell you that they intend to relentlessly pester you on and on until you comply.

Disrespect of consent can extend to every area of life, where you are making your own choices. Many, many people have absolutely no limit to their senses of entitlement to make demands and coerce others.

It isn’t just one type of person, or one type of demand, or one type of context. It’s absolutely pervasive. And they will never, ever learn to respect your boundaries or consent, regardless of what you say or do. Which is the problem with the “cup of tea” video, and similar approaches.

Have you ever heard the two big rules for training a dog not to do some bad behaviour? You need to impose the punishment the first time, and every time. The same principle applies to most humans. If you ever cave into a coercive event (e.g. continuing to demand sex after you have said “no”), he will learn that coercion works. And he will continue, and will escalate.

By remaining in the relationship, and arguing, and fantasising about helping him to “understand consent”, you are failing to impose any real consequences, or enforce any real boundaries. The more crap you tolerate, the more crap you will receive. He interprets you staying and engaging his crap as confirming that you can’t ever leave. He interprets each argument as making progress towards his goal. Or as you failing to face the inevitability of doing what he demands. And he thinks that, it is just a matter of time before you cave in, and lose the will, or even the ability, to ever say “no” to him again.

Black-and-white thinkers require black-and-white solutions. The only workable solution is to just physically get away from the person. Refuse all further contact. Any communication will revolve around trying to get you involved again, so he can abuse you some more, and repeat his demands.

The best case scenario with dumping him is a sense of great relief, and the perspective to see how bad he is, and the empowerment of asserting your right to boundaries and consent. The worst case scenario with dumping him is that you will be single while looking for a replacement who respects you, and who is already a decent adult without needing to be taught.

The best case scenario with staying is more conflict, arguments, and disrespect, until you get so sick and tired that you then dump him. The worst case scenario with staying is a devastating act of violence which will seriously harm you for the rest of your life. Many, many women have been raped, beaten, and/or killed by guys with this attitude. And neither you nor he are special or exempt from that possibility.

How crazy is your mother?

Answered Jan 2, 1019

Everyone who actually has met my mother views her as a dangerous, mindlessly hateful sociopath.

Everyone who hasn’t met her projects their mommy-worship fantasies, and assume her to be a wonderful person. I have been persistently called a liar after describing her actual behaviour.

The most charitable interpretation of my mother is that she has stroke induced brain damage. Which causes a total lack of empathy, unprovoked rage, violence, and unrealistic expectations.

She had at least two known strokes before the age of thirty. And around age fifty, got her head scanned, and was found to have more lesions, where the brain tissue had died.

She knows that she has had multiple strokes, but has directly denied having brain damage.

She ought to have been forceably confined to a secure facility, and never released. I wouldn’t care if it was a psych ward or a prison. But she was never held accountable for any of her actions. And instead, was enabled to raise and abuse three children.

She also had very poor decision-making. As I’ve described in one of my other answers, she expected all of her children to continue living with her, after we were adults. And expected for none of us to ever be employed. And expected my father to continue sending her most of his income for the rest of her life. So effectively child support for children who were actually adults.

She also tried to gaslight me with the idea that I was severely mentally retarded, and that I lacked the minimal intelligence to ever work or live independently. I never believed this, but she persisted for years.

She has directly admitted to having criminally abused all of her children. But also refused to comprehend why anyone might form a negative opinion about this. And has also attempted to minimise or deny the severity of her behaviour. While admitting that she doesn’t remember large portions of her life.

Her level of violence had a risk of going all the way to homicide.

She has basically admitted to lacking any empathy for other human beings. And lacking any insight on the impact of chronic violence, and chronic psychological abuse.

She had a lot of violent fantasies, and loved hyper-violent war themed movies, which she would watch over and over. And would boast that her career aspiration was be employed as a mercenary soldier, because killing people would be fun. She would say this seriously, as if it were a perfectly viable and reasonable plan, and never admitted that it was just a fantasy.

She loved threatening to actually kill her children.

When I was thirteen, a neighbour tipped off the authorities, who started an abuse investigation. They were going to start sending a social worker to our home for periodic monitoring visits. She responded by grabbing all of us children, and moving to another part of the country, and even attempted to leave before my father got home from work that day. She also suggested that she was considering falsely accusing my father of molesting my sister, in order to justify running.

