Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

quote:

---

Just to save geaeslore and Sabine the trouble:
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location: No. California
Posts: 4175

That's a very interesting, thought provoking question, Squee. I hadn't realized until your query that I've always seemed to consider "abuse" as someone doing something physically violent that overrides their authority.

I guess that's because in the olden days when "abuse" (as a word) became popular, it was only used on TV to describe the actions of police or politicians (namely the Democratic Convention in Chicago in '68. I was just starting to pay attention to something other than G.I. Joe and I seem to remember Cronkite using the word to describe the Chicago PD).

Then it became like "pollution," attached to every kind of subject, i.e.; noise pollution, child abuse, water pollution, wife abuse (that's what it was called before "spousal" replaced it) Mickey Rourke and Michael Jackson (facial abuse) etc.

I guess the lawyer is sorta right. It's like the word "assault" in that regard. Anything can be seen as abuse or assault, depending on how bad the abusee wants to see it that way, or more importantly, wants to make an attorney see it that way.

On "Cops" one night, a policeman charged someone with assault because the guy took off his shirt (which he had barfed on) and handed it to the cop, who took it without paying attention, then dropped it when he realized what that wet thing in his hand was. The guy apologized and everything, but the cop was really pissed, probably because there was a TV camera there and he couldn't do this to him:

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

Sometimes the lines are fuzzy, so here's some good advice: If there is doubt, don't.

This inquiry brings to mind Koby. He says it was consensual; she apparently says otherwise.

Amen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2506

Unwanted touching.

What the fuck is with that pic? Where the hell does something like that come from?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: US
Posts: 3533

removed due to being a dumb, smartass comment

Last edited by Lu on 09-24-2003 at 09:28 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location: No. California
Posts: 4175

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3MTA3
Unwanted touching.

What the fuck is with that pic? Where the hell does something like that come from?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Mountains
Posts: 4689

According to this guy's definition using any force of any kind on anybody is abuse. I don't know if he merely has a very liberal definition or what.

I'd guess that his view of abuse is based on how the law views it. abuse is very hard to pin down.. so the law has made a broad area of what may fall under the definition so that it can take each case individually from there.

what delineates an "abusive" relationship from a merely "forceful" relationship?

I think it would depend on a lot of things.. including, the intentions of the person forcing the other, the capacity of them both to understand the situation, and consent of both.. not just acceptance but agreement in the appropriateness of the relationship and delegation of power.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

Sabine: So...I'm guessing you would say that "mere" acceptance does not imply actual agreement, then? I suppose I agree--since you can be resigned to take something you can't change without agreeing with it.

I wonder if there is any effort to define, in principle, what objective criteria can define one relationship as "abusive" and another as "forceful" (or in some other way as "normal" or "non-abusive"). I guess you would really have to consider both the thought and action of both the abuser and the abusee...so we're talking four variables here. w3rd.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location: No. California
Posts: 4175

Maybe the lawyer's view of the word (or act) of abuse is too broad. How about defining abuse personally, in your own terms?

For instance, my wife has a tendency to consider my viewpoint on any particular subject as being automatically wrong. In discussing this with other married/committed men, I've found that we don't really consider it abuse as much as an annoyance.

However, if my wife were to do important things without considering my opinion at all (like sell the house or buy a sportscar) then I would consider it abuse. Through conversations with other married/committed guys, I've realized that there are just people who automatically assume that anything you say or think is wrong, unless you can convince them that it's their idea in the first place and you're just reminding them of that fact. Even then, it's not that they consider themselves right, it's just that we're wrong. We've even decided on a name for those kind of people.

We call them women.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged