In the community I live in, a guy named Matt went on a drinking binge and beat up his girlfriend, Lea.
Matt had only been here 4 months. The first month he was here he went on a drinking binge, and got a lot of concerns about that. Some folks said, he's a nice guy, let's give him a 2nd chance. So he cleaned up his act and stopped drinking.
He went on a binge again Thursday. Friday night he started beating up Lea while she was asleep in bed. He hit her in the face, dragged her out of bed by her necklace, hit her all over before he could get dragged off of her.
He left before the police could arrest him, but they should catch up to him eventually.
This really sickens me. It's bad enough to beat ANYONE. But Lea's a quiet, shy girl, and her father beat her when she was a kid. Beating her up is like kicking a sick puppy...
I hate drunks. I've met too many mean and nasty drunks. I've met a lot of boring slacker potheads... but never a mean and nasty pothead. I hate the whole hypocrisy of fighting the war on drugs while we pretend that it's OK for alcohol to be legal.
[/vent]
[ November 16, 2004, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think part of the reason drinking is acceptable is because it will affect people differently. I know several people who, when they get drunk, are very quiet and don't bother anyone.
I am in no way condoning it, however. I hope they catch this Matt guy and he gets punished for what he did to his girlfriend.
((plaid))
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'm all for illegalizing Alcohol. We've tried it once, though. There are just too many people who drink...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Why? It's like anything else in life - if you choose to do it, do so responsibly.
Otherwise, pay the consequences.
-Trevor
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I hate violent drunks.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Unfortunately, as is the case here, alcohol abuse frequently spreads its consequences over a wide range of innocent by-standers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Boris, if you make every thing that has the potential for abuse illegal, there will be very little left in the world that is legal.
Sure, people abuse alcohol. They do not take responsibility for their decision to drink, and subsequently drink to excess - to the point where they lose some level of social control (be that just being obnoxious to being physically violent).
People also abuse other things, though. Cars are a good example. People speed and drive recklessly, and end up hurting (or killing) others. Sometimes they throw all responsibility to the wind and drink and drive at the same time - which is an even greater problem.
But this doesn't mean cars should be made illegal.
It simply means that those people who show such a lack of responsibility should face consequences for their actions. Those who drink and become violent should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just as those who race at 90 mph through a school zone should be.
It's not the alcohol that's causing the problem, quite frankly. Many millions of people drink every day without incident. The person who chooses to drink to excess is the problem, especially if that person already knows they can become violent in that state.
Same with cars. Same with guns. Same with drugs. Same with anything else.
The fault lies not with the inanimate object. The fault lies with the lack of responsibility in the user.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
I wasn't aware that cars have addictive properties.
[ November 07, 2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Cars may not, but fast reckless driving could be.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
I don't know. I think that there's a pretty fundamental difference between a habit and a physical addiction. I'm not neccessarily saying that alcohol should be outlawed. I like to drink. I love to have a few beers and watch a football game. I like to unwind with a good scotch after a hard day. But if I knew that it would save one person from being killed, or one child from being abused, I would give it up without a second thought. An alcoholic couldn't do that.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dunno. An alcoholic could TRY.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Try? Yes. Succeed? Maybe. But it wouldn't be easy.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I didn't say it would be. But it could happen in SOME cases.
(I'm not arguing for alcoholics, as I grew up abused by my mean drunk father)
But I hate giving up hope on people. There are alcoholics that have no idea how badly they hurt others.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
It would happen in a lot more cases if the booze wasn't available. I'm not suggesting giving up hope on people. I know many recovering alcoholics. And I know that their lives would be a whole lot easier if they weren't able to buy alcohol at all. My point was that comparing cars and alcohol doesn't really hold up because of the fact that people can become addicted.
[ November 07, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't see it as the cars, but the propensity for recklessness and irrepsonsibility. Perhaps those personality types gravitate towards the most reckless behavior in regards to substance abuse.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Possible. I hadn't thought about it that way. I guess if you think of it in terms of mental illness, it might be more readily comparable to alcoholism....
Okay. I'm convinced. We should outlaw cars AND alcohol.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Noooooooooooooo! I love driving! Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Yeah, me too...
Maybe I have a problem...
I need help!!
Hi, I'm Matt and I'm a licensed driver.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I've always had this feeling that even if we made alcohol illegal, those who show a tendency to become addicted to it would find something else. The addictive personality comes first, doesn't it? Alcohol's just a really easy, really potentially dangerous scapegoat.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote: just a really easy, really potentially dangerous scapegoat.
Sorry, that phrase made me laugh. I do agree that you can't place all the blame entirely on the alcohol. Ultimately, people will do what they're gonna do. On the other hand, alchol has been proven to be more addictive and harmful than various other outlawed substances. Should we exempt alcohol simply because its been around for so much longer and so many more people use it?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The difference between alcohol and cars is that alcohol's principal function is abuse. People may drink it to damage their judgement slightly or people may drink it to damage their judgement a lot, but it still boils down to the same idea.
There is a reason it is not illegal, though. That reason is not because it isn't bad. That reason is because we tried illegalizing it, and it didn't succeed in solving the problem. The moral of the story is not that alcohol should be considered okay, but rather that it is not always wise to legislate everything that is bad for us.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Believe it or not, some people DO like the taste of alcohol and do not drink it to alter perception.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Principal function. I've known very few people who drink alcohol for the taste.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Xap, your viewpoint's the one I usually end up agreeing with... I don't like alcohol and drugs (I've never tried anything, including alcohol). But I think Prohibition was a huge failure.
(My grandpop's a pillar of his farming community, a big churchgoer and all... but you should see his eyes light up when he tells stories about all the moonshine he and everyone else made back during Prohibition. I think he was actually kinda disappointed when Prohibition ended.)
I wish that alcohol was illegal. But that doesn't seem to work. I think pot should be legal, since banning it hasn't worked either, and if anything it's less dangerous than alcohol. Other drugs... I don't know... heroin and meth I'd have no trouble banning, I've never heard anything good about them...
Anyone have any ideas for how to discourage (without banning) alcohol abuse? I can think of the usual stuff (raising kids right, having good towns and good economies so less people drink out of despair).
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Cure mental illness. Or make mental health treatment more acceptable and more accessible. Many people end up drinking to self-treat depression or anxiety. Oh, and make the modern world less hectic. That'd help too.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Now THAT would be nice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Principal function? How bizarre, I suppose those huge industries based around expensive beers, wines and other liquors are but a figment of my imagination. I guess the fact that at a grocery store, while there is plenty of cheap alcohol, the space for good alcohol is 5 to 10 times greater is but a figment of my imagination.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I thought its principle function was to make me have wacky adventures that inevitably end with many hot girls wanting to sleep with me.
Edit: Has TV taught you people nothing?
[ November 07, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I officially "do not drink." It is my excuse, my escape and my answer. I can get out of most gatherings where people will be drunk. Because I "do not drink."
This isn't true. I have no moral objection to alcahol, I only hate it when used in excess, or when used to block out things or to kill people while driving. I drink champagne on special occaisions, because I like the taste of it. I drink some wines, on special occaisions, because some wines complement meals very well.
But, in the public world among my peers, I "do not drink" because if you drink then you drink to get drunk.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: People may drink it to damage their judgement slightly or people may drink it to damage their judgement a lot, but it still boils down to the same idea.
Xap, I wouldn't use college students as the example (as you must be, to be giving the definition you are), since most of them grow out of the binge drinking phase.
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
Yek... this must have been horrible for you all plaid, especially for Lea of course. Did she live with your community and became his girlfriend after he joined or did they join together? In the latter case, maybe this Matt somehow knew he had to do something about his problem and bring Lea to safety, so he left her with you all, to take care for her. How is she?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Um, Tres, you're totally off on this one. To play devil's advocate, you at least need a client.
No one would pay several hundred dollars for a single liter of scotch if their principal reason for drinking was to impair their judgement. Natural Light isn't exactly most beer drinker's first choice, nor is Boone's Farm a wine drinker's choice at all.
Yes, some people drink for effect. Some people also race cars, or even crash them for fun. (Not that a car is the most apt example, but it's still an inanimate object that people choose to use, overuse, abuse, or avoid) Some people buy cameras for the sole reason of child pornography. That doesn't mean that's the primary purpose of any of those inanimate things.
Beer and other alcohols are consumables, and, as such, there are a great deal of people who enjoy consuming them - and *not* for their alcoholic properties. There's an entire industry of magazines and newsletters devoted to rating quality and taste, and tastings around the world for those who are part of beer or wine culture.
But, to get back to my main point, stop blaming inanimate objects for human problems!
If someone is addicted to something (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, caffiene, sex, etc), then they need to seek help to curb their urges and take responsibility for their decisions. If you are an alcoholic, you need to seek help, just as if you were a heroin addict.
The drink didn't force itself down your throat, nor did the heroin force itself into your arm. Stop blaming the world's problems on the existence of inanimate objects. Take a little responsibility for your actions, and force others to be accountable for their actions.
Blaming alcohol for a guy beating up his girlfriend takes the blame away from where it should be - squarely on his shoulders.
Don't blame the car when a speeding driver gets into an accident. Don't blame the hamburger when a person is too fat. Don't blame the handgun when a man kills his wife. Don't blame the ballot when you vote for the wrong candidate.
Yet, still, people do all of these things. Why? Because we live in a culture of blame, rather than a culture of responsibility. People would rather blame the object, rather than its user. Or the infuencing factors, rather than the decision making. They blame the media. Or video games. Or the schools.
Whatever. Blame should be placed on the person whose decision it was to do the wrong thing. In this case, a man decided to drink to excess and beat someone up. Don't blame the beer, or the bottle that holds the beer, or the manufacturer of the beer, or the existence of beer in our society.
Blame the bonehead who made a decision not to be a responsible human being.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, I wouldn't use college students as the example (as you must be, to be giving the definition you are), since most of them grow out of the binge drinking phase.
I'm not. Most adults I know, old or young, who drink do so in order to impair their judgement to some extent greater or lesser - they may call it winding down, or getting a buzz, or loosening up, or relaxing, or whatever, but the point is clearly generally to alter their mind and judgement in the way that alcohol does. I've observed this directly often.
If you took the alcohol out of the drink but kept the same taste, would people switch to the less mind-altering option? I think some would, but most would not.
quote:No one would pay several hundred dollars for a single liter of scotch if their principal reason for drinking was to impair their judgement.
Yes they would - just because they want something that tastes good while they are altering their judgement doesn't mean that's not what they are trying to do. After all, people pay thousands of dollars extra for a car that looks good. There's a whole industry based on designing cars to be cool, popular, and appealing. That doesn't mean the primary function of a car is to look good. The primary function of a car is to be driven - people just pay a lot because they want to look good while they are driving too.
quote:Blame the bonehead who made a decision not to be a responsible human being.
I think that IS who is being blamed here. The title of the thread is "I hate drunks", not "I hate alcohol."
But you can't ban foolish people. You can only ban the things they use to further their foolishness, and even that doesn't always work.
[ November 07, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Hmph. Cars are dangerous, yes, but only at reckless levels, past certain speeds. Now, if there was a blood alcohol limit . . .
My father is a very intelligent man. But honestly, I hate it when he gets together with his firends or family because he gets so drunk. And then he'll start trying to talk about something intelligently, and sound like a bloody moron. And later, when he's sober and discussing soemthign with me, all I can think about is what a moron he sounded like earlier.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:Most adults I know, old or young, who drink do so in order to impair their judgement to some extent greater or lesser - they may call it winding down, or getting a buzz, or loosening up, or relaxing, or whatever, but the point is clearly generally to alter their mind and judgement in the way that alcohol does. I've observed this directly often.