When I was a bit older, my sister started acting out by frequently hitting me, just because she was in a bad mood, and had learned by example. My mother told me that I was expected to tolerate it. My mentally ill brother put me in serious fear for my safety, and it was clear that my mother believed it would be perfectly acceptable if he assaulted me. A solid majority of women utterly fail to comprehend why I removed myself from that situation at eighteen.

She seriously believed that she could continue physically abusing all of her children after we were adults, and that we would just tolerate it. She toned it down somewhat after the legal investigation, and also when she noticed that my brother and I were physically bigger than her, but she never completely stopped hitting.

One time, when i was seventeen, I was driving (because she couldn’t drive), and she waved her hand in my face, just barely stopping short of repeatedly slapping me. While the car was moving, in traffic. So I had to explain to her that this was dangerous, and that she could find herself dealing with other adults if she caused a crash. She actually offered to sit in the back seat, basically acknowledging that she didn’t feel that she could control herself if I was within reach.

She has directly stated the intent to criminally abuse my sister’s children. My idiot sister still has contact with her, but set a strict rule on her kids to never be in a room alone with my mother.

While working in a rest home, she criminally abused one of the elderly residents, but managed to get away with it. And she didn’t even bother to deny this when I confronted her about it.

Both my father and my sister concur with my view that, my mother’s physical and psychological abuse was the main cause of my brother’s suicide.

If I were ever in the same room with her again, she would very possibly physically attack me.

Years ago, I spoke with my uncle (i.e. my mother’s bother), and he stated that, my mother was hateful, and prone to unprovoked violence, even when she was a child. She was born evil.

The last I heard (around 2005), my mother had the idea that I was tapping her telephone to spy on her. And she told my sister that, if I ever come anywhere near her, she will call the police, with whatever criminal accusation she can come up with, to try to cause me to be arrested/charged/incarcerated.

The entire female half of society still treats me like I am the bad person for daring to cut the umbilical cord. About fifty percent will deny that any mother would ever behave like she did. And the other fifty percent will blame me, and tell me that I caused and deserved it. I jettisoned the abusive mother many years ago, but I still have to live with the abusive society (or, again, just the female half). I’ve been told that I don’t have the right or even the ability to stay away from her.

As I said at the start of this answer, the only people who comprehend are those who have actually met my mother. And absolutely none of them want anything to do with her, either.

If you could solve any criminal cold case, which would it be and why?

Answered Dec 17

A famous case in New Zealand is the Mona Blades disappearance. Presumed dead, from either some serial killer, as alleged “punishment” for naughty behaviour, like hitchhiking, or by gang members whom she knew.

The other is the Tamam Shud case, also known as the Mystery of the Somerton Man, who died in the 1940s, in Australia.

What is your stance on transgender bathroom rights?

Updated Dec 6

This is the media click-bait de jour, it seems.

The creepy bathroom obsession is the “thin end of the wedge”.

The people fixating on this actually have a larger goal. They want to eliminate transsexual people.

And, after that, some of them want proceed on to abuse and degrade the position of females who are not transsexual. The other end of the wedge is much thicker than it might appear.

Bullying people to use public toilets with a public declaration of, “This Is The Birth Sex Of This Person” is a way of dictating that, the person hasn’t really socially transitioned to the role or position of their adopted gender.

Then, consider the issue of enforcement. If there is a confrontation, how would you verify whether a person is or isn’t legally allowed in that public toilet? The obvious answer is to demand to see their government identification.

Next, the public bullying/outing will be to change laws to remove the ability to change the sex/gender marker on driving licenses, passports, and other government identification. The US federal government is already making efforts to define legal sex as immutable and permanently set at birth.

There are also debates in the UK and New Zealand, where hostile feminists are demanding that people should not have the right to change the sex on their birth certificates, or anywhere else. They feel personally oppressed by a letter on someone else’s passport.

This identification issue will help to enable prospective employers to spot transsexual job applicants, and discriminate against them.

Here in New Zealand, driving licenses don’t have any obvious sex/gender marker (although it might be coded into the serial number somehow, and is probably in a database somewhere). However, an immigrant who must show a foreign passport and visa may be severely disadvantaged if her birth sex is listed on those.

