cam0940 has left 718 comments

cam0940 comments on Notre Dame Football in Colombia

Beat USC? 2007: USC 38 ND 0 2006: USC 44 ND 24 2005: USC 34 ND 31 2004: USC 41 ND 10 2003: USC 45 ND 14 2002: USC 44 ND 13 I went to USC, still support the football program and the school. People enrolled at Notre Dame, finished undergrad, and went to grad school without beating USC.

cam0940 comments on

True webmanco, but then the same girl will look at you crazy if you pull up to McDonalds on your date. She's subtly demanding that you take her to some minimally decent venue. Btw tasco, where did you go to school? I went to USC.

cam0940 comments on

Lol, shark tank man, I'm telling you. But one last word on being tacky... If the girl is corroncha about asking for money, the overwhelming odds are she will be equally tactless and ghetto in other respects as well. Run. You don't want the task of home training the girl in addition to all the standard difficulties that come with an intercultural relationship.

cam0940 comments on

OK, let me make a disclaimer: The more corroncha the girl is, here or there, the more blunt she's going to be. Sometimes shockingly blunt to the point of having you wonder whether it's normal for Colombian women. Blunt to the point of being tacky by U.S. standards. I'll take paisa29 at her word. But you can really only say that you never ask a guy for money if you're willing to date him even if he's broke. If you want him to take you on nice dates etc, then in a way, indirectly you are asking him for money. Bottom line is, dating costs money. You might get away with a walk in the park or feeding the ducks once, but eventually you're gonna have to go in your pocket. To me, whether it's directly giving her cash or paying for dinner doesn't matter. It's money spent either way.

cam0940 comments on

All girls ask for money. Everywhere. The question is do women in Colombia do it with the same level of tact/cunning/subtlety that you're used to, and the answer is NO. I love Colombia, but in my experience, Colombian women don't have near as much game as the girls in LA. If you can hang in the shark tank called Los Angeles (or New York for that matter), you can hang in Colombia.

cam0940 comments on Tu and Usted in Bogota

Lol, although that was a nice joke Lila, I just read the whole thread.

cam0940 comments on Tu and Usted in Bogota

Everyone is Tu in my book after the first couple sentences. I used to get really caught up in this issue, but then I realized Hey, my Spanish is a hell of a lot better than their English. These people know I'm not from around these parts so it's actually good that I'm understood at all. As far a grammatical precision, fuck it. As long as you understand what I'm talking about. Think about it, how critically do you judge people when it's obvious that English is THEIR second language?

cam0940 comments on Cartagena Needs Taxi Meters

My experience is along the lines of C4C's and Juanelejo's. I did pay a 10,000 peso fair but that was from 13 de Junio to El Laguito, which is a long ride, I'm talking from way over on the opposite side of the stadium. In Bogota, with meters, I was more suspicious of the fares. You aren't really in a position to argue because well, there's a meter. But it sure did make it seem like the distances I was riding in Cartagena were a bargain.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Mario, that's because you've been taught that it's unacceptable and you've bought it on a gender specific basis. Had you been taught that it's not OK for either partner to resort to physical abuse on the other, that would change everything.

If a guy hit you, would you hit him back? Of course, and no one would think twice about it.

But if a woman hits you, it's supposed to be "more acceptable" somehow. We're supposed to just take it and say "Well, she snapped and it's not cool, but I'm just going to let it go."

Do you see the dilemna this puts the feminist in? If you're equal, and you hit me, I should knock you the fuck out. But in DV, feminists scream the loudest that we are, in fact, not equal, because I should respond to a woman differently than I should respond to a man. They make me sick.

But at the same time, I am not saying it's OK for YOU to come home from a hard day's work and whale on your wife. That's wrong. It's not OK for you to rip her apart verbally and think there's just no limit to it. If we're talking about two adults in a relationship, each one has to be responsible for his/her own actions, and each one has to understand that his/her forms of communication (physical and/or verbally abusive) could lead to bad outcomes. We all have a choice as to how we want to express ourselves to our partners; we should be choosing civilized, mature forms of communication. My problem with the whole DV propaganda is that it doesn't fully explore how these problems happen. Miguel_Clavo talked about "investigations". DV detectives don't give a fuck, 90% of the time the arresting officers can't even accurately report what happened. Then you go to a Mickey Mouse arraignment where--unless the victim shows up to speak--all the judge or state has to work with is what's written in the report. And you become a statistic.

I'm annoyed by all that, but I'm about problem solving and I think we need to go deeper into the so-called "statistics". Miguel_Clavo, first of all, most police officers don't even like to respond to DV calls. They don't give a shit about getting the story right, a DV call is about covering their own ass. Unless the husband is bloodied beyond anyone being able to question their call, he's going to arrest the man. When a police officer comes to your house, what he's thinking is "How do I not get sued for fucking this up?" and the most sure way to do that is to arrest the man. If he gets called there, he's got to take someone, and all he wants to do is limit his own personal exposure to the extent possible. That's why when you see the report later on that doesn't sound anything like what actually happened, you can understand that the police officer is trying to make it very clear why he toted the husband off. If he writes a suspect ass report, such as "Mario restrained his wife from driving drunk for her own safety", Mario might find a crafty lawyer to come back and show how the police officer fucked it up. So the report probably sounded more like "Suspect became angry after arguing with victim. Suspect grabbed victim and dragged her into the house. Victim was hysterical. Victim refused medical attention." Etcetera etcetera. Judge reads that and it sounds like Mario can't control his anger and resorts to manhandling his wife. Then YOU come on PBH and try to tell us that that's what DV is about. Spare me.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Oh and one other thing: I never hinted that killing someone was the correct choice in any of these kinds of situations. What you wrote sounds as though that's what you're accusing me of. If you've killed someone, you've gone too far.

Which was really the point of bringing up the Bobbitts, Left Eye, and my ex-wife's cousin. If you're burning things up, mutilating people, and generally tripping, you've gone too far.

Your response to this was to come back and say "Well men do it too". But I wasn't talking about what men do, I was talking about what women do. A grown up way to handle the situation is to say "OK well here's what I think about Bobbitt, Left Eye, and the cousin. But now that you mention it, how about this guy who cut his wife's arms off?" You see, then you're not ignoring issues, you're addressing them. That's how grown ups have conversations. You deal with the immediate issue (women's behavior) and then you move on if there's another topic you want to talk about (men's behavior).