Huh. Most of my friends that drink drink for the taste. Sometimes they drink alcohol because that's what's available, or sometimes to fit in (I love watching older people succumb to peer pressure), but I can't recall any getting even somewhat tipsy.
quote:Hmph. Cars are dangerous, yes, but only at reckless levels, past certain speeds.
You could easily get injured going 25 MPH in many different ways, such as glares hitting the windshield or mirror or hood, singing on the radio, engine malfunctions, etc.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: I'm not. Most adults I know, old or young, who drink do so in order to impair their judgement to some extent greater or lesser - they may call it winding down, or getting a buzz, or loosening up, or relaxing, or whatever, but the point is clearly generally to alter their mind and judgement in the way that alcohol does. I've observed this directly often.
Tres, people also watch tv to "wind down" (or "relax" or "loosen up") - or they surf the web, or get massages, or play golf, or eat chocolate, or any number of other past times.
Ever think that they're drinking a certain beverage because that's what they like to drink? For instance, I dislike soda, for the most part. I would much prefer a Arizona Green Tea with Honey after work, or a Belgian style wheat beer - something light and refreshing. That's not what I'd drink with dinner, however (depending on what I'm eating). If I'm eating a steak with mashed potatoes, I'd probably go with a microbrew stout (such as Leatherneck from Tun Tavern, or Terminator from McMinniman's). If I'm eating pasta with red sauce, I might go with a Buffalo Grove Merlot. At a party, I might go for something a little sweeter, such as an amaretto sour.
quote: If you took the alcohol out of the drink but kept the same taste, would people switch to the less mind-altering option? I think some would, but most would not.
If there were drinks that tasted comparable to those without the alcohol, I'd definitely give them a try. If they were equal in taste, the choice would come down to price and convenience.
The thing is, such nonalcoholic options do not exist. There are a tiny number of nonalcoholic beers, and they don't taste anything like the better quality microbrews out there. I have never found a nonalcoholic "wine" that has tasted anything like its counterpart.
Your point is moot because no such options exist - therefore no conclusions can really be made other than your own opinion of what "most people would not" do.
***
quote: Yes they would - just because they want something that tastes good while they are altering their judgement doesn't mean that's not what they are trying to do.
Says you. And you can say it until you're blue in the face. It is the extremely rare millionaire who buys a bottle of single malt, single cask scotch to get drunk off of it. Those who spend the cash on high end liquor do it for the quality of the product - not for its effect.
If you want to prove me wrong on that, see when the last time any of these people you know have drank half a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue to get smashed, or who cracked open a bottle of Chateau Lafitte Rothschild 1996 so they could get blitzed.
quote:Yes they would - just because they want something that tastes good while they are altering their judgement doesn't mean that's not what they are trying to do. After all, people pay thousands of dollars extra for a car that looks good. There's a whole industry based on designing cars to be cool, popular, and appealing. That doesn't mean the primary function of a car is to look good. The primary function of a car is to be driven - people just pay a lot because they want to look good while they are driving too.
Not really. No one's going to pay the same for a Lambourghini Murcielago as they are for a Hyundai sporting a fiberglass Murcielago shell. It's not the look, it's the engineering and the performance.
The industry is set up to increase features, increase performance, and increase quality. If a car wasn't a luxury, high performance item, it wouldn't sell.
Do some people buy six digit cars for the look? Yeah, sure. Are there people who buy expensive beer and wine to look sophisticated? Yeah (but this becomes their primary reason, and not the alcoholic effects).
quote: I think that IS who is being blamed here. The title of the thread is "I hate drunks", not "I hate alcohol."
You can be really dense in your argumentative devil's advocate mode. My response was directed to Boris, as my original post indicated, who said that he was "all for illegalizing Alcohol". You have apparently jumped to his defense.
quote: But you can't ban foolish people. You can only ban the things they use to further their foolishness, and even that doesn't always work.
Good logic. Maybe we should ban voting. Or internet message boards. Surely that will stop foolish people furthering their foolishness.
