springs-1:

thebearqueen:

It’s fascinating that you even throw you accuse ME of putting thoughts into head, you claim to know all my motives. I cited articles about honor culture in general, adultery and the law, and the crime of passion and provocation defense.





Source 1: You read all 320 pages of this book, eh? LMAO you’re off to a rollicking start. The book finds that contrary to popular belief perpetuated through theater and supposed dueling culture at the time, Golden Age Spaniards were not hotheads who wantonly murdered,

This is relevant to a discussion about the opera Carmen, because the opera of Carmen perpetuates the idea of Spaniards (especially Southern Spaniards) as honor-obsessed and bloodthirsty.





Source 2: You read all 30 pages of this article, eh? Oh man. This is about the culture and codes of honor bandits lived by and one of the few mentions of women is about how a certain group of bandits refused to harm women.

Cited because it’s about the general honor culture in Southern Italy.





Source 3: A broken link. That’s ok, I looked it up. It’s simply an editorial about the inception of such laws.

What the fuck are you talking about? The article talks about the history of female adultery laws and talks about their sociological and biological origins. The article ends with:

The decriminalization of adultery leaves heat-of passion and honor-killing defenses hard to justify, for individuals then are left to punish through private violence what society declines to punish through law.Nevertheless, many cultures continue to accept heat of-passion crimes and honor killings. Common among these cultures are the ideas that punishment should be based on perceptions of blameworthiness and that men who kill when affronted by unfaithfulness are less blameworthy than common murderers. From the biological perspective, heat-of-passion crimes and honor killings are maladaptive. They are by-products of an evolved male sexual aggression that is intensified by external threats to paternal certainty. Biology does not condone the killing of women suspected of promiscuity, but a biological perspective may explain why these women are killed and why their killers are so frequently excused.

WHOOPS. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SKIM. :D :D :D





Source 4: This is also about the law at its inception in Ancient Roman times. It also proves my point about de facto law. I’m getting secondhand embarassment.

LO fucking L. Please tell me how laws that define adultery as “married women having with men other than their husbands” are “de facto” and thus not gendered. How many times do I have to tell you that married Roman men were free to fuck prostitutes and slaves, but the reverse did not apply before that gets past your thick skull?





Source 5: From the first page: “research on adultery is scanty.” Uh oh. From the second page “courts sought to police not only female sexuality, but male sexuality as well.” Whoops. This article deals mostly with why the state felt the need to begin governing sexuality in the first place. The town he focuses on has 13 adultery cases surviving to review, in which both men and women are accused, and sentences were similar for both. According to the town’s laws, a man who so much as lusted after another woman was guilty of adultery. Women who were raped could not be accused of adultery. Also a man was executed for abducting a man’s wife and seducing her into adultery. Sounds super oppressive towards women.

LMAO. Skim-reading is NEVER a good idea.

Adultery as an offense against Christian marriage had for the most part been a matter for ecclesiastical authorities, but, in the thirteenth century, jurists in Orvieto and other towns close to the centers of Roman and canon law began inquests into adultery cases in the civic courts. As some decretists pointed out, this was justifiable on the grounds that adultery has important civil consequences. The pursuit of adultery cases was also a return to an imperial Roman precedent. The lex julia de adulteriis of 18 BCE was a criminal law imposed by Caesar Augustus to remove married women’s adultery from private jurisdiction. A new law court or quaestio perpetua for adultery cases joined existing tribunals for treason, parricide, murder, acts of violence. Husbands were to divorce and then publicly prosecute adulterous wives, or risk a legal charge of pandering; the woman’s penalty was exile and loss of half her property.

…

In the later Middle Ages, then, ambitious governments turned to Roman legal precedents in an effort to build authority through the control of adultery. Some of the Italian towns did so in the late thirteenth century. Seventy-five years later, the French monarchy followed suit, drawing on the same Roman precedent to extend jurisdiction over adultery. French royal charters from the mid-fourteenth century spelled out penalties in flagrant adultery cases. These were usually monetary fines, a race (stripped naked) through the town and perhaps a beating.

