The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I am in such a bad way. I had a massive fight with my girlfriend last night. We have been together for over a year and I love her dearly, but last night we had the worst fight ever. We were even physical with each other and I would never usually hit a woman. In the end I told her I wanted her to be out of my house tomorrow - because she lives with me. I slept in another room last night and this morning we didn't say a word to each other. We dodged each other round the house and went to work our seperate ways.
I dont know what to say to her when/if I see her when I get back from work. Deep down I dont want her to go as I love her and we have fun together, but we have been arguing loads and I have been finding myself looking at other women, thinking "she looks nice". I'm sure she doesn't want to leave either, but I am really stuborn and dont think I can say sorry to her.
Please help me.....
I dont know what to say to her when/if I see her when I get back from work. Deep down I dont want her to go as I love her and we have fun together, but we have been arguing loads and I have been finding myself looking at other women, thinking "she looks nice". I'm sure she doesn't want to leave either, but I am really stuborn and dont think I can say sorry to her.
Please help me.....
Page:
Some bloke called Gandhi got quite far with his whole 'non-violent resistance' thing. Well, he didn't get that far, obviously.
And one more thing.
What I find disgusting is that you made a conscious decision to restrain your girlffriend and you state that the mark will remind her not to hurt you.
That was not your only option. You will now defend it to the hilt because you took that option and refuse to admit it was wrong.
So are you really suggesting that you just locking yourself in the bathroom for half an hour, or going down the pub until she had calmed down would have been a worse option?
Or are you saying that it would have been a weak option?
Being a weak option doesn't make worse. If someone I loved had resorted to violence I would have walked away from it, partly because I couldn't hit someone I loved, and mostly because violence can only result in regrets on all sides.
What I find disgusting is that you made a conscious decision to restrain your girlffriend and you state that the mark will remind her not to hurt you.
That was not your only option. You will now defend it to the hilt because you took that option and refuse to admit it was wrong.
So are you really suggesting that you just locking yourself in the bathroom for half an hour, or going down the pub until she had calmed down would have been a worse option?
Or are you saying that it would have been a weak option?
Being a weak option doesn't make worse. If someone I loved had resorted to violence I would have walked away from it, partly because I couldn't hit someone I loved, and mostly because violence can only result in regrets on all sides.
Putting aside personal issues for a second, one point Mr R makes, which everybody else seems to be avoiding, is the issue of self defence.
The examples may or may not be purile, but the (or a) underlying issue is, as i understand it, this:
If you were in a situation where a woman were likely to kill you unless you fight her, would you roll over and die?
Now, to me, this is a no-brainer. If anyone would gladly let themself be killed rather than hit a woman, please say so.
In the mean time, i'm going to assume you all would defend yourselves.
Thus you all agree that there are circumstances (however purile you may label them) in which you *would* use force against a woman.
So with this established, what level of damage would you need to take before defending yourself?
If there were no immediately available alternatives of course. (Sure, get out of the relationship, but if you can't leave the room without getting a brick in your face...)
Wherever you draw your own line, i don't think any of us are really that different from mr ripper. Not on our principles.
(P.S. Is it alright to beat up a hemaphrodite? :^) )
The examples may or may not be purile, but the (or a) underlying issue is, as i understand it, this:
If you were in a situation where a woman were likely to kill you unless you fight her, would you roll over and die?
Now, to me, this is a no-brainer. If anyone would gladly let themself be killed rather than hit a woman, please say so.
In the mean time, i'm going to assume you all would defend yourselves.
Thus you all agree that there are circumstances (however purile you may label them) in which you *would* use force against a woman.
So with this established, what level of damage would you need to take before defending yourself?
If there were no immediately available alternatives of course. (Sure, get out of the relationship, but if you can't leave the room without getting a brick in your face...)
Wherever you draw your own line, i don't think any of us are really that different from mr ripper. Not on our principles.
(P.S. Is it alright to beat up a hemaphrodite? :^) )
But here's my question:
Why remain with someone that attacks you so violently?
Surely it is an indicator of an abusive relationship when it detiorates to the point of violence?
Spousal abuse is not a one-off thing, it is learned behavour and a cycle. It is infinitesimally rare for it to be a one-off, simply because rational people do not beat their partners.
For any reason.
Regardless of whether you felt it necessary to act the way you did, why remain with someone that treats you like that?
"Love"
"I only do this because I love you baby" "You see what you made me do baby? It's because I love you"
A relationship that has reached the point of physical assault, from either party, is not one of understanding, acceptance,love and compassion.
And from your purile "What if you had something something that made them hit you", why remain with a person that will react to any situation with violence?
There should be nothing you say, nothing you do that causes a violent reaction in your partner. And if that is the case then it is not a healthy relationship and I personally would question the values of remaining with somebody that would beat me simply because I had upset them.
Male *or* female.
My argument is not whether it is correct or not to defend oneself in a situation like that.
My argument is that the situation should never arise in the 1st place.
Normal people, rational people do not attack their partners for any reason.
The question of self-defence is irrelevant, the question of abusive relationships is the only thing at point here.
Why remain with someone that attacks you so violently?
