Giving men a common antidepressant could help tackle domestic violence: world-first study
-
That’s excellent news. The random tiktok videos inserted into the article are still making me lose my cool, though.
-
If they put fluoride in drinking water, they can put this in protein shakes and those shower gels that come in the angular gunmetal-coloured containers
-
You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices
Violent, reoffending adults who specifically engage in domestic violence - and I clarified that it should be as part of their incarceration/probation. Such restrictions already exist in certain cases as terms for probation and it doesn’t always revolve around protecting children.
Probation officers handle this just fine, there is no need for licenses affecting all adults. You twisted what I said, just admit it.
Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.
-
And yet… Research has repeatedly shown it’s women who instigate relationship violence.
Ah yes, the inevitable downvoters.
It’s been well established. You don’t like it? Shame that.
No I’m not providing a source. Your anger should motivate you to look.
Here’s a place to start: which relationships experience the most violence: Male/Female, Male/Male, Female/Female?
Interestingly, the male/male is the least violent, and female/female the most violent.
'Nuff said.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30186202/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6113571/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30465625/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7034778/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23271429/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046894/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21731790/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8766270/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sexual-orientation-disparities-ipv/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32064141/
So take your biases and fucking read.
Further, if men are the primary cause of violence in relationships then:
F/F relationships should show orders of magnitude less violence.
M/M should have the highest levels of violence and be orders of magnitude greater then F/M.
And yet none of this is true in any study.
From one of the abstracts.
Gay patients (aOR = 5.50; 95% CI = [1.60, 18.94]) and females (aOR = 2.70; 95% CI = [1.46, 9.99]) had significantly higher odds of reporting physical or sexual IPV than heterosexuals and males, respectively.
So it’s over reported more, that’s your evidence?
-
Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.
Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.
Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.
Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.
-
Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.
Yes, all adults.
Unless you’re proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.
You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.
Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.
You haven’t even left the confines of Lemmy, and you’re already running headfirst into unintended consequences.
-
That’s excellent news. The random tiktok videos inserted into the article are still making me lose my cool, though.
More sertraline for you.
-
Yes, all adults.
Unless you’re proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.
You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.
Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.
You haven’t even left the confines of Lemmy, and you’re already running headfirst into unintended consequences.
You replied to yourself and meant to reply to this comment:
Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.
Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.
Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.
Probation is an established system. You suggested licensing I’m not engaging with you anymore because that’s not my argument. It’s your spin.
-
You replied to yourself and meant to reply to this comment:
Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.
Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.
Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.
Probation is an established system. You suggested licensing I’m not engaging with you anymore because that’s not my argument. It’s your spin.
Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.
You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?
The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.
Just some food for thought.
-
I’m reading the study to find the part where it says that these participants didn’t have any social or societal support to attempt to deal with their other problems.
Oh right - sorry I see now that you were just vocalising the chip on your shoulder.
The homeless and those with untreated mental health disorders don’t have social or societal support, or they wouldn’t be homeless and untreated.
-
And impotence I’m sure. So, a two-fer
As someone who’s battled chronic depression since 1989, I can tell you that of all the antidepressants I have tried (just about all of them) only one triggered erectile dysfunction and it went away once I stopped taking the pill. None reduced my sexual appetite, some actually increased it (one dramatically). The most common sexual side effect I found was difficulty climaxing, which combined with increased sexual appetite made for some extended and amazing sex.
-
Maybe if they are violent and reoffending they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship until they receive intensive therapy, which may include medication?
This is just masking a problem that is multi-faceted and the results aren’t really that impressive.
Edit: I am not suggesting a license for private interpersonal relationships, I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate prisoners/offenders and give them therapy/mental health treatment. Commenters below are twisting my words and saying I’m suggesting things that are not in the above text, not even a little bit. I quickly stated that I meant this to be a term for probation (which is conditional freedom), not something retroactively applied to past offenders or applied to all adults in the form of a license.
I’m all in favor of rehabilitation instead of punitive imprisonment too, but you did say “they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship”, not that they should be sent to rehab. We’re not twisting your words at all. There’s no other way to read that. You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation, you were talking solely about restriction of relationships. If you meant something else, you should say what you meant.
-
Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.
You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?
The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.
Just some food for thought.
Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.
You are saying I’m suggesting it affect “all adults”. That’s false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don’t need to abide by that system.
You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?
Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?
The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don’t agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.
The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.
They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I’m not hurt.
-
What a weird thing to take away from the article.
Certainly you can think of at least a few organizations tackling homelessness, untreated mental health disorders, substance use, relationship crises, disengagement from health services and conflicts with government institutions.
Seriously it’s a single study into another topic. That’s just how science works. I’ll never understand when people get mad that a study exists and that it is somehow unable to cover every possibility of a complex topic in a single study.
I’m not mad the study exists. It’s a useful finding. It’s the framing of the article I object to. It could just as easily be framed that mental health treatment for men at risk or incarceration improves outcomes and is more cost effective.
-
I’m all in favor of rehabilitation instead of punitive imprisonment too, but you did say “they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship”, not that they should be sent to rehab. We’re not twisting your words at all. There’s no other way to read that. You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation, you were talking solely about restriction of relationships. If you meant something else, you should say what you meant.
You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation
I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.
People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.
The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.
-
And yet… Research has repeatedly shown it’s women who instigate relationship violence.
Ah yes, the inevitable downvoters.
It’s been well established. You don’t like it? Shame that.
No I’m not providing a source. Your anger should motivate you to look.
Here’s a place to start: which relationships experience the most violence: Male/Female, Male/Male, Female/Female?
Interestingly, the male/male is the least violent, and female/female the most violent.
'Nuff said.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30186202/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6113571/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30465625/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7034778/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23271429/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046894/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21731790/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8766270/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sexual-orientation-disparities-ipv/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32064141/
So take your biases and fucking read.
Further, if men are the primary cause of violence in relationships then:
F/F relationships should show orders of magnitude less violence.
M/M should have the highest levels of violence and be orders of magnitude greater then F/M.
And yet none of this is true in any study.
Those articles contradict your claims, because you’re wrong.
They very clearly state that men report intimate partner violence at lower rates than women do, which explains why M/M IPV numbers are low and F/F higher.
Thank you for proving youself wrong! I trust you’ll update your opinions and beliefs accordingly.
-
You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation
I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.
People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.
The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.
You later clarified it, yes, but you’re getting bent out of shape when people responded to what you had initially written. We can’t see the future edits, nor read your mind for intent. We can only read what you have written.
-
You later clarified it, yes, but you’re getting bent out of shape when people responded to what you had initially written. We can’t see the future edits, nor read your mind for intent. We can only read what you have written.
The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.
See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263
Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).
I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.
-
Or… OR!.. Or: we treat the root cause of depression in men.
-
I’m not mad the study exists. It’s a useful finding. It’s the framing of the article I object to. It could just as easily be framed that mental health treatment for men at risk or incarceration improves outcomes and is more cost effective.
At risk of incarceration for what