This way no one feels disrespected or ignored and everyone has a chance to be heard and acknowledged. Anything less is at best childish, and at worst uncivilized.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Miguel_Clavo...
I read each Miguel_Clavo...

I read each line of your response. I've come to the conclusion that A) You know nothing about me, since you're trying to reduce everything I said to media and fiction and whatever else you said.

B) You're not interested in discussing real issues. What you're interested in is an argument. Incidentally, I'm not interested in arguing sources with you. That will make the thread much longer than it has to be. Unless you said something that was egregiously and obviously in error, I wouldn't even ask you about your sources.

In fact, the only reason to ask for sources is to find a secondary method of defense. If I give you something that challenges your prejudices, then you'll want the source of the information so that you can try to discredit it... anything to avoid conceding any validity to the other party. I've seen this far too often.

You told some horrible stories of men doing horrible things to their women. Who am I to question them? I accepted your stories at face value because I'm secure enough in my position to be able to do so. See the difference between you and me is that what you've said (regarding all the horrible things men have done) can be true without invalidating what I've written. But when you respond to my posts, you feel the need to--most often in most flimsy fashion--try to debunk each sentence in order to support YOUR position. You should not do that because it only makes you appear to be out of touch with reality. Why? Because the world is not black and white. In other words, some men can be horrible but that doesn't mean all women are innocent. Coming from my standpoint some women can be horrible premeditated schemers but that doesn't mean all men are innocent. You see, men AND women start shit.

But then DV counselors...trying to get them to acknowledge that is like pulling teeth. Everything's about what "he shouldn't do". Why not make it gender indifferent? My original question to sweetg30 was if a woman hits a man, does that make her garbage too? After all your typing, you still haven't answered that question and it doesn't surprise me because DV folks never want to counsel women. It's always about some shit what the man should have done differently. Don't you see how women in general could possibly...conceivably...pick up on that? When people in your field lay all of the onus for mature behavior on the male, you by extension are telling the female that none of that applies to them.

Bottom line: if you do not address women's roles in this shit, they never have a motivation to own their actions. In fact, if you don't talk to the women, they won't beleive there's anything wrong with the things they do.

The reason I wrote at length defending the men is precisely because there's already enough shit stacked up against the man. In a post-OJ world we don't really need to counsel men. Men already know what's up (for the most part). But women, women have never been addressed at large to say that it's not OK to hit your man with a shoe or whatever else is within arm's reach. Women haven't been told that it's not OK to be screaming so loud that the neighbors can hear you. You're on and on about the evils of men when you really don't need to preach that side of it. It's already out there.

By not writing a single syllable on women, you make it seem as though you really believe that the woman is generally speaking the victim. I will grant you that if the police get called, it's probably the woman calling, because very few men are going to pick up the police and call to say that their 110 lb partner hit them. But knowing that, you can't turn around and say that the numbers of DV arrests men v women is a meaningful indication of what's really going on.

And for your information, this is one of the two social issues I'm most familiar with. You make a lot of snide remarks designed to discredit and insult and that's fine if that's your writing style. But it doesn't change anything.

The handling of DV and the way we present the subject to the public at large is fucked up in this country. Which takes us almost full circle to why might a man choose a woman from a different country. Not because he wants to beat her, control her, because he's desperate, none of that. It's because he's tired of the bullshit.

There was one other part of your post I wanted to respond to and that's the part where I guessed you might be female and therefore in no position to assume a man's thought process.

Sweetg30 said that a man might hit a woman simply because he doesn't get his way. I said men don't think like that. The subject is men's thought processes. In that context, it doesn't make sense for you to respond by challenging my ability to understand women's thought processes. Stay on topic.

When I talked about bullies and teaching people how you want to be treated, these are proven psychological issues that are true regardless of gender, and no I'm not going to cut and paste a study. If you're not well-read enough to know that already, then that's your problem. It's not my job to educate you enough to have a conversation with me.

OK OK, maybe that last comment was a little mean. I just take offense to the overall tone of your posts towards me, which are filled with personal insults--mostly because what I wrote disagrees with your prejudices.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Well Elmo, let's use your case as an example. What you might have done is come down on her very very hard on top of her head. Not necessarily as hard as you could, you don't want to cause any permanent damage. And not on her face or anything, because you probably don't want to leave any embarrassing marks or bruises that would be seen in public. But you DO want her to let go. If you hit her on top of her head hard enough, she'd be stunned a little bit and loosen up her bite. That's one of the two things you want. And when you do it you ask her "What's wrong with you? What are you doing?" The other thing you want is for her to remember that she can't be biting you till you bleed. She shouldn't be biting you at all, fuck that. Imagine if you had bit her. So let her know that there are consequences to that kind of behavior. Had you done that, I for one wouldn't be sitting her calling you garbage. I'd be calling you someone who had enough self respect to not let another person mutilate your body.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

You see Miguel, first of all, if it's OK for a woman to cut a man's picha off, burn his house down, or even just to slap him, you're holding the woman to a lesser standard of self control than you're holding the man, which is bullshit.

Secondly, just like a little bully on the playground, if you don't respond when that person throws something at you or strikes you, then you're teaching that person what they can get away with, and they will do it again. Subconciously that person records "OK, last time I slapped him he cowed away like a bitch. So that's a pretty good indication of what he'll do next time." And that's how it happens the second time, the third time, and so on. If she hits you, you either leave her right then or you hit her back. The argument for hitting her back is simple: by her hitting you, she's telling you that physical contact is--in her mind--an acceptable form of communication. She's communicating her frustration, anger, whatever by hitting you. So for you to try to respond to her by talking is not rational. If you ask me a question in Japanese and I answer in Spanish, I'd be a fool to thing you get it. I need to answer you in a language that you understand. So if you strike me, don't be surprised, don't expect to go running to the police, don't be screaming "Domestic Violence!" or any of that. The object of me striking you back is so that next time you get all worked up you'll hopefully stop to think "OK, if I hit him, there's something coming back. That's not going to be the end of it." Now you don't have to leave bruises, you don't have to leave black eyes. You just need to communicate to her that "Hey, we're not going to have this, you striking out at me whenever you want." I'm a husband/boyfriend/significant other. I'm not your child and I'm not your punching bag. So you think good and long before you throw that coaster at me. You think good and long before you slap me or punch me or whatever, because I WILL hit you back. I won't start the drama, because I'd rather watch HBO or play Xbox or something...I don't have time for foolishness. But if you're going to take it there, then I'll end it. I can sit down and communicate like 30 somethings ought to be able to. For me it doesn't matter how hairy the subject is, let's talk it out. But if you're going to start acting crazy and you have to express yourself by striking me, I'm sorry I'm just not going to sit there and take that from any person, I don't care who you are.

I'm in LA just like you are, and I'm here to tell you there's a LOT of women who keep hearing this bullshit that we say "Oh, a man should never hit a woman" and they believe it. That's part of the reason they believe they can strike a man with impunity. They think they can do whatever they want and nothing's going to happen, but that's the wrong answer at my house. If you hit me, man or woman, the next time it crosses your mind you're going to remember what happened the LAST time.

I really don't see how a DV counselor could argue with that. It's so sexist to say that the man is garbage if he strikes a woman. What you OUGHT to be preaching is that it is fundamentally wrong for one partner to strike the other, period. If you do, don't go crying to the police or charitable organizations because the person hit you back. You're a hypocrite in those cases. You should be preaching that human beings are just that: human beings. There's only so much shit you can pile on top of him OR her. You keep prodding, provoking, and generally fucking with a human being, he/she is going to reach a tipping point. I'm not talking about voicing legitimate concerns or grievances, that's part of normal communication in a relationship. I'm talking about psychotic ranting and raving, making a scene in front of the neighbors, talking about mommas and insulting the other person's manhood or womanhood. There's only so much we--as human beings (man or woman)--can take before we explode. And some of us, like me, have very high thresholds, but it's not infinite. At some point the big mouth who's on the verbal abuse onslaught has to realize "OK I'm just about there" and then back off. In fact, I posit that some women do it just to see how far they can go BEFORE HE DOES blow up. Trying to break him. Trying to push him to that limit. Remember in high school how there was always one kid that got picked on? And all the cool kids used to just fuck with him? Well one day when that kid brings an Uzi to school and kills everybody, I think we have to ask whose fault that truly was? And some relationships/arguments are just like that. I'm not talking theory here, I'm not talking about what you learned while getting your sociology degree. I'm talking about real life. I'm talking about serious issues that flaw the so called statistics that DV workers love to cite. I'll tell you who else knows what's really going on: police officers. Sit and talk to one. One officer told me that in his estimation maybe 90% of the guys he arrested were guys that were just getting fucked with to no end by their partners. Some of the women WANTED the man to go to jail for a few days because they were mad at him, so they kept fucking with him and intentionally pushed him to do whatever he did, so they could run and call 911. It's bullshit.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

I believe you elmo. You can be physically abused but still have other options besides knocking her out. I've been there. But, absent those other options...

My friend was cornered in the bathroom. One way in, one way out. His wife--mind you SHE was the one cheating--was beating him with a curling iron because he called her a ho. Now he could move her out of the doorway and create an exit from the bathroom, but these DV idiots would call that abuse on his part too. He could lay her out on the carpet with a right hook, after all she was beating him with a curling iron. But then he's going to jail. So he took it.

And these DV idiots would say that "makes him a man" because he didn't hit her back. I say that's dumb and I say that ANYONE who allows someone to do that to them, male or female, and doesn't defend themselves, is a chump.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Well I appreciate that you closed your post with "It's just my opinion" MC, because that's all it really is.

Before I answer your post, I've been a poster here and on Colombianblog for a fairly long time now. People who know me know that I do not just make things up. If I said it as fact, it's because it's true. If I didn't know I'm humble enough to say so. Where it's my opinion, I clearly label it. You're not really in a position to say otherwise, and I'm not going to sit here and argue it with you.

Regarding your other information, you obviously don't have the same experience I do. In fact, although your screen name is "Miguel", I would guess you're probably female. If so, there in lies your confusion: a female is in no position to have any understanding of a man's thought process...don't give a damn how many cases you've seen. I'd furthermore like to point out that by the time the police arrive and the man is toted off to court, you have no idea how they actually arrived at that point, now do you? All you know is he hit her. But why? Men don't go around just striking other men for no reason, so why did he hit her? See every action has a cause, nothing happens "just because". That's what people like you would have us believe. And I'm not talking about just simple little words. I'm talking about out of control behavior. If Andre Rison beat Lisa Lopez' ass for burning his house down, I'd let him go. After all, it's her fault. That's what I'm talking about: provocation. And that's the point that you seem to have missed in my post. Nothing happens "out of the blue."

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Let's look at a couple of real world example: Lorena Bobbitt cut her husband's picha off for alleged infidelity. WAY out of control emotionally. Lisa "Left Eye" Lopez burned Andre Rison's $2 million mansion to the ground becuase she was unhappy in the relationship. When have you ever in your life heard of a man doing some stupid shit like that? In entertainment, within the first 15 minutes of the hit movie "Waiting to Exhale", Angela Bassett was informed that her husband was leaving her for another woman and she put all his clothes in his BMW and set the car on fire in the driveway. I distinctly remember all the women in the theatre applauding and cheering her on. Then she sold all the rest of his stuff in a garage sale for $1 each. All the women in the theatre were saying "That's right! That's what he deserves!"

We're talking about emotionally unstable creatures.

If men had these kinds of histories, the DV pitch might make sense, but we don't. No man is going to burn the house down because he finds you with another man. If he walks in on you he might beat both your asses, but we might all understand that as a society. After all, if you weren't acting like a ho, it might never have happened. But he's not going to burn the house down.

My ex-wife's cousin, now that I think of it, put all of her husband's clothes in the bathtub and set it on fire, not realizing that the bathtub was made of flammable fiberglass. Damn near burned the fuckin house down. Had to dial 911 and had fire trucks all down the street. She was embarrassed to be seen by the neighbors for months.

