Av's Varlamov arrested

[DevsMan84]

I understand the above, but say you're a married man who's bringing home most of the money...much of which has gone into a beautiful home, and other perks (pool, cars, tec).  Your wife can be pretty horrible in many ways...maybe withholding sex, constantly bitching and complaining, always making you feel like nothing you ever do is good enough.  She is constantly nagging you, and thinks nothing of embarrassing you in front of others.  Eventually you start fighting back, and the arguments get worse and worse.  Then one day, things get out of control, and your wife hits you, maybe once, maybe multiple times.  You snap and maybe not even technically "hit" her, but you push or shove her.  She falls, maybe gets a bump on her head, bruise on her back.  She calls the police.  How do you think this is going to turn out for you?

 

Sure, you take the "legal" avenue.  The house that you worked so hard to buy?  She's going to get it.  And chances are not only are you going to lose the house, but you're now going have to pay her alimony too.  It's not nearly as easy to just leave as outsiders might think.   

 

And how is any of the above fair to you exactly?  Men often get screwed royally by going the "legal" route. 

 

This and your previous post is 100% spot on.  Our legal system is set up so heavily against men it is at the point where it is comical.  Most men in divorces usually go into the courtroom with their lawyers with the mindset of "let's try to get make this as painless as possible for you" instead of the what should be "let's try to make it fair for both parties."

 

Mr brother went through his divorce last year after being married to the woman for 9 years.  One day she came out of the blue and told him she doesn't love him anymore and wants a divorce.  We later found out that she withheld sex for about 4 years and that she was cheating on him for the past 6 months to a year.  She got a lawyer and basically demanded everything, including custody of the child, child support, and alimony, even though he was the one cheated on and didn't intiate the divorce.

 

My brother retained a lawyer that he found through his business partner.  That lawyer was actually the one that represented his co-workers former wife who cleaned him out for everything he had.  Hell the lawfirm's motto is "the divorce lawyers your ex-spouse hopes you don't hire."  They were expensive as could be but they were absolutely worth it as while he gave in the child custody, he does get favorable visitation rights, not absurd child support payments, and got out of alimony.  He basically got out of alimony because his lawyer told hers that if she demands alimony, then they will demand half of her pension as she worked for the state DMV.  The next day they dropped the alimony request lol.

 

But in short CR1976 is completely right.  Society today really need to examine men and their rights in regards to spousal abuse against them.  Too often you never hear about it because for a man to admit his gf or wife is beating him either emotionally, physically or both is very emasculating.

[dmann422]

are regular provocations and humiliations against the law?

are there guys with real reletionships and guys who has bad reletionships with very *ss-mouth woman? they must know how it could may be than woman do and woman say and how she can change situation on words and how say colorado 1976 - woman can play her card smartly ruthlessly and selfishly

in the us, if a woman physically abuses a man he has just as much right to call the police as a woman.

As far as verbal and emotional abuse, I image men commit it just as much as women if not more.

I apologize if I misinterpreted you but I believe this is what you were getting at.

[eaglejelly]

You guys are sick

[dmann422]

This and your previous post is 100% spot on. Our legal system is set up so heavily against men it is at the point where it is comical. Most men in divorces usually go into the courtroom with their lawyers with the mindset of "let's try to get make this as painless as possible for you" instead of the what should be "let's try to make it fair for both parties."

Mr brother went through his divorce last year after being married to the woman for 9 years. One day she came out of the blue and told him she doesn't love him anymore and wants a divorce. We later found out that she withheld sex for about 4 years and that she was cheating on him for the past 6 months to a year. She got a lawyer and basically demanded everything, including custody of the child, child support, and alimony, even though he was the one cheated on and didn't intiate the divorce.

My brother retained a lawyer that he found through his business partner. That lawyer was actually the one that represented his co-workers former wife who cleaned him out for everything he had. Hell the lawfirm's motto is "the divorce lawyers your ex-spouse hopes you don't hire." They were expensive as could be but they were absolutely worth it as while he gave in the child custody, he does get favorable visitation rights, not absurd child support payments, and got out of alimony. He basically got out of alimony because his lawyer told hers that if she demands alimony, then they will demand half of her pension as she worked for the state DMV. The next day they dropped the alimony request lol.