Surely it is an indicator of an abusive relationship when it detiorates to the point of violence?
Spousal abuse is not a one-off thing, it is learned behavour and a cycle. It is infinitesimally rare for it to be a one-off, simply because rational people do not beat their partners.
For any reason.
Regardless of whether you felt it necessary to act the way you did, why remain with someone that treats you like that?
"Love"
"I only do this because I love you baby" "You see what you made me do baby? It's because I love you"
A relationship that has reached the point of physical assault, from either party, is not one of understanding, acceptance,love and compassion.
And from your purile "What if you had something something that made them hit you", why remain with a person that will react to any situation with violence?
There should be nothing you say, nothing you do that causes a violent reaction in your partner. And if that is the case then it is not a healthy relationship and I personally would question the values of remaining with somebody that would beat me simply because I had upset them.
Male *or* female.
My argument is not whether it is correct or not to defend oneself in a situation like that.
My argument is that the situation should never arise in the 1st place.
Normal people, rational people do not attack their partners for any reason.
The question of self-defence is irrelevant, the question of abusive relationships is the only thing at point here.
Why not walk away until she cools off?
Martin Luther king took the Black civil rights cause far further by not fighting back than Malcom X (until he moved closer to King) did by fighting back.
Martin Luther king took the Black civil rights cause far further by not fighting back than Malcom X (until he moved closer to King) did by fighting back.
Mr. Happy wrote:
> That is why. I find that statement disgusting. It is vindictive and
> violent. You are glad that she was left marked, not remorseful. And
> that is wrong.
So instead I should have what? Taken it up the backside? I'd probably be in hospital if I hadn't restrained her. missing teeth, missing flesh, whatever. I restrained her, and it INEVITABLY left it's mark. I'm not proud of any part of the situation, and never aid I was.
> I'm not even going to dignify your Romeo must die comment with a
> response. I somewhat doubt your girlfriend is a lethal killing
> machine.
No? It doesn't take much to kill someone, even by accident.
> This is what I mean. These pathetic statements. Guns way less than
> women and men too. Giant Haystacks weighed more than a rock. Your
> point?
The fact that none of you listen to any arguments anyway makes this comment redundant. You just pick up ones you can argue against and slam them.
My viewpoint in plain sodding english for all to see:
violence is bad
self defence is necessary though.
be your attacker male, female, llama or rodent, if you don't defend yourself, you will inevitably get hurt more than you otherwise would. Not defending yourself is just plain stupid.
any arguments I use to defend that point obviously mean nothing because none of you care about them.
> If you're wondering why so many people disagree with your point of
> view, it's because of something called common sense. Common Sense is
> made up of two words, "common" and "sense".
Don't talk to me like a child you ignorant little twit. Common sense is defending yourself, not allowing someone to beat you on principal of sex. Ignorant idiot.
> "Common" because it is a widely-held belief and
> "sense" because it is things that are sensible and rational
> to do. Common Sense suggests a number of things:
Fact: common sense does not exist on a global scale.
why? because not everyone has it.
> that hitting women is
> wrong, that a relationship where violence has become a viable option
> is going badly wrong, that telling a guy whose crap in bed that he's
> good so that you can bed him again if you need to even though he's
> crap is just plain irrational.#
I agree that walking up to a woman on the street and smacking her is wrong, and I have never argued otherwise. Defending yourself against a woman who is trying to do something similar to you is not wrong.
What part of this do you STILL fail to comprehend?
>
> You are irrational.
hardly. you are ignorant.
> That is why. I find that statement disgusting. It is vindictive and
> violent. You are glad that she was left marked, not remorseful. And
> that is wrong.
So instead I should have what? Taken it up the backside? I'd probably be in hospital if I hadn't restrained her. missing teeth, missing flesh, whatever. I restrained her, and it INEVITABLY left it's mark. I'm not proud of any part of the situation, and never aid I was.
> I'm not even going to dignify your Romeo must die comment with a
> response. I somewhat doubt your girlfriend is a lethal killing
> machine.
No? It doesn't take much to kill someone, even by accident.
> This is what I mean. These pathetic statements. Guns way less than
> women and men too. Giant Haystacks weighed more than a rock. Your
> point?
The fact that none of you listen to any arguments anyway makes this comment redundant. You just pick up ones you can argue against and slam them.
My viewpoint in plain sodding english for all to see:
violence is bad
self defence is necessary though.
be your attacker male, female, llama or rodent, if you don't defend yourself, you will inevitably get hurt more than you otherwise would. Not defending yourself is just plain stupid.
any arguments I use to defend that point obviously mean nothing because none of you care about them.
> If you're wondering why so many people disagree with your point of
> view, it's because of something called common sense. Common Sense is
> made up of two words, "common" and "sense".
Don't talk to me like a child you ignorant little twit. Common sense is defending yourself, not allowing someone to beat you on principal of sex. Ignorant idiot.
> "Common" because it is a widely-held belief and
> "sense" because it is things that are sensible and rational
> to do. Common Sense suggests a number of things:
Fact: common sense does not exist on a global scale.
why? because not everyone has it.
