Comment by Ivern on yoohoo big summer blow out

This is nonsense.

1) I defined an objective and presumed responsability of the cheater only in the case of cheating, not in any and all cases of endofamiliar abuse or controversy. Cheating carries a self evident fault in the one who perpetrates it. If the relationship has problems, you resolve them. If you can't resolve them, you end the relationship. Cheating is never excusable for the one who does it. Hence, the proof of fault is derived by the existence of the cheating itself.

2) You know very little about criminal cases centered about marital abuse and what you know is filtered by televised, partial recollection of high profile hearings. I assure you, an effective "faked bruise" is not so easy to make. There is something called technical counseil, both for the judge and the parties, where experts analyze the type, position, circumstance of this hypothetical bruise, the declared story behind it, and all its details. Then there's the party interrogation, the witness' exams, the counter questioning, and a whole lot of very technical, very articulated processes spanning from discovery to discussion that make it VERY HARD to successfully win a false claim of abuse. It's much more likely for a real victim to be dismissed in court, regardless of s**. The burden of proof isn't a fuc**** joke. From an anecdotal and first person perspective, I assure you: the court system of my country isn't partial to women. 

Yours is a superficial, ignorant and possibly emotionally biased point of view.