My point is that when we talk about DV, women's arguments only make sense if we assume that the males are the emotionally out of control parties, who lose sight of what they are doing, and beat their wives. There's very little empirical evidence to support this, however. All you really have are REPORTED cases, when we all know that generally men don't report. Even in those cases that are reported, you so called social workers never look into CAUSATION, that is... how did it get to this point? If I fucked with you non-stop, all night, all weekend long, insulting you in all different kinds of ways as a woman, individual, and a human being, and wouldn't let you get a word in edgewise, kept cutting you off, talking over you, ranting and raving at the top of my lungs embarrassing you because the neighbors can hear me, at some point your cup might overflow too. I say that in these situations, at least half of the responsibility, if not all, belongs to the out of control woman. If she doesn't have the discipline and the self control to express herself in a more constructive manner, then she has no right to complain about what happens when she finally pushes her man past his threshold. When she goes on one of these trips, all he really wants is for her to shut up and sit down. If he can't talk her into doing that, well. She's going to be made to shut up one way or the other. You're not going to just keep ripping him to pieces while he sits there and takes it forever. If he can't talk to you, socking you might be the only way to make you shut up.

And then DV folks say "Well go for a walk." Why? Why is the man going to go for a walk or go drive around aimlessly when he's not the one out of control? Maybe he just wants to sit down and watch TV? He can't because he has to leave home because this bitch is incapable of shutting up? That's not HIS fault. If anybody should be going for a walk it's her. What if it's late a night and he has to work the next day? What if it's cold or raining? He has to go "for a walk" because this bitch is tripping? That's wrong. She has some responsibility to bring herself under control before things get out of hand. Otherwise, she has no room to complain. Ranting and raving and cogiendo rabietas is childish. For me, this is the Number One thing, far and above anything else, to avoid in a relationship. Fellas, if your woman exhibits any of the traits I just described, leave her ass immediately. It's appropriate in a Colombian board because the so-called "fire" that Colombianas have is in part what leads to these kinds of dilemnas. Find a woman who can explain her grievances like and adult, let you respond, and then knows when it's time to shut the fuck up.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

sweetg30,
You said earlier sweetg30,

You said earlier that any man that hits a woman is not a man, just garbage. Something about wanting to have his way, and if he can't he beats her. For the record, men don't really work that way. Actually, women are something like 5 times more likely to strike their spouses, three times more likely to use a weapon, 50% of murders between spouses are committed by women, and women are generally accepted as the more emotionally volatile gender. About 1 in 10 men currently report issues of domestic violence to authorities. I could go on but I just wanted to give you a little bit to think about as you consider your answer to the following question:

Is the woman who hits her man "not a woman, just garbage"?

Given most mens' abhorrence to arguing or any long, painful discussion with a woman, does it really make sense that male DV offenders strike their wives "because they couldn't have their way"? Is it more likely that the bitch provoked, pushed, and urked him until he exploded? That's a little bit of a loaded way to ask the question, but DV annoys me, because men are generally presumed guilty until proven innocent, and therefore we all have to watch these bullshit commercials about the so-called innocent female victim having to hide in a shelter or whatever.

I've never met a guy who's first option would be to hit is wife. The only way I could see something like that happening is in the case where he tries to leave and she jumps in front of the door... he tries to mind his own business and she keeps fucking with him... he's trying to chill and she's being an incorrigible ball buster... and he's telling her "OK OK that's enough" and she just keeps going and going and going until something happens. Then she's crying at some social worker's office about how bad he is, claiming she doesn't know what happened, "He just went crazy!" Yeah right. I think Domestic Violence is a bunch of bullshit.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

I will say one last thing, though.

Notice how Sweetg30 defined "manhood" using her stepdad's helping around the house etc? Anybody notice how women always try to define "manhood" but then when we men define what we consider "womanhood" it's either ignored or flatly rejected? There's always something wrong with our definition, or we're cavemen trying desperately to hold on to a past era. So basically, women are OK to define what a man should be, but men should be quiet on what a woman should be.

Does anyone else find that hypocritical?

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

I changed my mind about the post I was going to write. I think I'll follow G5's advice instead.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Alleycat, where do you get that from?

I don't consider myself to be "angry" or "confused". I consider myself to be fed up but very rational and clear minded.

As a matter of interest, I'm Black. I've dated women of many different nationalities and colors. One issue in the Black community is often times--and I do mean often--when a Black woman sees a Black man dating someone of a different race or nationality... they get personally offended. They turn their noses up, they're rude, and they talk about you behind your back. They say you "Sold out". I won't get into it any further, just suffice it to say I've "been there and done that."

They rationalize it amongst themselves saying "He's weak and can't handle a strong Black woman". There are a million things wrong with that statement but what I want you to focus on is how similar it is to the American or European woman trying to analyze the Gringo who marries a Colombian.

The truth is, I don't want a woman to be rolling her eyes and neck every time we have an issue to discuss. I don't want her trying to tell me off all the time and then having her girlfriends say "You go girl," like she put me in my place or something.

I am Black. My mother and sisters are Black. My dear Grandmother is Black. But I decided in 2004 that fuck it, I'm not going out with any Black women any more. Ever. They look. They flirt. They disrespect my wife like they could steal me from her because they are the same race as me. But fuck it, I'm not interested.

In a way, they're right. I don't want a "Strong Black Woman" in the sense they imply. I want a wife. That doesn't mean a subservient or passive woman; my wife is anything but. It just means I don't have time to be arguing with you and I don't have time for you to be acting crazy. "Strong" to me means you can handle the time we are apart waiting for DHS to get your paperwork together. "Strong" to me means you can have a happy relationship with me in the U.S. although your family is 3000 miles away. "Strong" to me means you go to class every day to obtain the basic education necessary to function as an American citizen, even though English isn't your first language. "Strong" is NOT proving that you can earn as much money as me, drive as well as me, earn a postgraduate degree or professional designation like me, launch a company like me... you're NOT me, and I don't want you to be. I don't want a competitor, I want a partner, because alone I am not whole. I don't want a duplicate, I want a complement.

So aside from this feminist thing, you have Black women who are on this "I can do that too" shit to the nth degree from a Civil Rights era standpoint and from a feminist standpoint. But there are other issues... single parenthood... poverty... even if some of these girls do make it to middle class or upper middle class society, a lot of them are carrying issues that I just don't have time or energy to deal with. That's why--as a Black man--you consider other races. What we're discussing here regarding Colombian women--for me--is just an extension of the same.

If I don't like what the women around me are bringing to the table, I'm going elsewhere. It has nothing to do with being angry and confused. I'm a very conscientious skirt chaser. Or I was anyway, till I found my wife.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

Over and over again, men have stated that they don't like what's available in their immediate area (mine being Los Angeles).

