Comment by yoohoo big summer blow out on I Can No Longer Pretend I Don’t See It - Chapter 36

But not always. What if the man is the victim? So we r just gonna blame him? We can't blame any1 without proof alright?

Nope. The proof is re ipsa, meaning it's derived from the fact itself that the man cheated. No one cheats innocently. Seduction doesn't translate the responsibility from the seducted to the seductress. 

Of course, there are drugs, threats or lies that can be used to make someone "cheat", but those cases are rare, and the one who fell victim to them should provide proof of it. Not the contrary. 

I mean, it's hard to know the actual happenings of their relationship that led to a divorce from an outsider's perspective. It's usually the first impression witnessing their story that dictates which side you're going to root for, especially if people had identified the victim and the perpetrator, or the emotional response on the person's character even if that person is lying. Truth or facts tend to be ignored in those cases just like how the protag here got publicly shamed by the blonde chick when there's no evidence that she intentionally harmed Stein's mistress.

It's also not usually black and white since sometimes the assumed "victim" isn't actually the victim but the perpetrator. Like the one with Johnny Depp for example. 

It's also worth noting that bruises can be faked and this is usually more advantageous for the woman side of the relationship since people don't usually question men when they got bruises unless if the female had no bruises after their violent argument. Sometimes the husband can take exccessive mental and physical harrassment from their wife, being treated like a slave in their relationship. After multiple years of that kind of relationship and he started fighting back, would you assume that the woman is in the right cause female supremacy, like some na**, or would you side with him and say that the girl deserved it?

Honestly though, if anyone have you as their leader I would rather put you behind bars than following you when you have that kind of sexist mentality.

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.

@Ivern I wasn't talking to you but the original poster. As long as we agree on "innocent before proven guilty", then we're on the same boat.

Realistically, because we're not them personally, people tend to lean on the identified victimed publicized through the media first instead of figuring it out by ourselves or the reason behind the violent relationship between a wife and a husband using an unbiased source that tells both side of the story. 

I also never said cheating was acceptable or justifiable. You're leaning into something that's called a strawman fallacy, or another way of putting it, you're arguing with a ghost right now since I have never implied or said such a thing. I was talking generally outside and within the realm of manhwa/manga stories. And in those cases, I'm talking about physical violence or abuse in a relationship. In no way am I asserting that cheating was in anyway excusable. I was just saying that the ones that play the victim aren't always the victim.  This goes for both genders, I'm not playing favorites here. That's why I called the OP a sexist.

For your 2) point, there's such thing as inflicting self harm or damaging the scene of where the abuse took place to put charges on the other person. That rarely happens but a couple of big cases do in fact have it.

And by no way am I talking with any influences from any emotional reasoning but rather, I was asserting certain facts and arguments that people would normally neglect to hear because it doesn't supports their right to judge or jail a person when they aren't proven guilty yet. 

Have you heard of "JCS - Criminal Psychology"? You should consider checking it out. One of their video literally got 63 million views and that's just a case on criminals pretending to be crazy or mentally ill.

Ah, okay. It's not really a strawman, I just though you were talking to me, so I countered by keeping what I said in mind. Still, this site could really use a better reply system. 

Anyway, faking proof is no easy feat. Magnifying both the relevance and rate of occurrence of false accusations is still a narrative that could, conceivably, be pushed under emotional drives. For the ignorance part, I'll say this: being ignorant isn't a moral fault, if you don't presume to know. Sometimes it is helpful to listen. As an example, listen to this: JCS is a very interesting entertaiment channel that focuses on narrativized reports of police interrogations. Police interrogations are literally one of the first steps on a criminal investigation, and the fact that the guy (we both know which one, demon boi) was found out as a faker at that early stage is another evidence of how the system is difficult to fool. With all the due respect for the policemen, they aren't the the best equipped to ascertain the sanity of someone. At best, they are the best equipped to trick him in admitting fault. But if even them reached such a clear result in revealing the ruse, there the guy really is incompetent.

I assure you, because I work in the sector. A real technical examination ordered by a court, then the one requested by the civil party, and maybe even the one requested by the accused, would've dispelled any doubt THE SECOND the fuc*** came into the hearing. Faking being crazy or being a victim is not an easy feat. Nor it is common. There is no need to put such emphasis on it. It is suspect on you part.

@Ivern
well, no supreme court is really void of human emotions and most are more subjective than objective depending on the victim, how talented each lawyer is, and the ones in the charge of judging and investigating each case. There are people who got falsely jailed for something that others did afterall because of their previous criminal records even if they didn't do it. Some judges are bias while some aren't. That's just how it works.

On a JCS video, there is this girl who killed her own child, like a 10 year old or something, and got away with all the charges while lying and not admiting to her crimes throughout multiple months of trial even though all the evidences were there. She even blamed it on an imaginary babysitter who doesn't even exist, or that she recently just got hired to work for a company but no one else there could verify it. For the crime of killing her own child, she got charged nothing and I think she even won the case because of her talented lawyer convincing the judge to let her go. 

I will agree on that last part there since pretending to be crazy is in the minority of the cases that exist on the internet or even outside of public's eyes.

As I said: faking an accusation on an innocent is way harder than succeeding in getting acquitted when guilty. We, as a juridical system, often err on the side of caution. The "beyond reasonable doubt" formula assures us that, ideally, less innocents go to jail, but the price is cases like that one, where we cannot pin someone who is probably the culprit because we lack evidence. It is intended, and inevitable.

The system is of course not perfect at all, but you are citing very different circumstances and cases that are not related. I am a proud believer in the maxim AJAB, all judges are bast****, but even I know when to draw the line from case by case considerations and sector-wide generalization.

amen at the end of the day its a mans fault no matter if he is a victum

I just came home from a whole fuc**** day in court were the judge (a woman, BTW) had the GALL to fuc**** deny me a decisive witness on arbitrary grounds, which I'll need to appeal for malpractice. A witness that I wanted to use to counter a last minute counter-witness of the defense saying that my client ”fabricated the whole aggression" of her husband. In a trial with camera video proof. And a medical certificate of bruises on her neck and leg from the ER compatible with the cam fotage. AND THE FUC**** DEFENSE WITNESS IS THE MAID ON THE GOD**** PAYROLL OF THE CULPRIT FOR 40 FUC**** YEARS.

I am beyond livid. It's an anecdote BUT FUC**** HE** I SWEAR IT'S LIKE THIS DON'T BELIEVE THE PROPAGANDA WOMEN GET HELP ONLY AFTER THEY GET FUC**** KILLED