What is a trivial slap? A slap that does not cause serious injury. This isnt rocket science and if someone cant put that together, I have to wonder why that is.
Yes, I have slapped several people in my life, and some were female. I have never slapped my wife but if the situation warranted it, I would do so. If you dont like that, I dont care.
There are times when people say and do things that merit justifiable rage and force. There are times when someone needs to be shocked out of their panic, self assured shell, or belief that their provocations are beyond any consequence.
That such an act of violence might get me put in jail is something that concerns me, so I avoid associating with unstable people that might put me in that situation. But I dont screw around with idiots and jack-asses that are going to behave stupidly, I perform my responsibilities reliably, and I obey the laws as much as I can to avoid any trouble with the law.
This nation is suffering from a wave of anti-violence hysteria. Violence is a morally neutral act; a tool that may or may not be used appropriately. Simply because something is violent does not mean it is ipso-facto immoral or wrong. Sometimes a good kick in the butt or a slap across the cheek is exactly what the person needs to straighten them out.
But in general, the abhorance toward violence is the biggest form of hypocrisy around today. While so many state that it is a horrible, unjustifiable thing that a man slap a woman, they ignore the horridness of a woman slapping a man. While our nation reacts with horror at video of two women slapping each other, they laugh at a video showing a man being struck in the genitals.
If slapping a woman warrants putting the man in jail every time under any and every circumstance, then far more women than men would be in jail today because men consider it unmanly to complain of such things. Most men are aware of the double standard but do not care to think about it or speak out. I am aware of it, and I will speak plainly because some one must and that is how I choose to live - honestly with myself, my fellow man and my God.
But there are justifiable times to slap a person, male or female, just as their are other times that violence needs to be used and is justified. It varies in scale according to the situation, from someone slashing your tires to them pointing a loaded gun in your face, and the justifiable force used in response varies in proportion to the afront/threat.
That some of the moral Storm Troopers are ready to hang my hide out to dry for daring to dissent on this issue is amusing, but if they dont like it, they can stuff it.
I can only condone violence against strangers when done in self-defense. Otherwise I agree with you 100%, especially regarding hypocrisy. You will find many posters who condemn in the solemnest manner any violence against women, then gaggling with glee when a woman bites a man's testicles off.
The buzzword is "domestic". Interesting, no? I really dislike how liberals abuse the language, and people fall for it.
When the phrase came into big time use, I went ballistic. Because I perceived a bad mixing of a phrase which can be quite disruptive communications-wise.
Consider this phrase: I, Alia, swear to defend my home, my country against all terrorsts be they foreign or domestic.
History is quite full of usages of the word "domestic".
Of course, I'm spinning off and away from your post; but not because your post wasn't good; I'm just bringing an old rant of mine into play, if not comprehension, that the phrase "domestic violence" is a stupid catch-all inclined to fueling, aiding, and abetting not only "domestic" lawyers, but "domestic" feminists. The ways that "domestic violence" is defined is also full OF IT. However, the phrase is "here to stay" and because far too many marketing dollars have been spent "promoting" the phrase over the past xx years.
First we had "domestic violence", and then, voila! came "Hate Crime Laws" (and, and let's not forget the "battered women's syndrome" (aka: The Burning Bed).
Pure and simple -- assault is assault no matter who is doing it, where, and to whom.
Domestic violence became a huge money wheel for feminists and liberal candidates. Domestic violence is considered so huge in the liberal mind, that when genuine domestic violence occurred on our shores, 9-11, the liberals could only suggest the evil "US HAD IT COMING". They didn't see this as "domestic violence" resulting in the murder of 3,000 people. Oh noooo...
As you very succinctly point out the "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Political Campaign IS NOT ABOUT FAIRNESS. It does NOT protect men from the violence of other men, or their own wives and girlfriends. It does NOT protect women from the violence of other women. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is not about self-defense, nor does it take into consideration actions concerning self-defense unless it can be used by lawyers in a feminist fueled "battered women's syndrome defense".
It does one thing:Allow the law to take the word of a woman against a man; where "she said" carries more weight than the rule of evidentiary law and circumstance".
I happen to think the murder of 3000 people far worse than "domestic violence' proponents (who seem never to be on the side of the U.S. (or Republicans) can ever fathom.
Assault and battery are terrible things. So awful are these things they should not be cordoned off into some simpering BS campaign under the feminist rubric of "domestic violence". There. Them's my two cents. Long, and many years of experience with the term, it's intent, its results, its overall playout.
Domestic Violence Campaigns, no matter their seeming "humanitas" attempt are about politics. Pure and simple.
And then you can stuff it.