Not that they can't get a girl and therefore have to use an American passport or U.S. dollar to create an uneven playing field... we've simply stated that we didn't like what was available.

I'm 35. I have no doubt whatsoever about my ability to find a girl. It's Friday night in Los Angeles. If I wanted to meet someone I am quite confident that I could get dressed and go hook up within the next couple of hours. That's not the problem.

I don't shop at the Gap because I don't like the clothes selection. Sure I could buy, but they don't have what I'm looking for. Therefore, I go elsewhere.

I think it's painfully simple. So much so that it makes me wonder why some folks (overwhelmingly American and/or European women) continue to insist that it is something different than what we're telling you.

It's like marriage therapy. Women always want to go to marriage therapy because they assume the therapist is going to sit there and tell the husband all the things that are wrong with him. Never do they imagine that the therapist might have some suggestions for THEM. Never do they concede that maybe...perhaps...possibly...SHE could have some issues or baggage.

So when we men--who have relationships with women of other countries--cite the shortcomings of American women as a contributing factor, women stubbornly refuse to concede that they themselves might be part of the problem.

I used to call it the "Daddy's Little Girl" syndrome. Sweet little angel of a daughter is so precious, can never do any wrong, and then when she grows up she has trouble assuming responsibility for her own actions, difficulty correlating consequence to her decisions, and is typically a bona fide, Grade A blameshifter.

I'm really glad I don't have to deal with any more issued women. I know couples now where the husbands have been absolutely castrated by their wives, they're the butt of every joke, they get treated like they don't know anything... they're basically their wives' buffoons. You'll never in your life see Cam in that situation. I'm supposed to not be a man anymore because I'm married? And then every now and again, when she's in the mood, she's going to make it OK by giving me a little koo-koo? And I'm supposed to put up with all the other little bullshit in the relationship buying her shit, reading her mind, anticipating what she's thinking because she won't speak in plain language? Excuse my language but... fuck that. I'm 35, I'm getting too old for these little games. And then on top of all that, I have to wear an apron to cook dinner sometimes, wash dishes sometimes, wash clothes, take care of the kids, pay the bills, cut the grass or hire some illegals to do it, take out the trash, maintain the cars, put together bikes on Christmas...ALL this shit... just to prove that I'm comfortable with either of the traditional roles in the relationship. One question: While I'm doing all this shit, what is my WIFE supposed to be doing? I'll tell you A) Shopping B) Posted on the sofa watching TV or C) Working on her career for HER OWN PERSONAL FULFILLMENT.

Which leaves me, an eligible American man, asking myself "What do I need her for?" After a while, that occasional koo-koo she was offering just isn't worth it. After all, every woman's got one, including the Colombians.

cam0940 comments on I have a question, why do these men have to go to other country for a woman

That's a nice, academic analysis Desi. Of course, it's rhetoric. Even though you were critical of overzealous feminists, you are still basically attributing the phenomenon to men who can't handle change... aren't comfortable with progession... in other words, aren't comfortable in a "less dominant" role in the relationship... which misses the point entirely.

Men aren't that complicated. We do not enjoy argument or conflict for the sake of argument or conflict. We do not want life partners... someone whom we're going to share our homes, finances, children, our entire existence with... who's going to fight us every step of the way. We don't want to spend all our time with someone who has a psychotic, learned need to "prove" that they are equal in every aspect of life. We don't need someone to be in competition with us, hanging on every syllable out of our mouths, ready to pounce on us if something we say could be construed as sexist. We just want to be happy.

I'm in a competitive industry. The last place I want competition is in my home when I'm trying to relax. I want to come home, close the door, and be there with someone who's ON MY SIDE. Not an American woman who's there as long as she's on a pedestal and I'm her vassal. I don't need a woman to prove she can have a career, sacrifice what I think is valuable influence with our children, just so she can add her $32,000 to our 1040 at the end of the year. Don't worry about that. Even if it were $320,000, what would be the point? Business is good right now, and how much do you really need? If it's not about NEED, then it's about some other psychotic insecurity that WE don't need in our relationship. I don't want a woman challenging and second guessing everything I say--even my male friends don't do that. I don't want a woman conciously preserving her independence and/or individuality...that's the antithesis of marriage. I just wanted a regular, sane, secure partner with whom I could RELAX. And that's why I'm with Mrs. Cam.

cam0940 comments on How to claim a death benefit

BTW, some of you who have seen some of my posts over the last year or so might consider this "poetic justice". I mean, I chipped in during some tough times the family was having. If we can collect this death benefit, it will more than repay what I've shelled out. So it's cool. I want to go get the money.

cam0940 comments on

Yessir, the same guy. Good to see you around as well.

cam0940 comments on

You may be right Mario. Just today my wife was talking about some "boosheet" assignment she has to do for her English class.

She also commented on that "deck" of a cop that gave me a ticket last week.

And every once in a while, if she drops something or stubs her toe, you can hear her blurt out "fooking!" (She hasn't quite mastered the tenses and uses of "fuck". It's a work in process.)

But "Bitch" is a huge taboo. She claims it's the worst thing you can call a woman.

Regarding your wife, the reality is that she is in a new country. It is incumbent upon her to adopt our social mores. She's not going to change pop culture nor is she going to change how everyday folks (heaven forbid they're two guys) communicate with each other.

Strobers talks about you moderating your language. That's OK. But the greater flexibility will have to come from your wife, because as you've pointed out, you aren't the only one she's going to come into contact with that says "Bullshit" and "Kiss my ass".

I have some cultural problems with my wife from time to time as well, and it doesn't always have to do with cuss words. Today I went out to get some toilet paper and to pick up mail from the Post office. Bullshit errands, OK? Not fun stuff. She was watching some program. I said "OK, I'll be right back." She asks "Do you want me to go with you?" To which I said "I don't care, it's up to you."

Evidently, no me importa is a bigger deal THERE than "I don't care" is here. I meant "where I'm going is not important enough for you to miss your program." What she heard is "It's not important to me if you are not in my company." You see? Little shit like that hurts her feelings. This issue that you have with your wife is in the same family of misunderstandings, and...I wish I had better news for you... but it's going to be a long haul bro, till she gets familiar with these litte colloquialisms.

