though I think your general tone is one of contempt and disdain for people who put themselves in dangerous situations and are then victimized, and I don't like that.

It is not the victims I have contempt and disdain for it is for the victim apologist as an example broadsheet and Kate Harding only. I believe they create a mythology that does much more harm than good and are counterproductive to actually helping people that are abuse victims. They ignore or down right reject that the victim has any role in abuse (by this I mean they have the ability to leave), they reject that victims are in any way have mental and/or emotional problems outside of the fact they are victims. They either don't want to believe or refuse to believe that some victims escalate situations or are active participants in violence.

The info in the links Kate provided isn't just for victims, and it is certainly not justification for going back to an abuser, but the info does try to show various reasons why someone might choose to go back to an abuser and how complicated this can be, for people who would like to better understand rather than just bash on them.

But, it is justification for the actions of the victim. This is from that piece "when we think we can tell a woman what she should do, we’re not much better than a controlling boyfriend ourselves But we can still call for justice to be served. He can still be prosecuted even if she doesn’t press charges. We can also continue to hold the media accountable for what they say about this case, to ensure that blame is placed on the proper party - the abuser."

It is right there is no questioning of the woman and it is everyone else's fault. It is a fantasy that you can prosecute, in most cases, with out a complaint victim. If someone in the media suggest what I said according to that site it is my fault for not finding Brown to be a monster even if you say he is. But if you dare suggest that we in this situation know that she is better off with out the abuser we are as bad as the abuser.

There is not a single mention of the responsibility the victim has for themselves. That is what I find so harmful.

I share your frustrations with people (men and women) who go back to an abusive relationship, but I am a very strong advocate for compassion and here is my pragmatic reason why: because the key ingredient of compassion is understanding, and if we can't understand how complex this is or why this phenomenon is happening, then we can never hope to address it as a society.

Of course there needs to be compassion but there is also a point where compassion interferes from doing what is best for both yourself, for the victim and for the truth.

Yes it is complex but the victim apologist what to ignore half of the complexity. They want to ignore that the victim has any role in abuse. This is not to excuse abuse in any way. That role can be anything from staying in an abusive relationship to hitting themselves and everything in between. They want to pretend that it is the very rare instant that an abuser hits without a reason to them. That is not to say hitting is ever the answer but to pretend the majority of abuse cases is person comes home and just punches the other is wrong. Most abuse cases are more like this indecent where there is a heated argument that two people are escalating.

Ironically enough, there were two key steps to that process for me:

1. Acknowledging that I was truly a victim of abuse, because I was living in huge denial about this

2. Learning how not to be a victim anymore and how to take responsibility for my own life

Those two things are a paraphrase for both personal responsibility and what I have been saying should be taught to victims.

1. You are not responsible for the actions of another person.

2. You are responsible for your own actions.

I would probably just add this clause to the above. That actions have consequences that might not "right" but are foreseeable.

The classic example is a modification of the one you gave in another post. A women can get as drunk as she wants too alone but she runs a higher risk of rape if she does so. So while you have the right to get drunk that does not mean others will not take advantage of you. The best course of action to avoid the bad is not to use that right at that time.

The only blame I am placing on the victim is what part they had control over. That does not mitigate the wrong of someone else in any way but the goal is not to place blame on a bad situation but to avoid bad situation.

To bad I have a feeling that there is no logical argument that will stop some form of law going on the books over this. Be it banning of all nude photos sent on a camera phone or harsher penalties for teens caught doing this probably expulsion and going on the sex offender list.

It is not terrorism nor was it George Bush that are the threats to the Constitution and the right of the individual it is quite simply parents. Parents of victims are quite honestly nothing more than conversation stoppers when it comes to logic, rights or evidence. Any debate with this mother will end when the mother says these magic words "what about my daughter". For the kids is quite frankly the scariest words anyone can utter.