But in short CR1976 is completely right. Society today really need to examine men and their rights in regards to spousal abuse against them. Too often you never hear about it because for a man to admit his gf or wife is beating him either emotionally, physically or both is very emasculating.

I know you are speaking from personal experience but it seems you might be a little biased on the idea that divorce is mostly the woman's fault. I don't have any statistics but I'm sure middle age men going through mid life crises are just as common a cause of divorce as women.

But I agree in the sense that the legal system has essential become a game of who's got the best and highest paid lawyer, and child custody seems to favor the mother heavily.

I guess when it comes down to it, people need to be absolutely sure they know what they're getting into when they get hitched. It seems like In our instant gratification culture people want to rush to the altar to get married and this is what leads to divorce.

Back on topic though, a fear of divorce is never a good enough excuse to physically hurt your spouse (man or woman).

[mouse]

I understand the above, but say you're a married man who's bringing home most of the money...much of which has gone into a beautiful home, and other perks (pool, cars, tec).  Your wife can be pretty horrible in many ways...maybe withholding sex, constantly bitching and complaining, always making you feel like nothing you ever do is good enough.  She is constantly nagging you, and thinks nothing of embarrassing you in front of others.  Eventually you start fighting back, and the arguments get worse and worse.  Then one day, things get out of control, and your wife hits you, maybe once, maybe multiple times.  You snap and maybe not even technically "hit" her, but you push or shove her.  She falls, maybe gets a bump on her head, bruise on her back.  She calls the police.  How do you think this is going to turn out for you?

 

Sure, you take the "legal" avenue.  The house that you worked so hard to buy?  She's going to get it.  And chances are not only are you going to lose the house, but you're now going have to pay her alimony too.  It's not nearly as easy to just leave as outsiders might think.   

 

And how is any of the above fair to you exactly?  Men often get screwed royally by going the "legal" route. 

Your first post is legit. I have a problem with this one though. I admit the legal system is flawed, but it's the best thing we have. Vigilantism is never acceptable, especially if it leads to violence. If a woman hits a man, he should call the police. If they laugh it off, he should sue them. Even if he isn't "hurt," if the woman's behavior could lead him to become violence, it's his job to take appropriate action to make sure he does the right thing. And I get not wanting to go the divorce route, but there is no justification for hitting your partner (and I don't care what gender either person is).

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I know you are speaking from personal experience but it seems you might be a little biased on the idea that divorce is mostly the woman's fault. I don't have any statistics but I'm sure middle age men going through mid life crises are just as common a cause of divorce as women.

But I agree in the sense that the legal system has essential become a game of who's got the best and highest paid lawyer, and child custody seems to favor the mother heavily.

I guess when it comes down to it, people need to be absolutely sure they know what they're getting into when they get hitched. It seems like In our instant gratification culture people want to rush to the altar to get married and this is what leads to divorce.

Back on topic though, a fear of divorce is never a good enough excuse to physically hurt your spouse (man or woman).

 

Seems a bit simplistic, don't you think?  If anything, it seems like people are taking MORE time.  And let's face it, people (both sexes) can change, and not always for the better.  The person you once thought the world of and showed no signs of becoming a different person can indeed become one.  And both men AND women are guilty of that.     

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Your first post is legit. I have a problem with this one though. I admit the legal system is flawed, but it's the best thing we have. Vigilantism is never acceptable, especially if it leads to violence. If a woman hits a man, he should call the police. If they laugh it off, he should sue them. Even if he isn't "hurt," if the woman's behavior could lead him to become violence, it's his job to take appropriate action to make sure he does the right thing. And I get not wanting to go the divorce route, but there is no justification for hitting your partner (and I don't care what gender either person is).

 

I wasn't saying that violence for EITHER side is OK.  I wasn't justifying it, or trying to imply as such.  It was more pointing out that these things unfortunately get very murky.  Right or wrong, they turn into pissing contests.  "Why should I have to leave?  Screw you...YOU leave!"   