On the flip side, it would be the same for you in Colombia. Every once in a while, I still have conversations with a native Spanish speaker (usu. Mexican) and find my self wondering "What the hell did he just say?" and my Spanish is pretty damn good. It's just... nuances. Sometimes even tone.

cam0940 comments on Homeless in Colombia vs. Homeless in the US

I don't think that anyone is saying the US is "so fucked up"... especially on a relative basis.

But as they say in boxing, you better come to fight. That's all. There's opportunity here. Opportunity to go from nothing to something. But the road is full of potential pitfalls and not everyone is going to be wildly successful simply because they are on American soil. It's a war. Some people aren't going to make it for various reasons, some of which we outlined above.

I'd still rather be here than anywhere else.

Strobers, I'm glad you enjoyed the post. I tried to write with a little entertainment value as well as making (what I thought) were valid points.

Miamimike brought up another situation that is also very realistic.

People that can't see that... let me put it like this... it's good that you can't imagine these things. It means you've been able to avoid serious problems and that's a good thing. I wouldn't wish my struggle on my worst enemy (well...I did sadistically smile to myself when my ex-wife moved to New Orleans just before Katrina...). But I think that having to have fought to build a semi-decent situation for myself makes me a better, more open minded, understanding person. I'm still a full blood Republican, but I have an appreciation for the pluses AND minuses of living in a capitalist economy. If you've never been threatened with having it all fall apart, you're not really in a position to make sweeping judgments about those who are in that situation.

cam0940 comments on Homeless in Colombia vs. Homeless in the US

Strobers I am a conservative in pretty much every sense of the word. For that reason, I cringed a bit when your argument became political with Dawg. I don't think you can draw the line distinctly down party lines, because I happen to agree with you on the multiple causes of homelessness.

Over the last five years alone (through no fault of our President--we can debate that another time), there have obviously been sea changes in the makeup of the job market. Guys that previously felt secure in their employment found themselves out of work or underemployed. When you get laid off at 40+ years of age, it can be very difficult to find another job that pays a similar salary. Say you're 45 years old and you're making $100,000 per year. If, God forbid, you lost that, you're gonna be like Jim Carey in Fun With Dick And Jane... standing in a line with 500 other guys just like you who are all competing for a finite number of positions that will provide comparable substitue income. But everyone can't have one... so some will end up doing shit like selling movie tickets at AMC theatres and supplementing that income by drawing down their retirement accounts... Some will have too much pride for that and take equity out of their homes... Some will sell off stocks... but in the end, most guys in that category will only have at best 12 months worth of expenses covered... and I'm talking about the top 5% of the country. The average American can't go 3 months without a check. So to say that "choices" is the cause of homelessness is a little naive.

I... unfortunately... had an experience maybe 10 years ago where I switched firms and took a 50% pay cut for the first year... extremely difficult to make changes to my lifestyle. I didn't lose my home, but clearly see how easily it could happen to someone. Especially if that person had a family to support and he/she had little time to prepare for the adjustment. I CHOSE to make the switch and temporary setback as a means to earn greater income in the future.

Generally, spending behavior is based on expected earnings. If you expect to have a job next week, it's OK to take the wife out to dinner Friday night. If you don't believe you're getting a paycheck, you might not. The same goes for buying that house, buying a car, sending the kids to private school... you do it because you've been working at XYZ company for 15 years and you're a middle manager earning $100k and you just don't anticipate that pink slip coming... That's how you get caught with fixed expenses that you can't afford after the bomb drops.

It's naive to miss that reality. It's naive to miss the reality that many schools in urban areas are utterly failing to prepare students for even junior college, much less university education. Thousands of public schools are passing students who just don't have the skills to thrive in this type of economy. That's why you have grown people--I mean in their 20s--selling cell phones at Radio Shack for $9/hr and shit like that. Going absolutely nowhere. At $9/hr you can't pay for school and an apartment in LA at the same time. You can't save for a car, you can't make a car payment. So this is where we get to those "choices" that Dawg was talking about. These people try to make choices (self preservation being a human instinct) to improve their lot in life, but with such a small margin for error, it could easily all fall apart. You're working for $9/hr at Radio Shack after high school, and even something so small as a $100 speeding ticket could fuck you up. You don't pay it on time because money's tight...the penalty goes up... they suspend your license until you pay... you get stopped again--this time with a suspended license... now you're $1000 in the hole... now it's fucking with your tuition and books...

I paid USC $27,000 a year with no help from my parents. It was very very hard to do. I've lived this... I've had the suspended license... I've had the Ramen noodles... I've done it all. I've had my parents help me with rent on more than one occasion back in the day. But if they hadn't? If one of those months I wasn't able to pull the rabbit out of the hat? It's easy to see how someone who doesn't do drugs, doesn't have a drinking problem and isn't mentally ill could become homeless.

cam0940 comments on VP Santos going to Europe to campaign against cocaine consumption

You give too much credit, Hollywood. I doubt most people could even name Pablo. Remember, half of this country doesn't even know who Nancy Pelosi is.

cam0940 comments on Divorcing from colombian marriage.

Well a belated congratulations to you, in that case.

cam0940 comments on Divorcing from colombian marriage.

That's interesting Famsearch, because of the way some women play ball these days. There's nothing to stop the woman from taking her son/daughter to the airport and saying the father is estranged. She won't be forced to come up with a father's signature if she's saying the father left them years ago. At the federal and the state level, they just let her go (or sign up for services) and then leave it up to you to prove that she lied. Unless I misunderstood your post, the difference could be that it sounds like your niece was leaving the country with neither parent nor legal guardian. If your sister in law was merely acting as a chaperone for the trip, it would make sense that she drew greater scrutiny.

cam0940 comments on Divorcing from colombian marriage.

I know you were asking Gator but I do know the answer to your question and we don't know when Gator will check back in:

No one will question her boarding a plane with the kids. Gator is talking about the problem's the OP will have once she's landed in Colombia with them.

So physically yes, she can leave the country with the kids. Legally, she cannot once the divorce papers have been filed and the section on custody limits her travel. If he's still married and hasn't filed anything at all, then he's got issues, because there's no order that restricts her from doing so. She could go to the moon with the kids and he'd have no recourse because there's been no discussion of custody so far.

cam0940 comments on Unemployment increased 1.7 pct to 12.9% in Colombia

Sure it is, cali373. Even if the worker is barely "staying alive" you still get the income multiplier. BTW, the only noteworthy reason there was a surplus under Clinton is because of the windfall tax revenues created by the speculative fervor surrounding new technologies.

