malancam55
New member
A recent question caused resurfacing of this experience.
About a decade ago I was confidant to a work-mate/ friend in his immediate post separation difficulties.
The scenario is as follows :
One evening I was a dinner guest of couple (my friend and his wife with whom I was also a friend) and their male house-guest. Throughout the visit the hostess kept giving me "wind-up" and "you can go now" signals so I left early.
After my departure, the evening degenerated.
My friend emerged from his pre-sleeping shower to find his wife sexually engaged with the male house-guest on the lounge room arm chair. The husband immediately ordered the house-guest to leave which was, understandably, complied with.
Whilst the husband was cleaning and washing the dinner dishes an angry conversation ensued. He threw a cup in frustration -- in the opposite direction from her -- and it smashed. She taunted "I suppose you'll do that to me next ? Are you going to beat ME up ? Should I call the police now ?". He replied "There's probably not much I can do to stop you is there ?"
Police were summonsed and attended.
Due to the smashed cup, police assumed the possibility of violence potential. The cup, being a wedding gift, was held to be part hers in ownership, thus her property was assaulted. The result of this was an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) being instituted against the husband. The terms of the AVO meant he could not approach her -- or their home -- within 50 metres.
The "no approach" terms had a three-fold effect :
1) If he was visiting mutual friends at their own homes, and she arrived, he would have to immediately leave. This meant his support base was restricted.
2) He could not access his thousands of dollars worth of equipment he had stored at his family home. These tools were necessary for his employment.
3) He could not have unrestricted access to his 9 year old son whom he loved dearly.
Were the preceding not cataclysmic enough, the situation -- as such often do -- got worse.
As she was a legal/ accountancy consultant, over the years it was agreed that she was best capable of handling all family legal and finance concerns.
Now separated, he found his bank account emptied of work wages before he could access them.
He was unable to gain welfare support as he couldn't offer proof of identity. She had controlled and withheld his passport/ birth certificate/ driver's licence/ bank and credit records.
For official purposes he was effectively identity neutered.
Later other details emerged.
-- It seems that on her many work related trips away, she was regularly engaged in motel sex with her colleagues in full view of her accompanying son. The son is alleged to have said "Dad, I thought something was wrong but didn't know how to tell you."
-- Her parents, to whom she was an angel, were both scions in the legal fraternity. It appears they may have brought pressure to bear to support her case.
-- During a casual drive many years previously, she had once remarked "See those lawyers there ? If ever we got divorced, I'd use them. They do good work." They were in fact the lawyers she used.
-- The many years of gradual concentration of family business into her hands appears to have been orchestrated.
-- She appears to have retained custody of their child as the prefered parental influence.
Over time I lost contact with the husband and do not know the ultimate resolution.
Curiously he saw the events as being singularly offensive (understandably) but didn't appear generally antipathic to all her gender as can often happen in such circumstances.
I realise the above is lengthy, involved, turgid and barely credible.
I was only peripheraly involved but still find it in barely comprehensible despite knowing it's veracity.
My questions are :
A) How could such legal situations occur ? Were they valid applications of law ?
B) Could such legal action still occur today ?
C) Could a reverse similar outcome for the male have been anticipated had he been more legal savvy ?
D) Does it not appear much of the occurences were more female oriented than case specific "needs based" orientation ?
E) Is this a preferred direction of Feminism objectives or does Feminism regard this as abhorrent too ?
About a decade ago I was confidant to a work-mate/ friend in his immediate post separation difficulties.
The scenario is as follows :
One evening I was a dinner guest of couple (my friend and his wife with whom I was also a friend) and their male house-guest. Throughout the visit the hostess kept giving me "wind-up" and "you can go now" signals so I left early.
After my departure, the evening degenerated.
My friend emerged from his pre-sleeping shower to find his wife sexually engaged with the male house-guest on the lounge room arm chair. The husband immediately ordered the house-guest to leave which was, understandably, complied with.
Whilst the husband was cleaning and washing the dinner dishes an angry conversation ensued. He threw a cup in frustration -- in the opposite direction from her -- and it smashed. She taunted "I suppose you'll do that to me next ? Are you going to beat ME up ? Should I call the police now ?". He replied "There's probably not much I can do to stop you is there ?"
Police were summonsed and attended.
Due to the smashed cup, police assumed the possibility of violence potential. The cup, being a wedding gift, was held to be part hers in ownership, thus her property was assaulted. The result of this was an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) being instituted against the husband. The terms of the AVO meant he could not approach her -- or their home -- within 50 metres.
The "no approach" terms had a three-fold effect :
1) If he was visiting mutual friends at their own homes, and she arrived, he would have to immediately leave. This meant his support base was restricted.
2) He could not access his thousands of dollars worth of equipment he had stored at his family home. These tools were necessary for his employment.
3) He could not have unrestricted access to his 9 year old son whom he loved dearly.
Were the preceding not cataclysmic enough, the situation -- as such often do -- got worse.
As she was a legal/ accountancy consultant, over the years it was agreed that she was best capable of handling all family legal and finance concerns.
Now separated, he found his bank account emptied of work wages before he could access them.
He was unable to gain welfare support as he couldn't offer proof of identity. She had controlled and withheld his passport/ birth certificate/ driver's licence/ bank and credit records.
For official purposes he was effectively identity neutered.
Later other details emerged.
-- It seems that on her many work related trips away, she was regularly engaged in motel sex with her colleagues in full view of her accompanying son. The son is alleged to have said "Dad, I thought something was wrong but didn't know how to tell you."
-- Her parents, to whom she was an angel, were both scions in the legal fraternity. It appears they may have brought pressure to bear to support her case.
-- During a casual drive many years previously, she had once remarked "See those lawyers there ? If ever we got divorced, I'd use them. They do good work." They were in fact the lawyers she used.
-- The many years of gradual concentration of family business into her hands appears to have been orchestrated.
-- She appears to have retained custody of their child as the prefered parental influence.
Over time I lost contact with the husband and do not know the ultimate resolution.
Curiously he saw the events as being singularly offensive (understandably) but didn't appear generally antipathic to all her gender as can often happen in such circumstances.
I realise the above is lengthy, involved, turgid and barely credible.
I was only peripheraly involved but still find it in barely comprehensible despite knowing it's veracity.
My questions are :
A) How could such legal situations occur ? Were they valid applications of law ?
B) Could such legal action still occur today ?
C) Could a reverse similar outcome for the male have been anticipated had he been more legal savvy ?
D) Does it not appear much of the occurences were more female oriented than case specific "needs based" orientation ?
E) Is this a preferred direction of Feminism objectives or does Feminism regard this as abhorrent too ?