[Bartholomew Hunt]

You guys are sick

The level of stupidity on this thread makes me want to puke.

Theres no excuse to hit a woman, ever. And if a woman hits you or is verbally hurting you and you hit them, theres a word for you. Its called being an absolute pansy. You're not a man, you're the bottom of the barrel in society.

You guys wanna talk about flawed, how about the fact this piece of scum is allowed out on $5,000 bond and can still play in this league. Be more upset with the nhl, the avs, and the justice system. Not the woman who got beaten.

Just shows the IQ of a few posters. When the same people who were offended by the word suck, saying it was trashy, are making excuses for woman beaters. You people deserve to be spit on.

[mouse]

I wasn't saying that violence for EITHER side is OK.  I wasn't justifying it, or trying to imply as such.  It was more pointing out that these things unfortunately get very murky.  Right or wrong, they turn into pissing contests.  "Why should I have to leave?  Screw you...YOU leave!"   

I agree there's a lot of gray area, but the minute one person initiates physical violence, there's no gray area anymore, and if the other person retaliates with anything other than self defense, both people are without question wrong. If somebody is assaulted, they need to get out and get to the cops. The only gray area I see when there is physical violence is if someone does something physical (like grabbing the other person's wrist to prevent a punch or slap) purely in self defense, and the other person gets hurt.

[mouse]

Theres no excuse to hit a woman  person, ever. And if a woman   person hits you or is verbally hurting you and you hit them, theres a word for you. Its called being an absolute pansy. You're not a man, you're the bottom of the barrel in society.

 

Fixed. It doesn't matter what gender you are. You don't get to hit. It's that simple. And the mentality that it's somehow more acceptable for a woman to hit a man is dangerous and unfair. I'll never justify a man hitting a woman, but a woman doesn't get a free pass for hitting a man just because she has a pants. I admit that men can often do more damage, since they're bigger, but that doesn't mean a woman is allowed to hit a man.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

The level of stupidity on this thread makes me want to puke.

Theres no excuse to hit a woman, ever. And if a woman hits you or is verbally hurting you and you hit them, theres a word for you. Its called being an absolute pansy. You're not a man, you're the bottom of the barrel in society.

You guys wanna talk about flawed, how about the fact this piece of scum is allowed out on $5,000 bond and can still play in this league. Be more upset with the nhl, the avs, and the justice system. Not the woman who got beaten.

Just shows the IQ of a few posters. When the same people who were offended by the word suck, saying it was trashy, are making excuses for woman beaters. You people deserve to be spit on.

 

If this is directed at anything I posted, way to grandstand for the sake of grandstanding.  You interpreted my post the way you wanted to for the sake of ranting.        

[NewarkDevil5]

I understand the above, but say you're a married man who's bringing home most of the money...much of which has gone into a beautiful home, and other perks (pool, cars, tec).  Your wife can be pretty horrible in many ways...maybe withholding sex, constantly bitching and complaining, always making you feel like nothing you ever do is good enough.  She is constantly nagging you, and thinks nothing of embarrassing you in front of others.  Eventually you start fighting back, and the arguments get worse and worse.  Then one day, things get out of control, and your wife hits you, maybe once, maybe multiple times.  You snap and maybe not even technically "hit" her, but you push or shove her.  She falls, maybe gets a bump on her head, bruise on her back.  She calls the police.  How do you think this is going to turn out for you?

 

Sure, you take the "legal" avenue.  The house that you worked so hard to buy?  She's going to get it.  And chances are not only are you going to lose the house, but you're now going have to pay her alimony too.  It's not nearly as easy to just leave as outsiders might think.   

 

And how is any of the above fair to you exactly?  Men often get screwed royally by going the "legal" route. 

 

Because you signed a contract with her promising to live the rest of your life as one. The terms of that contract are not favorable to the more successful party within the relationship, but that is something you are supposed to understand going in. You have the option before entering that contract to create a set of more favorable terms called a prenuptial agreement. If you do not choose to do so, then the consequences of losing half of the value of your house and everything else that you own at the point of termination is no different than any contractual penalty that you sign up for with Verizon in wanting to cancel your cellphone contract. The only difference is that with Verizon it isn't "personal."

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I agree there's a lot of gray area, but the minute one person initiates physical violence, there's no gray area anymore, and if the other person retaliates with anything other than self defense, both people are without question wrong. If somebody is assaulted, they need to get out and get to the cops. The only gray area I see when there is physical violence is if someone does something physical (like grabbing the other person's wrist to prevent a punch or slap) purely in self defense, and the other person gets hurt.

 

Agree, in that the person being assaulted should try to get away, if at all possible.  Like I posted, in the cases I was talking about, I was speaking specifically about a man acting in self-defense, when things got completely out of control for both parties, and then instantly being branded a "wife-beater". 

[dmann422]

Seems a bit simplistic, don't you think? If anything, it seems like people are taking MORE time. And let's face it, people (both sexes) can change, and not always for the better. The person you once thought the world of and showed no signs of becoming a different person can indeed become one. And both men AND women are guilty of that.

oh it's absolutely simplistic. But rather than write dissertation on why divorce is so common today I just figured I'd point out what i feel is one of the big reasons.

By the time we get married, my fiancé and I will have been dating for nearly 7 years (and know each other for an additional 2) and will both be in our late 20s. To me, this will have been enough time for both of us to accurately judge that we want to spend the rest of our lives in an exclusive relationship.

Most of the people I personally know who have gone through divorce either got married at a very young impressionable age (right out of hs) or only knew their spouse for a short time before getting hitched (and by short I mean less than 4 years.)

There will always be the cases where people change at a late age or go through a mid life crisis and suddenly be different, but if people take the time necessary to maturely evaluate the relationship before making a marriage decision ", a lot of these issues will show up and the whole issue can be avoided.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Because you signed a contract with her promising to live the rest of your life as one. The terms of that contract are not favorable to the more successful party within the relationship, but that is something you are supposed to understand going in. You have the option before entering that contract to create a set of more favorable terms called a prenuptial agreement. If you do not choose to do so, then the consequences of losing half of the value of your house and everything else that you own at the point of termination is no different than any contractual penalty that you sign up for with Verizon in wanting to cancel your cellphone contract. The only difference is that with Verizon it isn't "personal."

 

But we've seen how this often turns out for men.  He loses his house, furniture, and has to pay alimony and child support, even if his ex is fully capable of supporting herself (but refuses to work).  And he likely won't get to see his kids nearly as much as she will.     

 

If everything was split 50/50, that I could understand, and I think that's fair, regardless of who earned the most money during the marriage.  But that's not what often happens.   

[jim777]

I understand the above, but say you're a married man who's bringing home most of the money...much of which has gone into a beautiful home, and other perks (pool, cars, tec).  Your wife can be pretty horrible in many ways...maybe withholding sex, constantly bitching and complaining, always making you feel like nothing you ever do is good enough.  She is constantly nagging you, and thinks nothing of embarrassing you in front of others.  Eventually you start fighting back, and the arguments get worse and worse.  Then one day, things get out of control, and your wife hits you, maybe once, maybe multiple times.  You snap and maybe not even technically "hit" her, but you push or shove her.  She falls, maybe gets a bump on her head, bruise on her back.  She calls the police.  How do you think this is going to turn out for you?

 

Sure, you take the "legal" avenue.  The house that you worked so hard to buy?  She's going to get it.  And chances are not only are you going to lose the house, but you're now going have to pay her alimony too.  It's not nearly as easy to just leave as outsiders might think.   

 

And how is any of the above fair to you exactly?  Men often get screwed royally by going the "legal" route. 

 

No discussing Varlamov or his situation, but just this post on its own merits is 1000% true and accurate and EXACTLY how it turns out in the USA all too often. And she wants to say you 'touched' one of the kids, then you lose access to them too.

 

EDIT - I don't mean hitting women, no one should ever do that regardless, I mean the woman getting the house and alimony.

Edited November 1, 2013 by jim777

[Devils Pride 26]

The level of stupidity on this thread makes me want to puke.