Please note: I didn't write that to pick an argument with you, I was just pointing out...

Lastly, someone talked about the accuracy of DANE statistics. Less than half the Colombian population is even in the labor force, to be counted as "looking for a job and unable to find one". This is 3-4% less of the population as compared to say... the United States. Seemingly small discrepancies, but they make a huge difference in the quality of life. Also note, to give credit to cali373, underemployment (those who are making less than what they could or ought to earn) don't show up in unemployment numbers. Take mototaxis for example. These guys are only allowed to drive every other day in CTG. So, they make about half of what they could or ought to make. But they don't get counted as "unemployed". So practically speaking, apart from the 12.9% of the labor force that is unemployed, you almost suredly have another 12.9% or more who are underemployed, making the drag on the economy far worse. That's why when you travel to some neighborhoods you'd think surely the rate was around 50%.

cam0940 comments on Google Earth and colombian cities

You can make your way around Cartagena pretty well too. I can make out several familiar places.

cam0940 comments on Here's one guy that doesn't need to watch novela's

Same error.
Same error.

cam0940 comments on Here's one guy that doesn't need to watch novela's

The post uploaded so slowly I thought it wasn't working. I pressed Post Comment more than once. Sorry.

cam0940 comments on Here's one guy that doesn't need to watch novela's

Jack does need to blow the whistle on Jill. During the ensuing investigation, regardless of the outcome, the murkiness and suspicion could be enough to balance the tables a little bit when the Custody hearing comes up. He can get the Restraining Order set aside. In California, a woman can go into court ex- parte and say "Oh, my Ex is a monster and I'm scared for my safety and my child's safety" and a TRO will be issued no questions asked. HOWEVER, upon issuance, a hearing date would have been set, Jack would have been served, and would have had to show up on said date. At the Restraining Order hearing, Jill has a little more burden on her to prove the Restraining Order is warranted. A judge isn't going to give her a Restraining Order without something tangible to point to... even in California. Been there, bro. The problem is that if Jack gets stopped by a police officer for say... driving 40 in a 35... the fact that he's got a Restraining Order against him puts you in a totally different category. He can be searched and otherwise fucked with because he is already understood to be a "problem". After all, a judge granted a Restraining Order against him. So my first advice is to do something about that. If Jack tricked off his hearing date on the Restraining Order, then he has no one to blame but himself. If he wasn't properly served, then he still has hope. On the Custody issue, he needs to get down to Immigration and start telling all he knows. It will be easy to prove the fraud since he ought to have some record that Jill was in fact living with him and that with 99.999% accuracy Jill gave birth to his child during a time when she was supposedly madly in love with Paco. Jill ought to be toast. Jack needs to keep in mind that he's doing this for his daughter. This is no time for him to get soft and sensitive, given that Jill clearly doesn't give a fuck about him. He should slam Jill and save his little girl, or forever hold his peace.

cam0940 comments on Forget About Reality, Confirm My Misguided Thinking

For the record, I happen to agree with you Gomezman5.

It occurred to me that maybe people hear so much negativity about Colombia from the State Department and other sources that maybe they sincerely ARE looking for some positive spin, to balance out the information they are taking in elsewhere. Possible?

Just like you are frustrated with all the positive spin on PBH, outside of PBH, sources are dominated by negativity, even exaggerated negativity.

But let me close by saying that I agree with you in general. I just wanted to challenge you to think about the broader context. PBH can't possibly be the only info these people are getting.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

Thank you Rubiazo, for probably the most accurate, helpful answer to a simple question.

cam0940 comments on What does "tan mamon" mean?

Yeah. Identifying what a client wants can sometimes be very difficult when they themselves don't know. We're obviously in entirely different industries, but I am familiar with the "rabbit out of a hat" request.

cam0940 comments on What does "tan mamon" mean?

Colombiche? YOU'RE tired of working with YOUR clients? Darling you don't know the half. I'd rather have a root canal than meet with this guy I have to see later.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

Yes GIB, I did write that verbatim. Then I wasn't on PBH for a little while. When I came back, it was clear that I had to clarify exactly what happened.

The waitress brought the bottle to the table and it was already opened before I had a chance to ask "Why did you bring a bottle instead of a glass?". I wrote "of course" more in the spirit of Murphy's Law. If I had wanted a bottle, it probably would have worked out where I'd have finished with Ubadel and sat down by the time the bottle arrived. Since I DIDN'T plan on a bottle, naturally she got there in a flash with the bottle, started serving the table, and then I sat down afterward, just in time to be late.

But that's what I mean about having to be anal and precise. It was actually a yes or no question about bottles in clubs, but it became a "You got scammed" thread.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

Well, it doesn't really sound like Pete E read what I said either, that the bottle was opened while Simon was sitting at the table and I was a little ways away. However, Pete E did bring up an interesting point:

Johnnie Walker Black label probably isn't a "top seller" at La Candelaria. They may serve it by the bottle only because if someone orders a drink, it might be six months before another person comes in looking for it.

Or then, maybe you have to buy a bottle if you're sitting at a table. I still don't know which it is, but I'll ask.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

You guys don't read. I said the bottle wasn't opened until it got to the table at least twice already. Simon was sitting at the table when the waitress arrived with the order. I was not at the table, I was standing 10 to 15 feet away, but looking right at her. Why are you guys still babbling about not taking a bottle that's already opened? For all I know, Simon told her to open the fucking thing when she got there. Whether the bottle was open or not is not even the point. The point is, La Candelaria in Cartagena (which pretty much makes all your Bogota experiences irrelevant), apparently serves alcohol by the bottle. What I have learned so far in this thread is that all bars in Colombia don't. Fine. That's all I was after.