You see, sweetheart, by the time of the Middle Ages, there had been something of a shift. In theory, now, married men who had sex with women they weren’t married to were also held to be guilty of adultery. In practice, though, married women were subject to harsher punishments. Look up Agnese Visconti and Beatrice Lascaris di Tenda.





Source 6: This is a list of hypothetical scenarios as part of a study and the results of the study were that Turkish students are more likely to sympathize with the attacker than Italian men or women. lol

Try reading something other than the abstract, dumbass.

Nowadays, there is indeed still a huge rate of violence against women and this is particularly true in the so-called honour cultures. Examples of these cultures are Mediterranean regions, Middle East and Arab societies, and Latin American countries. While in the Latin American countries the concept of honour in force is strongly linked to masculine honour (i.e., the man’s reputation of strength and toughness: in Mediterranean regions and Middle East and Arab societies, what is at stake is mainly family honour , and it is this type of honour and its relation to violence against women that the present study will focus on.

By contrast, although Italy is traditionally considered an honour culture, its high scoring for individualism may account for a gradual transformation of the concept of honour, which actually is centred more on self-enhancement, moral integrity and personal responsibility for one’s own actions. Personal opinions about oneself are becoming more important than external values and reinforcements, so gossiping and neighbourhood pressure are becoming less relevant, especially in regions where individualism is more rooted, such as in the big Northern cities.

In other words, the study thinks that while Italy and Turkey are both considered honor cultures, the lessening of honor culture in Italy now is because of the rise of individualism than collectivism.





Source 7: A local scholar saw that acquittals for murder rose alarmingly over a brief period of time and when he looked into it found that juries were being polluted by accounts of the character of the perpetrator and the victim rather than facts of the case. Either the victim or the attacker could be male or female.. “Women were more likely to be acquitted.” My sides are currently orbiting Saturn.

Oh, honey. Your skim reading is hurting my soul! He’s what the article says, in context:

The overall rate of acquittal for all cases tried in the as size courts during the Third Republic was around 28%, but acquittal rates for crimes against persons were significantly higher than this average, and rose during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Women were even more likely to be acquitted than men. By contrast, the rate of acquittal in correctional court, where lesser crimes were tried by a panel of professional judges.

In other words, JURIES were more likely to acquit in all types of cases than judges. The article then discusses why juries were more likely to acquit than judges. The author contends that, “that the processes of criminal investigation and trial worked to privilege the stories, knowledge, and judgment of the witnesses and defendants in the assize court, and thus effectively facilitated the transfer of a popular system of retributive justice into the verdict of the court. Unlike the utilitarian state system of justice, this popular system of retributive justice was personal and subjective. It validated the use of violence in disputes between domestic partners where violence was used to punish a previous wrong: the reciprocal exchange of harm commensurate with harm. The perplexing issue of acquittals in the fin-de siecle assize court was nothing less than the failure of the state system of justice to displace a popular system of justice. Rather than grafting an alien code of behavior onto an acquiescent population, the state system was co-opted by the people for their own.”





Source 8: A list of law reforms from the 1940s. The closest thing relating to this conversation is giving women the right to divorce simply for a husband’s adultery. So sexist.

Talks about Italian law in general.





Source 9: This is the first relevant source on your list. It merely confirms that modern sentiments are pushing laws away from excusing murder with the adultery defense.

Yet you denied that there was ever anything even remotely gendered about the crime of passion and provocation defense. Hmmm.





Source 10: You read all 119 pages of this article, eh? This law professor is simply proposing that existing laws be reconstructed to allow for some leniency in crimes of passion in response to acts that are already illegal and not others. No one here is disagreeing.