The connection between public toilets and government identification is all about violating people’s right to privacy for deeply personal, painful, and stigmatised medical information.

Continuing with the enforcement issue, what kind of penalties would be imposed for using the “wrong” toilet? Are people going to end up with a criminal record as a sex offender (thereby further degrading their ability to be members of society, and to secure employment)? Will there be a fine that they cannot afford to pay? Jail time? And will the birth-sex bathroom issue extend to placing post-operative transsexual women in men’s jails?

There are already severe disparities among transsexual people, some of which have nothing to do with personal legitimacy, sincerity, or decency. There are randomly assigned issues, including physical ones such as height and facial features. And situational ones, such as whether a young person has a supportive family or not, as well as socioeconomic background and geographic location. These lead to disparities in how a person looks to casual observers, along with access to treatment (especially at a young age). Which also leads to disparities in the ability to function as a participant in society, such as being treated in a halfway civilised manner by other people, and the ability to secure and keep employment.

Bathroom laws would have a more severe impact on transsexual women compared to transsexual men. Partly due to differences of hormone effectiveness (and thus “passability” patterns), and partly due to differences of paranoia level. Supposedly feminist, woman-defending laws would advantage this class of men over this class of women, when there is already a general pattern of people gaining or losing social male privilege.

There are pervasive social issues concerning transsexual people’s appearances. Some people make their acceptance based on whether the person conforms to certain physical standards, including beauty standards. Others are paranoid that, a person who looks “passible” is somehow deceiving them personally, and withholding information to which the observer feels entitled. It isn’t about having sex without disclosure, and isn’t limited to toilets. There are people who think that someone doesn’t have the right to walk down a public street with an appearance that strangers interpret as opposite to their birth-sex or current genitalia.

This is an example of the general way that many people feel entitled to police public and semi-public spaces as if it were their own private space. As well as acting victimised by things that are none of their business. It connects with people who would abuse strangers for speaking a foreign language in public, or for holding hands with a same-sex partner. I have even encountered people (always females) who claimed that I didn’t have the right to appear in public places (or to be in the same room with other human beings), because I survived child abuse, or because I worked more than 40 hours per week. Because I would somehow be offending and harming total strangers who don’t even know that information. You are different to someone, or maybe they are envious in some way, and they will assert the authority to decide that you don’t get to be a member of society as a whole. There is no limit to the bizarre pettiness, arrogance, and self-defense fantasies.

For transsexual people, the quality of one’s mentality or behaviour is considered irrelevant. You could be finding life on Mars, curing cancer, solving global warming and pollution, building schools for girls in patriarchal third world countries, defending reproductive rights (that don’t benefit you, since you are sterile), working to reduce child abuse and other domestic violence, and bringing peace to the Middle East in your spare time. And many people will only want to focus on what is in your pants, what hormones and surgery you use, a letter on your birth certificate, and where you choose to urinate.

You may even be openly assigned the status of a “rapist” and predator without actually raping anyone, or harming anyone in any way. And we don’t want any “rapists” in public toilets. Including the kind of “rapist” who never actually raped anyone, and has zero intention of ever doing so. Because that is about the most sneaky, deceptive, and difficult-to-prosecute “rapist” there is.

Toilet owners probably aren’t going to put a device on the door that checks your identification, and only unlocks if it matches. And there is nothing about those “men” or “women” signs that forcibly filters who walks in.

Someone who appears female to a casual observer, goes into a stall, urinates out of anyone’s sight, flushes, washes hands, and leaves without any interaction with (or even looking in the direction of) other toilet-users, cannot reasonably be said to have victimised anyone.

Bathroom laws would be enforced based on physical appearance, not behaviour. Thus criminalising someone merely because some stranger doesn’t like the way she looks. It also places people at the mercy of whether that random stranger does or doesn’t choose to harass and confront them.

Next, since social transitioning is being eliminated, there will be efforts to create laws and regulations prohibiting doctors from prescribing cross-sex hormone treatment or surgery. This will start with underage adolescents, for sympathy, but will escalate to adult patients, with condescension. And claims of allegedly “helping” mentally incompetent people to avoid making a mistake.

Plus, we don’t want anyone medically altering her body in a way that might deceive strangers (ranging from other toilet-users, to prospective employers, to passers-by-on-the-street) about her birth-sex or genitalia. Because she “doesn’t” have any right to privacy or autonomy. And neither do you.