.

I tend to agree, the fact of no mention of innocent until proven guilty has come up yet is bothersome.

Who the hell knows what happened? Nobody here is defending hitting women, it's trying to evaluate if it even happened.

What CR is hitting at is, because this is man on woman, we take it and assume it happened just as she told the story. Looking at it if a woman domestically abused a man, it would be a joke to us. Nobody here is saying "well she had it coming." Far from that.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I tend to agree, the fact of no mention of innocent until proven guilty has come up yet is bothersome.

Who the hell knows what happened? Nobody here is defending hitting women, it's trying to evaluate if it even happened.

What CR is hitting at is, because this is man on woman, we take it and assume it happened just as she told the story. Looking at it if a woman domestically abused a man, it would be a joke to us. Nobody here is saying "well she had it coming." Far from that.

 

Actually, the thread-of-consciousness I'm posting on isn't even about the Varlamov situation specifically (said this in my first post).  It was more addressing something Carter-for-president said in a post, a blanket statement about how too many men are hitting women.  In a perfect world, no one would resort to violence ever.  But what I was pointing out was that every case isn't always about some guy just beating a woman senseless...and I think that's how most people view domestic abuse...very black-and-white. 

[DevsMan84]

The level of stupidity on this thread makes me want to puke.

Theres no excuse to hit a woman, ever. And if a woman hits you or is verbally hurting you and you hit them, theres a word for you. Its called being an absolute pansy. You're not a man, you're the bottom of the barrel in society.

You guys wanna talk about flawed, how about the fact this piece of scum is allowed out on $5,000 bond and can still play in this league. Be more upset with the nhl, the avs, and the justice system. Not the woman who got beaten.

Just shows the IQ of a few posters. When the same people who were offended by the word suck, saying it was trashy, are making excuses for woman beaters. You people deserve to be spit on.

 

 

So what is a man to do then?  Just take it repeatedly?  What if the man is trying to walk away or leave and she keeps hitting him or even worse pulls out a weapon on him?  He can't defend himself because he is a man and his attacker is a woman?

 

In a situation where my life is in danger, I don't care who or what gender my attacker is, I am going to defend myself.  If I get called a pansy for that, then so be it.  At least I am alive to hear it.

[DevsMan84]

Actually, the thread-of-consciousness I'm posting on isn't even about the Varlamov situation specifically (said this in my first post).  It was more addressing something Carter-for-president said in a post, a blanket statement about how too many men are hitting women.  In a perfect world, no one would resort to violence ever.  But what I was pointing out was that every case isn't always about some guy just beating a woman senseless...and I think that's how most people view domestic abuse...very black-and-white. 

 

 

Bingo.  It's this old fashioned macho bullsh!t that says men can never ever defend themselves from a woman attacker, even if his life is in danger.

 

Noticed how none addressed your example and question about what if a man killed his wife after years of emotional and physical torment at her hands.  You were spot in in saying that the man would be condemned from society and would spend the life in prison.  If you reverse the genders, the woman would be put on a pedastal for ending her torture and probably get a Lifetime movie made about her life.

[DevsMan84]

I know you are speaking from personal experience but it seems you might be a little biased on the idea that divorce is mostly the woman's fault. I don't have any statistics but I'm sure middle age men going through mid life crises are just as common a cause of divorce as women.

But I agree in the sense that the legal system has essential become a game of who's got the best and highest paid lawyer, and child custody seems to favor the mother heavily.

I guess when it comes down to it, people need to be absolutely sure they know what they're getting into when they get hitched. It seems like In our instant gratification culture people want to rush to the altar to get married and this is what leads to divorce.

Back on topic though, a fear of divorce is never a good enough excuse to physically hurt your spouse (man or woman).

 

 

In a perfect world it would be 50/50, but we do not live in a perfect world.  Right when both parties walk into the courtroom, in a huge majority of cases the woman is guaranteed at least 50% while the man would have to fight tooth and nail to just get 50%.

 

Divorce cases are heavily stacked against men, even when it is not their fault.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Bingo.  It's this old fashioned macho bullsh!t that says men can never ever defend themselves from a woman attacker, even if his life is in danger.