Um…

“Reform has permitted juries to return a manslaughter verdict in cases where the defendant claims passion because the victim left, moved the furniture out, planned a divorce, or sought a protective order. Even infidelity has been transformed under reform’s gaze into something quite different from the sexual betrayal we might expect–it was the infidelity of a fiancee who had danced with another, of a girlfriend who decided to date someone else, and of the divorcee found pursuing a new relationship months after the final decree.”

“Reform of the passion defense, however, has yielded precisely the opposite result, binding women to the emotional claims of the husbands and boyfriends long ago divorced or rejected.”





Source 11: This is not only not a primary source, it’s not a secondary source either. It’s a summary of someone else’s derivative work. There isn’t a single mention of gendered violence.

Are we reading the same articles? Because… what the hell?

It is true that it is far easier to explain the requirement of wrongful conduct by the intended victim in justificatory terms. Indeed, some cases can only be explained this way. For example, the early common law rule that observation of adultery by one’s spouse is adequate provocation, but that observation of unfaithfulness by one’s fiancee is not, can only rationally be explained on the ground that adultery is an injustice which (partially) merits a lethal response (apparently because, as one court put it, adultery is the “highest invasion of [a husband’s] property”), but that unfaithfulness of an unmarried lover is not similarly unjust. Nonetheless, a plausible case can also be made for the inclusion of the wrongful conduct element in an excuse-based provocation defense. At the least, the wrongfulness of the decedent’s actions is a significant factor, not just “scarcely … relevant” as McAuley asserts, in the jury’s determination of whether a provoked homicide is excusable.

If provoked homicides are partially justifiable on forfeiture grounds, which I hope and trust they are not, provocation law requires various reforms. First, the proportionality doctrine probably should be abandoned. Once we say that the result of the death of the provoker is less valued than the death of an innocent person, it is not likely that the means used to reach that partially acceptable result should be significant (except, of course, as it affects innocent bystanders). Second, the provocation defense should not apply in any case in which the victim did not commit a provocative act. Thus, D would be guilty of murder of V even if she reasonably believed that V committed adultery with her husband, if no wrongdoing actually occurred. Her reasonable mistake would doubtlessly partially excuse the homicide, but V’s life cannot be less valued as the result of D’s misperception.’ Similarly, if D intended to kill X, a real provoker, but he accidentally killed V, an innocent bystander, the homicide would be unjustified although, again, possibly partially excused.







What you still haven’t addressed is how the alteration to the opera serves the feminist cause, which was what I was talking about in my post that you ad hominemed to death lol. Carmen is a criminal. She commits several criminal acts within the course of the play. Carmen manipulated Don Jose and other men until he went crazy. She is not a feminist role model, and yet in the place of the one bad act by Don Jose in the entire opera, she murders him instead, making her the indisputable villain. This is a woman maliciously tearing lives apart and then ending her spree with murder. If anything, this will make violent men more inclined to violence by portraying a horrible woman who is abusive to her partner getting away with his murder. And all this sanctioned by the Italian government. It is a bad idea.

Translation: “WHY CAN’T IT BE ILLEGAL FOR EVIL SLUTS TO BREAK MY POOR WIDDLE HEART? WAAAAAH! OMG HOW DARE THAT TRAMP LEAVE ME TO BE WITH SOMEONE ELSE? OMG, MY FEELS ARE THE ONLY THAT MATTER, WAAAAAAH!”

I’ve had my heart broken and I’ve been emotionally abused and repeatedly gaslit by a narcissist and I somehow managed not to kill anyone. So have many, many other people.

You are not special and neither is the goon that you’ve over-identifying with, Don Jose. Carmen may have been a cruel and manipulative person, but guess what? That’s STILL not a good reason to murder someone. It’s also not OK to murder people because they never loved as much as you loved them or if they leave you for someone else. If you can’t understand that, then I hope to God that you stay single all your life… or at least until your mature a little.

I also hope you learn to recognize your commitment to the “good victim” narrative. And you should get some sleep.

Have a Happy Valentine’s Day!