The proponents of bathroom laws practically admit that they are comfortable with abusing transsexual women who have done nothing to anyone, as punishment for the for the violent crimes actually (or even just potentially) committed by men. Also, I recall some American politician publicly stating that, if he had had the opportunity as a teenager to enter girls’ school bathrooms for voyeurism, he would have done so, like he thought this was cute. Project much? But ultimately, this has nothing to do with preventing fraudulent “fake trannies” from peeping or assaulting in public toilets (both of which are already illegal).

The people pushing this stuff would be quite happy to see each and every transsexual person put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.

Meanwhile, idiot transjacktivists with too much time on their hands, go on YouTube and other sites (including Quora), ranting that they can’t get laid, and pathetically trying to guilt-trip lesbians into providing sex and validation. They demonstrate massive disrespect of boundaries, consent, and females in general. Thereby feeding into the paranoia and contempt. They are disgusting, and I wouldn’t want to share any type of space with some of them.

The loudest people on that side create serious “guilt by association” for quieter ones who just want peace and privacy. Unfortunately, things have progressed to where some creepy, fetishistic dude thinks he can put “transgender woman” on his public online profile (while doing nothing more), and feels entitled to the same consideration as a sincere, shy, decent person who used permanent medical alterations, at great personal cost and suffering, to avoid suicide. This is one of the main social and political problems for transsexual people.

In this general type of debate (whether it is toilets, sex/gender markers on documents, hormones for underage minors, terminology/labels, or the general legitimacy of transsexual people), there is a lot of black-and-white thinking, and a lot of people yelling past each other, without real communication. Neither side presents themselves or their arguments well.

There is a privacy argument that, females should be free from males looking at them in a state of undress, or from the sight of a penis. Implying that there is open nudity going on in public toilets. I have never exposed (or seen) any body part in a public toilet that wouldn’t normally be visible. The partial disrobing happens inside a stall. The last communal toilet I was in had the edge of the door made so that there wasn’t any gap between it and the partition, so someone would need to look over or under. As far as I could tell, there weren’t any feminist “toilet police” there trying to check out my crotch, unless they had a hidden camera in the stall.

There is another privacy argument that, legally allowing legitimate transsexual women to access public toilets, would enable non-transsexual, cis-male predators to “put on a dress” and openly walk in without being confronted and removed. This also links to other female-designated spaces, of various types. And that, said predators would be further enabled to peep and assault (both of which are already illegal). I will withhold opinion on this, because the mentality of such predators is, by definition, irrational, and very far removed from my own mentality. I would be open seeing crime data for every dimension of this issue, including the number of incidents, and correlation to time-frame of legislation. This isn’t a dismissal – I am actually interested in seeing the numbers.

Who is the creepy pervert? The person who just wants a safe, accessible, private, appropriate facility for a normal, daily bodily function? Or some self-appointed “toilet police” obsessed with a stranger’s genitalia, that they can’t even see, who enjoys harassing members of a highly vulnerable minority?

Do the feminist bathroom-defenders want to deputise me as an enforcer? Am I expected to get one of those miniature remote-control helicopter drones with a video camera, and fly it over the partition, to verify the genitalia of the woman in the next stall, to make sure she is legal to be there? Am I expected to stand by the door all day, checking ID documents? Or conducting strip-searches, before strangers are allowed to go in and empty their bladders? How much “collateral damage” is acceptable, when I accidentally harass females who are too tall, or who fail to meet some hetero-normative femininity/beauty standards? Remind me again who is the creepy voyeur pervert?

Personally, I have always found communal toilets to be creepy in general. I want regular floor-to-ceiling walls and locking door between me and everybody else. I’m there to relieve my bladder, not to socialise. If available, I choose wheelchair-accessible toilets, for the privacy and larger space. These are often gender-neutral, and I don’t care, because I am the only person in there at the time.

There could be a simple solution right there. Single-user, gender-neutral toilets, with full-length walls and doors.

If I need to use a multi-stall toilet, I obviously don’t want someone looking in or assaulting me (both of which are already illegal).