Maybe we should try to stop people from being foolish, rather than taking away the things they've chosen to be foolish with. You know, holding them responsible for their actions, instead of blaming inanimate things with no decision making capacity of their own.
Don't ban the "thing", hold the foolish person responsible for their foolishness.
Maybe you missed that point earlier, in your rush to be contrary.
Edit: Duplicate text. Oops!
[ November 07, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
A thought that no-one has yet posed is: what's wrong with "impairing" judgement?
By putting it as "impairing" rather than say, "altering", it immediately has a negative connotation added to it.
I absolutely drink to "alter" my perceptions. But it's been a few years since I've drunk to excess and I really enjoy relaxing with a great tasting red wine a couple of nights a week. It helps me relax and is apparently good for my heart.
I'm not in the slightest against substances that alter perception - your body manages that on it's own on a regular basis.
So, what's fundamentally wrong with altering your perceptions?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Having actually *purchased* a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Lable recently, I can definitively say that unless you are a millionare you aren't going to consume that for anything but the taste.
AJ
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Nice? I'm not usually a scotch man myself. Prefer gin or tequila in spirits or a good shiraz in wine.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
What kind of tequila do you go for Troubadour? I'm all for Patron whenever possible, but Sauza does pretty well for me for Margarita's and mixed drinks.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
FC - When did you have Terminator?!
Is it not, like, the greatest Stout ever, Ever, Evar?
And for a sipping tequila (not a mixing tequila, mind you) you must try del Dueno. It ain't cheap, but lord - it's worth it.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Damn Ralphie, you just get cooler every time you open your mouth!
Tequila supplies are hard to come by in Australia, so I'm lucky if I can get a Cuervo 1800 Anjeo...
But Sauza if I can get it, especially the Tres Generaciones...
I take it with a shot of sangrita - a non-alchoholic spicy tomato shooter.... mmmmmm
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
(Update) Leah decided not to press charges. Sigh. She didn't want to make trouble for him. She went in to get her injuries looked at, but instead of going to the local clinic (where the staff would've contacted the sheriff) she went instead to a bigger city further away, where they don't automatically notify the police... I wish she'd pressed charges, and at least gotten something on his record, so that if he ever hits anyone again that folks can see that he's got a history.
Matt called a few days after he left while I was answering phones in the office. He left some of his stuff behind and wanted to try to get it. I talked with him for a bit. Bad conversation. He said that he knew everyone was angry with him and that he was sorry for what he'd done... but then he said, hey, well, he was hurting too, that she fought back after he started beating her...
He said that he knew he'd done a bad thing, but that he was going to be going back to the service, and reporting for boot camp in 3 weeks; he said that he's too cowardly to put a bullet through his head, so he'll go to Iraq and let someone there do it for him. I don't know if he really meant this, or if he was still drunk and just being maudlin. I tried to tell him that while he did need to atone for his actions, that going into the army to get killed wasn't the way to do it...
Bleah.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*wince* Oy, sucky all around. (((((plaid))))) At least he won't be y'all's problem any more, I guess -- or Leah's either.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That really sucks. Both that she didn't press charges and that he's being such a nimconpop. **hugs** I hope you are doing okay, and manage to keep your emotional involvement at a sustainable level.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Can someone explain to me the logic behind not pressing charges? Because it seems to me that it's not so much a matter of not wanting to cause trouble for the guy that clearly needs a little of that kind of trouble in his life, but rather not wanting to face all the inevitable hassle of going through with it.
It appears to be more a sort of warped self-protection than a feeling of protecting someone else. Or am I on crack?
[ November 16, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'm fine. Leah's not someone I know well (though she's a nice person that I like), so it hasn't affected me so much -- I've got enough other things going on in my life to worry about, and she's got plenty of friends supporting her. But I hate anything that adds to my realization of how cruel people can be.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Ralphie: no, I don't understand it either. It is probably tied up with some of her own stuff -- apparently her father beat her when she was a kid, and that probably affects her attitude.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Can someone explain to me the logic behind not pressing charges?
