Comments on: After 20 years’ fight, expanded domestic violence law in NY state

By: Feministe » “Why did she stay?”

Feministe » “Why did she stay?” — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:04:15 +0000

[...] barriers women and men face in getting help (although I’m glad to say that there’s one less barrier in NY). It is also a space to talk about how we can improve things — both the actual [...]

By: mistymorning

mistymorning — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:06:20 +0000

Fantastic news. I’m working in India at the moment with female sex-workers, and part of my role is training them about the DV protections which were enacted here only two years ago. Before that, no civil remedies at all. And even this new DV Act is limited to protecting female victims from male husbands/live-in partners, and most locals I speak to don’t accept that gender-neutral or relationship-neutral drafting might have been more helpful. But that’s all to do with the culture here; really surprised to hear NY has only just moved ahead.

By: Lydia

Lydia — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:23:17 +0000

Congratulations lawyers. This is great. I volunteer at a DV shelter and learned all about family law in Massachusetts, but I had no idea that in nearby New York, things were so much more difficult. They’re hard enough, even in the so-called ‘liberal’ areas…

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:35:42 +0000

james: I double checked with my much more knowledgeable lawyer girlfriend, and she confirmed that an order of protection can be obtained in any criminal proceeding in which the crime warrants one (e.g. stalking.) However, that’s limited to the criminal court. This law allows people who meet the requirements to obtain orders of protections through family court, a civil court with a lower burden of proof in which neither the police nor prosecutors need to be involved.

My partner also noted that, under the new law, co-habitation qualifies people for eligibility for orders of protection through family court, which means that one can obtain one against a scary or abusive roommate; it’s not limited simply to intimate or sexual relationships.

By: james

james — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:22:00 +0000

What’s the justification for drawing the line for orders of protection at dating relationships? Why shouldn’t they just be applicable to anyone? I can’t really see why there should be a line at all.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:35:52 +0000

About bloody time NYC. How does a law get so obviously behind the times like that?

By: Chel

Chel — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:06:39 +0000

Wow, that is a really great development. It makes me wonder what the exact protections are for people in my state are…hmm I shall see about that.

On the 69% statistic of children under 14 having sex…. I have always had the opinion that the rise and existence of internet porn (and how accessible it is) has something to do with the way young boys/teens are introduced to viewing girls/women sexually in their lives. From what I have heard from my guy friends they (on avg.) first saw porn (on the internet) at the age of 12. WOW was all I could say. I can’t help but think that with the already violent and sexually violent messages they are getting from mainstream media + the violent and sexually violent and degrading messages they will receive from watching porn will have a horrible impact on how boys develop sexually and in relationships with partners during their lives (and especially early on). It is an age when boys are made to be extremely ‘tough’ to impress their peers and try to emulate the behaviors of men, and seeing men being “tough” (abusive) during porn probably doesn’t send the right message to them on how they should behave when confronted with a sexual situation. Such young kids do not have the same ‘filter’ as many adults do (and not all adults even do) to such images and messages.

I have talked to a guy friend about this and he completely disagrees that porn can have such an impact, but hell I went along with listening to Hansen for almost a year just because my best friends loved them. And they were hoorrrible. I don’t think it would be any different with the macho-esq nature of well, the media and porn and 12-14 year old boys.

I don’t mean for this to become an argument about porn, I just brought up the fact that it could be a possible impactor in the 69% statistic that was brought up in the post. Knowing such impactors could possibly help keep the rate of abuse among such young, sexually active kids lower (hopefully much lower that 69%).