Would I feel comfortable with a unisex multi-stall toilet or shower? No, I wouldn’t, because I don’t trust men in general in such a situation (or in many other situations). However, if another bathroom user meets my perception of being a woman (which honestly does have large appearance and “vibe” components), and is generally acting civilised, I don’t know or care what she has in her pants, or floating through her bloodstream, or on her identification documents. It doesn’t threaten me, doesn’t degrade my own social woman-status, and doesn’t affect me in any other way.

I’ve always had a personal policy of keeping my attention out of other women’s knickers, unless directly invited. Because I actually understand boundaries.

If I want total control to restrict access to a toilet, it needs to be my own personal toilet, in my own home, entirely paid for by me. If I use public toilets, I have to share them with other members of the public, who may be different to me in some way, and who may be people with whom I would never want to socialise. It’s the same with any other public or semi-public space.

Informed feminists should be aware of the connection between public toilets and oppression of women, ranging from 19th century Britain, to modern India. Lack of acceptable public toilets restricts women’s ability to go out in public as a participating member of society. And yet, some feminists are quite willing to see that imposed on people who happen to be different to themselves.

The bathroom-defenders don’t necessarily really think that, “use the toilet of your birth sex” is viable. I seriously doubt they want to see Buck Angel in the ladies’ room. And some of them will openly state that they simply don’t care about harassment or even violence against people who happen to be different to themselves.

This whole “issue” is being used as a moral panic. It focuses on a fraction of a percent of the population, but the disproportionate media attention (including both click-baiting and liberal virtue-signalling) suggest that public toilets everywhere are being absolutely overrun. Politicians pushing this are concerned with a much larger group, which is voters, who need to be told that there is huge social problem, and that those politicians are going to fix it and protect the public.

The previous moral panic was same-sex marriage, which many people still don’t like, but that fight appears to be now settled. So a new moral panic needed to start, with a smaller and more vulnerable minority.

In America, this type of issue (starting with military servicemember policy) has provided a distraction. From things like the alleged Russian involvement with the presidential election. And from that president’s attitude and conduct towards women. And from whether he is even minimally qualified or self-controlled enough for the position.

The creepy bathroom fixation sounds very specific. However, it is closely linked to other things, such as current efforts to restrict access to abortion.

This can also be seen with the opposition to transsexual hormone treatment for adolescents, with hand-wringing about how they are sterilised by the process. This relates to the pervasive view that, everyone is obligated to have children, whether they want to or not.

It also relates to the idea that the government has the authority to criminalise the consumption of the “wrong” types of drugs.

All of this is based on a general idea that, people (whether transsexual or not) don’t really have the right to control their own bodies or their lives.

I started this answer with the phrase, “the thin end of the wedge”. And that wedge isn’t going to stop with transsexual people.

The current, easy target is a tiny minority, towards which most people’s view ranges from lack of empathy, up to extreme contempt. And whose societal group-image suffers greatly from the garbage spewed by the above-mentioned, self-appointed, online transjacktivists.

However, this seemingly-specific legal and social progression will embolden its proponents to continue steamrolling over other demographics and rights.

The logical future?

  • Further limitations on sex education in public schools.
  • Further restrictions on adolescents’ access to birth control, even with parental consent.
  • Further limitations on funding for (or even caring about) health services (including, but not just limited to, reproductive services) for low-income people.
  • Degradation of the availability of sexual assault services.
  • Degradation of medical (and other) privacy rights for everyone.
  • Today, shut down your local transsexual hormone clinic. Tomorrow, shut down your local contraception/abortion clinic.
  • Today, pass bathroom laws and ID document restrictions (because people “don’t” really have the right to medical privacy). Tomorrow, overturn Roe vs. Wade (which was based on the right to medical privacy).

Because people “don’t” really have the right to control their own bodies.

Along with the medical angles, you can also expect degraded big-picture situations for employment, regarding both sexist discrimination, and sexual harassment (including situations with zero involvement of any transsexual people).

It’s fascinating that, the feminist bathroom-defenders and ID document micromanagers are now on the same side as the folks who want to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

It’s also fascinating to see paranoid lesbians on the same side as homophobes.

And they are all on the same side as a president whose attitude towards women is, “Grab ’em by the pussy”.

A long time ago, I thought that feminism was largely about, “my body, my rules”. And about people making their own choices how to live their lives, without social coercion or restriction based on what they were born with between their legs.

It’s not at all clear what it’s about now.