To sit in the Velvet room at Las Palmas in Hollywood you have to buy a bottle. Same thing at the House of Blues' Foundation Room. Same thing in the VIP section of certain places in Vegas. Maybe, just maybe, if you want a table at La Candalaria you have to buy a bottle, too. So then MAYBE, the only question for the waitress at that point was "What are you drinking?" Maybe you people are used to drinking in dives, but sometimes upscale places have rules. Pain in the ass coming here just to ask a simple question, I'd be better off just calling Simon. I don't know why some of you have to make everything on PBH so difficult. Nobody's going to play the gringo card when one out of 7 people is a gringo and you're bringing the fucking bottle to a 45 year old cien por ciento Colombiano. If you would read I wouldn't have to repeat the details over and over again. And if you don't want to read, but prefer to capsulize, assume, and spew nonsense please stay off the fucking thread and leave it to people who can provide sensible answers to simple questions.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

And caslug, I didn't just bend over and take it from the waitress. At the time the bottle was "ordered", or I should say at the time the Johnnie Walker was ordered, she couldn't possibly have had any idea which of us was going to pay.

Furthermore, it seemed everyone in the group knew that it was going to be a bottle except me. You know how it is when you go into a club, everyone's talking, it's loud, and you're kind of filing in. Those in the front had a bottle of Ron Medellin on their mind. They went in to find a table, I ran into the waitress and ordered the Johnnie Walker. I got in a conversation with my girlfriend's brother, some general conversation BS as everyone was settling in. A few minutes later I see the waitress bring a bottle of Johnnie Walker, glasses, ice, a bottle of Sprite, and water. She set the stuff on the table. Turns out nobody even wanted Johnnie Walker, but since I ordered it, everyone drank it in deference. I'm still chatting with Ubadel while all this is going on, but I'm looking over his shoulder as she opens the bottle and Simon places glasses around the table, one for everyone. I go sit down at the table like "WTF?", but by that time the bottle was open. Simon had just bought dinner for everyone at American Chicken, and refused my contribution. So I said to Simon "OK fine I'll get drinks at the club." And I AM the one that placed the order for the Johnnie Walker. So when the bill came, I got it, and it was 180,000 pesos. This is also by the way, why everyone drank it because I already told Simon that I would get the drinks since he got dinner.

Jeez things get blown out of proportion around here. First thing everyone wants to say is "You got scammed" like you're all so street wise. I didn't just fall of the turnip truck yesterday. All I really want to know is if I order, are they thinking bottle or glass?

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

One other thing, it wasn't the waitress that told me it was a European thing, I was commenting on it with a buddy of mine who just spent some time in Belgium. Now, he may be grossly misinformed, but to him ordering the Johnnie Walker and getting the whole bottle, especially with a group of us, didn't seem strange. He just said you have to specify in those settings. Which is what led to my asking is this common bar etiquette for Colombia.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

Yeah, as I read more and more of the posts, I see that I made a critical tactical error by not mentioning that we had our table, there were a group of us, I was the only non-Colombian, I was within eyesight of the girl when she opened the bottle, the guy actually sitting at the table when she opened it is a local politician, and in terms of quantity a bottle wasn't out of the question since there were several of us.

However, I still thought I was going to get a glass and each person would order their individual drinks of whatever they wanted.

cam0940 comments on The Johnnie Walker Situation

I've been busy for the last couple of hours, had no idea the thread would explode to 60 something posts so quickly. I'll read the whole thread in a few minutes when I have time, but I do want to say that I SAW the woman opening the bottle when she brought it to our table, but at that time I was maybe 10 or 15 feet away talking to someone else. She brought the bottle to the table opened it, and it was already open by the time I got to the table and put two and two together. I should have been more clear about that. But yes, the bottle was open before I knew I was in for 180,000 pesos.

cam0940 comments on American Men w/ Wives or Girlfriends in Colombia

Well, I apologize for snapping at you. I didn't take it as a personal attack, I'm secure in my situation. But the whole "off the shelf" thing had just been covered and I sincerely, objectively, don't understand that angle when that's not really how it works. Hope you had a good time, see you around.

cam0940 comments on American Men w/ Wives or Girlfriends in Colombia

I find it absolutely amazing that you would write that rocinate, after we just had an in depth discussion on Mail Order Brides. Either you have no idea what you're talking about and are blissfully ignorant, or you didn't read the thread.

cam0940 comments on American Men w/ Wives or Girlfriends in Colombia

Vegaschic, I'm confused about your post. No one ever said that DV wasn't serious, it IS serious. What we're saying is that contrary to conventional thinking, women are the perpetrators FAR more often than they get credit for. Because it is an uneven system, women often manipulate the system, make false claims, or think that they can "express themselves" (through hitting, throwing things and talking crazy) with impunity. That's the problem. I said it clearly, Mario said it clearly, and GDL said it for the third time clearly. So why would you respond by cutting and pasting parts of the Penal Code? Are you trying to paint men as abusers? Are you busily reading statistics that are grossly misrepresentative of what's going on? I said it before and I'll say it again, fewer than 10% of abused men ever call the police on their wives. Why? Because most of us believe in an old fashioned characteristic called chivalry. The same reason you don't hit her in the jaw as hard as you can is the same reason you don't call the police on her. But that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that she hasn't committed domestic violence. So... her behavior only in the most rare of instances ever shows in the statistics. Which makes it a farce for law enforcement or shelter workers to spew bullshit statistics based on police reports that are actually filed. Get it? It's bullshit.

The other significant point, which you failed to answer, is why I, after working 11 hours and being exhausted, should be the one to have to leave the house with no where to go when SHE's the one out of control? What if it's cold? What if it's raining? I have to roam the streets like a jerk when I'm the victim? Waiting for her to calm down? So she sits inside warm and fuzzy and I'm out wandering around for a few hours because she can't stop throwing things? What kind of sense does that make? What's really going on is, as I said earlier, no matter how crazy she acts, the man is still expected to be a gentleman and concede the house to her. The man is expected to be the one in control (a concession that she's the emotionally weaker vessel, because we don't expect her to control herself and calm down before things get out of hand). Yet, when you say "You should leave the house" the implication is that I'm in control enough to do so. If I'm the one in control, I'm not the abuser, now am I? I'm the victim. So why does the victim have to run? When are women going to be held responsible for acting like maniacs? Until women are held responsible for their behavior, they won't stop. Why would they? If you can act any way you want to and the law doesn't punish you and the only advice DV workers ever offer is "the guy should leave" what in the world would cause the woman to correct her behavior? There is no incentive to, and so she goes on and on till someone gets hurt or the man snaps and clocks her. Then you show up on the scene calling the man an abuser. It's bullshit.