Ralphie,
As a former (as in MANY years ago) victim of spousal abuse, let me explain it to you:
You remember the song "Goodbye Earl?" The line that said "and he walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care?" Yeah, that. He tells you every day that if you tell anyone or do anything about it, he will kill you. And you believe him. After all, you are already terrified of him. And he has tried to kill you before -- or at least shown he can really really hurt you. So you can't speak up, out of fear. Because it will just make things worse -- and the cops can't be right beside you all the time.
And you believe him when he apologizes and says it will get better. His friends say "he's a nice guy" - they can't believe he would do something like that and they tell you to stick it out -- make the relationship work. These guys are often so nice when they are NOT mad, that others refuse to see that they are dangerous.
And most of all, because day in and day out he brainwashes you to believe that it is YOUR fault. "Honey, I so sorry, but if you just hadn't been such an ass and said '[whatever]' then I wouldn't have got mad -- if you would just know when to back off and keeping your freakin' mouth shut. I really didn't want to hit you, really -- but you just push my buttons -- you push me over the line, and you need to quit doing that." You hear that day after day after day and you begin to believe it, believe if you could just control yourself better, then he wouldn't get mad -- he wouldn't lose his temper. It's all your fault.
Farmgirl
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I'm unfamiliar with the song you're referring to and I don't understand how the threat of violence is altered at all with telling someone vs. simply hanging around making your face available for a man's fists. The bit about everyone thinking he's a nice guy didn't quite strike me.
However, the brainwashing - that I can understand. You would have to be at the person's emotional mercy to be at their physical mercy, and that would be accomplished through programming.
I have a lot of respect for women who are able to remove themselves from these situations. I would think that, while scary, pressing charges would then becme hugely symbolic as well as simply the right thing to do.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It is all in perception. It is easy for us (including me) to stay outside the situation and say "why does she allow it" but the perception from inside the situation is totally different. That's all I was saying. I often, in fact, would say exactly the same thing as you, before I was in the situation myself. The direction from which you are immersed in the situation makes all the difference.
Hopefully, at some point, every woman would ultimately make the choice to run from this type of relationship. I'm just saying I understand why those who don't, don't. It is because they feel so powerless.
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why women (men too, for that matter) stay with jerks who *don't* beat them up. I'd say threat of physical harm on top of that is pretty powerful.
Posted by BunnV (Member # 6816) on :
By personal choice, I don't drink considering peer pressure is at its all time high in college. I try to avoid situations where excessive drinking is definite because I’ve come across some really strange and/or scary drunks.
One instance was a party I had gone to where it ended in an angry broken-beer-bottle fight. Blood everywhere? Yes. Frezy? Yes. Pressing of charges? You betcha.
Fortunately I was outside when this happened. The guy who was cracked in the head with a beer bottle rushed outside screaming to try to find the culprit. Paramedics soon arrived, and I had to agree that party sure was a smash.
By some odd coincidence my friends and I had an after-gathering to play a board game called “Cranium.”
I’ve had some other situations with inebriated folks that some of the always-sober members on this forum can vouch for if you don’t believe me. ::coughtatianacoughkaioshincough::
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to Leah, and I hope her situation gets better.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I might mention -- just for information for those of you who have never really been around abusive relationships much -- that the types of guys who are abusive are often also control freaks. In that role, they will control who, and how much, the wife/girlfriend has friends -- how much she can see her friends, who she spends time with -- he may cut her off from friends altogether.
So that is another reason it is so hard for her to leave -- because she has lost her external emotional support. If you ever see a friend pulling away from you due to a relationship FIGHT to keep that friendship alive for her sake. Some time she might need someone to keep telling her "Leave him! Leave him!" until she gets the courage to do it, with your help.
Farmgirl
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: I’ve had some other situations with inebriated folks that some of the always-sober members on this forum can vouch for if you don’t believe me. ::coughtatianacoughkaioshincough::
Are you referring to the time your toes got licked by the family dog?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)