 

Noticed how none addressed your example and question about what if a man killed his wife after years of emotional and physical torment at her hands.  You were spot in in saying that the man would be condemned from society and would spend the life in prison.  If you reverse the genders, the woman would be put on a pedastal for ending her torture and probably get a Lifetime movie made about her life.

 

I never brought up anything about potential murder.  This was my example:

 

Just look at that Jets/Pats game situation. If everything had played out EXACTLY the same way, except the genders of the participants were reversed, does it get anywhere NEAR the same attention? If anything, a lot of people would probably chuckle and say "Dude, you got popped by a girl!"

 

  

[DevsMan84]

I never brought up anything about potential murder.  This was my example:

 

Just look at that Jets/Pats game situation. If everything had played out EXACTLY the same way, except the genders of the participants were reversed, does it get anywhere NEAR the same attention? If anything, a lot of people would probably chuckle and say "Dude, you got popped by a girl!"

 

  

 

Yeah I know, but same sort of deal.  Mine was just on the extreme end.  Views though would be pretty much the same.  Guy hits girl after she hits him a ton of times = jail for him and he is known as a woman beater.  Girl hits guy after guy hits her a bunch of times. = he deserved it

[dmann422]

Yeah I know, but same sort of deal. Mine was just on the extreme end. Views though would be pretty much the same. Guy hits girl after she hits him a ton of times = jail for him and he is known as a woman beater. Girl hits guy after guy hits her a bunch of times. = he deserved it

I did not follow up on the jets fan incident but I believe I heard that all three parties (one man and two women) who used physical violence were arrested.

[Triumph]

Everything I'm about to post has NOTHING to with the Varlamov situation.  I'm only addressing the bolded (and unfair) generalizaiton.

 

Look, I'm all for not hitting women, or anyone for that matter, but at the same time, there's also women who play the woman card, and think that being a woman isolates them from ever being hit, just because, and there's definitely double standards in play. 

 

How about the woman that is hitting her boyfriend/spouse several times, until he finally fights back and hits her once, more in self-defense than anything else, but hard enough to leave a mark, and possibly draw blood.  She then calls the police and informs them that a man just struck her.  When the cops show up, who do you think is the one that's going to get tackled, shackled, dragged off, and labeled as a "woman-beater".  Chances are when the guy says "But she was beating ME up first!", it will almost get laughed off.

 

I've seen women mouth off, continue to go off on a man, refuse to let up, say extremely hateful and hurtful things that are clearly intended to stir up a reaction even when the man is doing his best to walk away and not escalate the situation futher.  If a guy does this to a woman, and the woman smacks him, it's not uncommon for other women to say "you go girl!" or something of that nature.  But women get away with verbal and physical abuse towards a man a lot easier than if the roles were reversed.  Just look at that Jets/Pats game situation.  If everything had played out EXACTLY the same way, except the genders of the participants were reversed, does it get anywhere NEAR the same attention?  If anything, a lot of people would probably chuckle and say "Dude, you got popped by a girl!"   

 

Not all women who get hit are hapless victims and damsels in distress...I'm not saying a man is right to hit a woman, but some of those women are definitely doing their best to push buttons.  There's a lot of shades of gray, and the black-and-white generalization of "Poor battered woman/abusive man" isn't really fair. 

 

A small percentage of spousal physical abuse is by women towards men.  A much larger percentage is men towards women.  The reason for all this leeway granted to women re: physical abuse is quite simple - men are bigger and stronger than women.  Do some women abuse that status?  Sure.  It's a consequence of living in a more tolerant and just society.

 

CarterForPresident is of course wrong when he says that men are always hitting women - physical abuse of women has no doubt declined over the last 50 years, at least in the U.S.  You just think it's increased because since it is rarer, it's now bigger news.  Man hits woman would be 'Dog bites man' of the early 20th century in the U.S. (and indeed, is still the case in many parts of the world).

 

Re: this Varlamov stuff, who knows what exactly is true, but all the Russian hockey writers jumped on Twitter to defend him, which was rather odious.