> that hitting women is
> wrong, that a relationship where violence has become a viable option
> is going badly wrong, that telling a guy whose crap in bed that he's
> good so that you can bed him again if you need to even though he's
> crap is just plain irrational.#
I agree that walking up to a woman on the street and smacking her is wrong, and I have never argued otherwise. Defending yourself against a woman who is trying to do something similar to you is not wrong.
What part of this do you STILL fail to comprehend?
>
> You are irrational.
hardly. you are ignorant.
Mr Ripper wrote:
I'm considering having the op just so I can beat some
> of you without fear of reprisal.
******
Oh you know its so you can have boobs.
I'm considering having the op just so I can beat some
> of you without fear of reprisal.
******
Oh you know its so you can have boobs.
loki wrote:
> Mr Ripper wrote:
> what? Nooo! the fence is sleeping with the next door neighbours
> garage
> door? controversial!
>
> Yay, I think we broke him!
****
lol
> Mr Ripper wrote:
> what? Nooo! the fence is sleeping with the next door neighbours
> garage
> door? controversial!
>
> Yay, I think we broke him!
****
lol
loki wrote:
> Heh heh. Fantastic. And to think someone had the temerity to label
> your arguments puerile. What were they thinking...?
>
> *shakes head*
again, you see, but you do not read.
the human body is a weapon, and just because one weapon gets attacked aby a less powerful weapon, doesn't mean it won't take damage.
I'm stunned that so many people are of the opinion that they would not defend themselves against a woman. This is the biggest advert for a sex change ever. I'm considering having the op just so I can beat some of you without fear of reprisal.
> Heh heh. Fantastic. And to think someone had the temerity to label
> your arguments puerile. What were they thinking...?
>
> *shakes head*
again, you see, but you do not read.
the human body is a weapon, and just because one weapon gets attacked aby a less powerful weapon, doesn't mean it won't take damage.
I'm stunned that so many people are of the opinion that they would not defend themselves against a woman. This is the biggest advert for a sex change ever. I'm considering having the op just so I can beat some of you without fear of reprisal.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> Why?
You keep invoking sexism. That is why it is stupid. Women have moved towrds equal rights in the past few decades, but they have had to put up with an enormous amount of sexism. Sexism is why they didn't get jobs. Sexism is why when they did get jobs they got less pay than men. Sexism is why they couldn't vote.
They didn't fight against sexism solely so some ass-clown could punch them in the face.
> You have said "If you hurt me you only
> hurt yourself", which is equally indefensible.
>
> Why?
I'll actually paste in something you wrote here:
"my girlfriend got a bruise where I restrained her. Now she has a visible reminder that I'm not a punch bag. She knows also that I didn't hit her though I could have"
That is why. I find that statement disgusting. It is vindictive and violent. You are glad that she was left marked, not remorseful. And that is wrong.
I'm not even going to dignify your Romeo must die comment with a response. I somewhat doubt your girlfriend is a lethal killing machine.
> A pencil can kill. Women weigh much, much more, and can actually move.
> They are far from defenceless.
This is what I mean. These pathetic statements. Guns way less than women and men too. Giant Haystacks weighed more than a rock. Your point?
If you're wondering why so many people disagree with your point of view, it's because of something called common sense. Common Sense is made up of two words, "common" and "sense". "Common" because it is a widely-held belief and "sense" because it is things that are sensible and rational to do. Common Sense suggests a number of things: that hitting women is wrong, that a relationship where violence has become a viable option is going badly wrong, that telling a guy whose crap in bed that he's good so that you can bed him again if you need to even though he's crap is just plain irrational.
You are irrational.
> Why?
You keep invoking sexism. That is why it is stupid. Women have moved towrds equal rights in the past few decades, but they have had to put up with an enormous amount of sexism. Sexism is why they didn't get jobs. Sexism is why when they did get jobs they got less pay than men. Sexism is why they couldn't vote.
They didn't fight against sexism solely so some ass-clown could punch them in the face.
> You have said "If you hurt me you only
> hurt yourself", which is equally indefensible.
>
> Why?
I'll actually paste in something you wrote here:
"my girlfriend got a bruise where I restrained her. Now she has a visible reminder that I'm not a punch bag. She knows also that I didn't hit her though I could have"
That is why. I find that statement disgusting. It is vindictive and violent. You are glad that she was left marked, not remorseful. And that is wrong.
I'm not even going to dignify your Romeo must die comment with a response. I somewhat doubt your girlfriend is a lethal killing machine.
> A pencil can kill. Women weigh much, much more, and can actually move.
> They are far from defenceless.
This is what I mean. These pathetic statements. Guns way less than women and men too. Giant Haystacks weighed more than a rock. Your point?
If you're wondering why so many people disagree with your point of view, it's because of something called common sense. Common Sense is made up of two words, "common" and "sense". "Common" because it is a widely-held belief and "sense" because it is things that are sensible and rational to do. Common Sense suggests a number of things: that hitting women is wrong, that a relationship where violence has become a viable option is going badly wrong, that telling a guy whose crap in bed that he's good so that you can bed him again if you need to even though he's crap is just plain irrational.
You are irrational.
Page: