#1 Seduction Artist in the World 2012 - Arash Dibazar

Off Topic
581

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

[/quote]

Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.

Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.

[/quote]
Genes ain’t the whole story, son.[/quote]

No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.

The way I see it, women would very much like to be free agents nowadays but would also very much like men to stick to the old script.

This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.

We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.

How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]

See, now you sound like my cousin, who is angry that men are not being good guys while at the same time has three of them on the hook. She ranted about men proposing without a ring, which offends her delicate sensibilities (“what is that, you want me to marry you and you can’t even buy me a fucking ring?”). She buys into the same essential world view that you do, orion. She’s your match, because her “narrative” is the flip side of yours. Which is not to say you’d ever get together. Probably not, because you’d see each other as awful. Which you both sort of are, in a way.

My narrative is different: I fall in love with someone who falls in love with me and we both do our level best to be worthy of the other’s respect.

The sad part for me as an observer of the two of you is that with that level-best thing comes the things each of you wants. That mind-blowing sex you don’t associate with relationships (what could possibly be more fun for me than waiting for him to get home and knowing that I’m going to get to see his eyebrows shoot up at what I’m wearing or doing? I absolutely LOVE putting that look on his face, and I love even more the things that happen right after I see that look) and for her part there would be the sweet mushy stuff she craves, but doesn’t get.
[/quote]

I am not like your cousin.

Let me count the ways:

  1. For me to act like an utter dick in a prolonged effort to thoroughly fuck your mind, you really, really had to beg for it. Repeatadly.

  2. I am not a spoiled little princess.

  3. I took great efforts to “get” women and even though you doubt that I do, their reations say I do. She never did the opposite, I am willing to bet that her wisdom can be distilled down to “men like to fuck”, which sadly, might be enough.

  4. If I meet more than one woman, they know.

  5. If I bleed for 5 days, I am dead.[/quote]

You are.

  1. You make assumptions about the group that inform your behavior toward individuals.

  2. Your unhappiness is a result of your poor choices, but you project the blame onto the group, which confirms for you both the circular reasoning you used in the first place. She: men are shitbags so I am continually victimized by their lack of genuine caring. You: women are incapable of honor so I am continually victimized by their lack of fair play.

  3. Neither of you are princesses so you both defensively attempt to pump your egos through a combination of wishful thinking and manufactured scorn. She has been hurt over and over again, but will assure me that “we’re the prize.” Well, no. Most people are a mixed bag of qualities, some good and some bad. Whether or not that person is a prize depends very much upon who is doing the judging. Like you with women, rather than focusing energy on the things about herself that are negative, she focuses solely on negatives she assigns to men as a whole.

  4. While I’m sure you’re right that she does not have to do very much to get the men who like to fuck, that is not what she wants. She wants someone to love her. She also, and here is where she fits your narrative, wants someone to take care of her financially. Her solution is to bottom-feed. Meanwhile, for you, there is the sticky dilemma of how to get a woman who will at least exhibit (to the extent her nature will allow) something like honor, despite the unfaithfulness your “nature” demands of you. Your solution is also to bottom-feed. That’s not to say that the women you pursue aren’t physically attractive. My cousin’s men are not bad looking! But desirable beyond that? No. Not for what you each want.

[/quote]

  1. Yeah, I am human. We do, indeed, belong to the same species.

  2. Not unhappy, so there, and if I were I would be unhappy due to fucked up airways.

  3. I know, but I do not expect anyone to throw shiny baubles in my general direction because I breathe. So, I am aware that I am not a pretty little princess.

  4. That is actually not true. My limited experience with this whole harem thing started thusly:

She told me she could not be with me because for some reason she believed that I had sex with tons of women, which at this time was not true and that I am wild untamable beast or some such, which is up for debates.

So I replied, alright you can by my second or third woman then.

To which she happily agreed.

On the outside I was oh so cool about it but on the inside I was like , whooooaaaa dude!. WTF!?!

You have to understand that a lot of my shenanigans start out with a joke or a veiled “fuck you!” from my side and they actually take it at face value.

I guess that happens to a lot of men, I just follow through, thats all.

582

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey. [/quote]

The point is that your premises are wrong. There is no female narrative. Females are people, and therefore have individual narratives. Your assumptions are as much motivated by fear and insecurity as by the reading and thinking that you’ve done.[/quote]

So its not true that women make practically all the choices when it comes to reproduction but if in the long series of decisions she decides to have the baby, or forget to take the pill…repeteadly, over weeks, that he is supposed to “man up” ?

Its not true that 70% of all divorces are filed by women and the ones who publically get the shaft are “deadbeat dads” ?

It is also not true women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties and ditch guys who they recognize as valuable LTR material for no good reason dedicate whole forests to shame men into committment who have no interest in their reformed slut asses?

All of this is not happening?

Alrighty then.

583

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
[/quote]

We have modified nature. You can argue evolutionary psychology in the aggregate, and you can argue that our instincts have not caught up with the technological reality. But reproduction is not the same as it was at humanity’s inception.

You mean that women want to have their cake and eat it, too? You’re right, that isn’t a universal human trait at all!

[quote]
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.

We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.

How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]

It is supposed to work by equalizing how honor is measured.

And, of course, there is a large difference between having casual sex outside of a relationship and monogamy within one. I agree that there’s a compelling evolutionary argument for men to attempt promiscuity, and women to require exclusivity. But we also have compelling legal arguments for monogamy, as well as ethical arguments for it. Human beings are inherently unpredictable. Promises between individuals are important because they signify to the other person that one will be predictable in certain ways. Otherwise, there could be no trust between people. Trust has all sorts of uses beyond sexual exclusivity, but breaking trust in one area is a signal that one is willing to do so in others. [/quote]

While it is true that eating your cake and keeping it too is human, people usually dont manage to do that.

Women, nowadays, do.

Not all of them but enough to pose a problem.

The main point is however something different.

You may have heard this whole “married men are healthier, make more money, live longer” whatever.

The implied conclusion is, that marriage is good for men.

Hogwash.

If you are healthy, rich and male you can have your pick of the litter and damn, right, she wont leave you, because she cannot get better.

So, if I apply my spin to the very same data, married men are preselected in two ways, the good catches are more likely to get married and, if they remain a good catch to stay married.

That spin you will never hear in public because of the apparently non existing female narrative which kind of has a problem accepting that if you go broke she will leave your ass.

Now, where is the honor in that?

If women suck at the make honor thing and have abandoned the female honor thing in the quest for “equality”… and alpha cock, what is left?

584

Well, now we finally know who Orion’s mystery woman is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/06/german-education-minister-plagiarism

585

Those cold, dead, skank eyes are giving me the chills.

586

[quote]orion wrote:
You may have heard this whole “married men are healthier, make more money, live longer” whatever.

The implied conclusion is, that marriage is good for men.

Hogwash.

If you are healthy, rich and male you can have your pick of the litter and damn, right, she wont leave you, because she cannot get better.

So, if I apply my spin to the very same data, married men are preselected in two ways, the good catches are more likely to get married and, if they remain a good catch to stay married.

That spin you will never hear in public because of the apparently non existing female narrative which kind of has a problem accepting that if you go broke she will leave your ass.
[/quote]

So, your argument is that these studies failed to apply the most elementary of statistical methods: controlling for SES? Maybe. Can you show me that in the data? Believe it or not, I personally know many couples who are not well off at all. None of the women have left the men for being broke. And trust me, they are broke. Honestly, my guess is that you’d find this is more common with higher SES, because women coming from privileged backgrounds would be more used to being taken care of at a certain standard.

I don’t know. I’d like to hear your version of a reality that would actually please you to live in. I’ve certainly had moments where I felt the way you do; but not all (or even a majority) of the attractive women I knew in college were dating football players or jocks. They dated guys at about their attractiveness level who had social skills that were about normal for their peer group.

587

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…[/quote][/quote]

Nephorm!

You never did get back to us, years ago, about that problem of theodicy!

And why are you wasting your time with orion?

588

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey. [/quote]

The point is that your premises are wrong. There is no female narrative. Females are people, and therefore have individual narratives. Your assumptions are as much motivated by fear and insecurity as by the reading and thinking that you’ve done.[/quote]

So its not true that women make practically all the choices when it comes to reproduction but if in the long series of decisions she decides to have the baby, or forget to take the pill…repeteadly, over weeks, that he is supposed to “man up” ?

Its not true that 70% of all divorces are filed by women and the ones who publically get the shaft are “deadbeat dads” ? [/quote]

There is NOTHING more reviled than a mother who fails in that role. And here in the sates, all non-custodials pay, not just fathers. Might you consider joining us in the 21st century?

[quote]From the US bureau of Labor Statistics:

*Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
*The largest percentage of employed women (40.6 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations [/quote]

So…women have resources, too.

[quote]It is also not true women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties and ditch guys who they recognize as valuable LTR material for no good reason dedicate whole forests to shame men into committment who have no interest in their reformed slut asses?

All of this is not happening?

Alrighty then.[/quote]

I don’t even know what you mean here, “ride the cock carousel,” but whatever it is sounds disgusting and I’m disgusted. Mostly with you, since you admit to being a player who seeks to manipulate much younger women onto your own particular merry-go-round. Most of the women I know sleep with men because they LIKE them. The ones who don’t are looking for degradation or paternal love from strange men, or what have you. How charming to know that there you are, ready to help them with their needs while classifying them as “women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties.”

But good luck with that.

589

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…[/quote][/quote]

Nephorm!

You never did get back to us, years ago, about that problem of theodicy!

And why are you wasting your time with orion?
[/quote]

Ah, sorry. Here’s a book for you: “When bad things happen to good people.” A couple of my ex-girlfriends in high school gave it to me when they started dating each other.

Re orion, I find this argument somewhat interesting in light of some of the recent feminist critiques I’ve read about pick-up culture.

590

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…[/quote][/quote]

Nephorm!

You never did get back to us, years ago, about that problem of theodicy!

And why are you wasting your time with orion?
[/quote]

Ah, sorry. Here’s a book for you: “When bad things happen to good people.” …[/quote]

Read it? I live it.

591

Author?

593

[quote]orion wrote:

But the size and number of gametes are not the only thing to consider here.

You have to take into account that in order to succesfully procreate a woman has to invest at least 9 months a man about 10 seconds.

So, even if you had eggs in abundance, your minimal investment would still be higher, thus you would be more discriminating. [/quote]

On the surface this appears to make sense.
However, many women report experiencing insatiable libido during pregnancy.
Many report enjoying sex the whole 9 months.

And males also report becoming “attached” to the 9 months after his 10 second contribution. ( no offense intended ).

I may have missed it because I am not following this thread but I have not seen the mention of behavioral implication of combinations such as:

High testosterone and high prolactin and oxytocyn in males and specially high T plus low prolactin and oxytocyn in males who are able to be “less discriminative”.

And deeper layers looking at the neurotransmiter combinations and effects on behavior such as:

Dopamine dominant, medium neuropinephrine, low serotonin.

Dopamine dominant, medium serotonin, low neuropinephrine,

Dopamine dominant, high serotonin, medium neropinephrine.

Serotonin dominant, dopamine medium, low norepinephrine.

Serotonine dominant, high neuropinephrine, low dopamine.

Etc…

Norepinephrine dominant, medium serotonin, low dopamine

Norepinenephrine dominant, low serotonin, low dopamine

And all possible combinations.

Agree.
I left unclear: the movement came as a consequence.
Perhaps men thought they could shudda have the whole cake eat it and not come back into the kitchen to clean up the dishes.
Perhaps they thought they did it. ( sometimes it is the sons that pay for the sins of their fathers ).

No one is going to get away with violation of the principles of life: there is always a reckoning.
The scales of justice dictate it.

The bad consequences of feminism will be reaped: they already are.
Women are not happy.

The hard core feminists failed to see that what women needed was equity not equality.

Perhaps some deep hurt to avenge themselves for perceived injustices blinded them to create a movement that failed both women and men in the long term.

But maybe after the pendulum has swang the full opposite way there will be a natural full circle of what has gone around has come around.

594

The unhappiest, most virulent of the feminists are the bed partners of orion’s ilk, which seeks revenge as much as positive change. Orion’s motto may as well be "you’ll be sorry!’

In fact, positive change is already occurring and has been. I’m determined to stay on schedule this morning so I’ll have time to run and lift, so I’m not going to look it up, but wasn’t the Violence Against Women Act amended in 2004 to address unfairnesses to men? I’ve posted it a half dozen times. I think it was '04.

Joint physical and legal custody is now the gold standard for parents living locally to one another, with child support not an issue. Both are expected to pay if non-custodial.

All around me I see married people happily pursuing their lives together, young people getting married and having babies, and people of all ages dating. One of my clients’ 70-something grandparents recently got married, with a big, long-anticipated celebration.

The feminists, like the angry pro-men gang, have only ruined things insofar as they have generated societal changes which may or may not be what you’d prefer, but on an individual basis there are still opportunities to live as one likes. Alpha is a perfect example. She maintains a relationship that sounds very close to the traditional being mourned here. For myself, that would be a little TOO traditional. Other women have relationships that are not traditional enough for me. Luckily, I get to choose. The men interested in being with me or Alpha get to choose, too. There are men on here who WANT a powerhouse woman, economically speaking. That would not be either of us, it sounds like.

Men like you can be safe, orion, simply by finding women who work and like doing so. You can also have a vasectomy. Many women elect not to have children because they do not want the economic risk of them, or to have to worry about being dumped by a now-not-interested father.

You are not as helpless as you seem to think. And by the way…helplessness is not sexually appealing.

595

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey. [/quote]

The point is that your premises are wrong. There is no female narrative. Females are people, and therefore have individual narratives. Your assumptions are as much motivated by fear and insecurity as by the reading and thinking that you’ve done.[/quote]

So its not true that women make practically all the choices when it comes to reproduction but if in the long series of decisions she decides to have the baby, or forget to take the pill…repeteadly, over weeks, that he is supposed to “man up” ?

Its not true that 70% of all divorces are filed by women and the ones who publically get the shaft are “deadbeat dads” ? [/quote]

There is NOTHING more reviled than a mother who fails in that role. And here in the sates, all non-custodials pay, not just fathers. Might you consider joining us in the 21st century?

[quote]From the US bureau of Labor Statistics:

*Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
*The largest percentage of employed women (40.6 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations [/quote]

So…women have resources, too.

[quote]It is also not true women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties and ditch guys who they recognize as valuable LTR material for no good reason dedicate whole forests to shame men into committment who have no interest in their reformed slut asses?

All of this is not happening?

Alrighty then.[/quote]

I don’t even know what you mean here, “ride the cock carousel,” but whatever it is sounds disgusting and I’m disgusted. Mostly with you, since you admit to being a player who seeks to manipulate much younger women onto your own particular merry-go-round. Most of the women I know sleep with men because they LIKE them. The ones who don’t are looking for degradation or paternal love from strange men, or what have you. How charming to know that there you are, ready to help them with their needs while classifying them as “women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties.”

But good luck with that.[/quote]

A woman who kicks her man out and is a single mother is not reviled. In fact, if you critisize their decision an army of white knights hears the call of the boogle and take up arms. No such luck for “deadbeat dads” who, in the majority of cases, have not left their children but were thrown out.

Then, 90% of the times women get the children and they know that. Apparently, nothing lowers divorce stats like them knowing that the outcome wont be so sure.

Finally, of course they “like them”. And then they like the next one, and the next one and the next one, you know, the form of rotating polyandry that is socially accepted these days.

However, once they are done and are looking for a “nice guy” to “man up” and “do whats right” an entire football team might as well have run a train on her.

As to you assumptions of what it actually is I am doing, it starts to approach a caricature. but it is true that if a young woman decides to hop on the carousel, she might as well hop on my dick too.

596

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
The unhappiest, most virulent of the feminists are the bed partners of orion’s ilk, which seeks revenge as much as positive change. Orion’s motto may as well be "you’ll be sorry!’

In fact, positive change is already occurring and has been. I’m determined to stay on schedule this morning so I’ll have time to run and lift, so I’m not going to look it up, but wasn’t the Violence Against Women Act amended in 2004 to address unfairnesses to men? I’ve posted it a half dozen times. I think it was '04.
[/quote]

And then female arrests skyrocketed and the model of the “prinary aggressor” was introduced which lead to the following result:

The primary aggressor. This is who law officials are trained to take into custody on a standard domestic violence disturbance. How exactly is the primary aggressor defined? According to the Violence Against Women Act, which happens to be the blueprint law enforcement departments use when handling a domestic violence case, the primary aggressor is the person with the most height, weight, and physical strength while the primary victim, an appropriate title for the one not being arrested is the person who will most likely need protection. Basically, if one can read in between the mile wide lines of this law, the main party that law officials are instructed to arrest upon arrival to the disturbance are men since most men are physically stronger than women.

597

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

All around me I see married people happily pursuing their lives together, young people getting married and having babies, and people of all ages dating. One of my clients’ 70-something grandparents recently got married, with a big, long-anticipated celebration.
[/quote]

The eternal sollipsism of the female mind, you dont experience it, it does not exist, certainly not in significant numbers.

Meanwhile, I am glad that we moved on from me taking advantage of innocent little doves and moved on to my feelings of helplessness.

YOu dont really care if you narrative makes sense, dont you, because even on a theoretical level I have problems envisioning a man that might incorporate all of these qualities, the sheer cognitive dissonance…

598

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

But the size and number of gametes are not the only thing to consider here.

You have to take into account that in order to succesfully procreate a woman has to invest at least 9 months a man about 10 seconds.

So, even if you had eggs in abundance, your minimal investment would still be higher, thus you would be more discriminating. [/quote]

On the surface this appears to make sense.
However, many women report experiencing insatiable libido during pregnancy.
Many report enjoying sex the whole 9 months.

And males also report becoming “attached” to the 9 months after his 10 second contribution. ( no offense intended ).

[/quote]

I dont see though how that contradicts anything I wrote.

Yes, we have mechanisms in place to make sure that the man stays for a period after birth.

So?

599

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey. [/quote]

The point is that your premises are wrong. There is no female narrative. Females are people, and therefore have individual narratives. Your assumptions are as much motivated by fear and insecurity as by the reading and thinking that you’ve done.[/quote]

So its not true that women make practically all the choices when it comes to reproduction but if in the long series of decisions she decides to have the baby, or forget to take the pill…repeteadly, over weeks, that he is supposed to “man up” ?

Its not true that 70% of all divorces are filed by women and the ones who publically get the shaft are “deadbeat dads” ? [/quote]

There is NOTHING more reviled than a mother who fails in that role. And here in the sates, all non-custodials pay, not just fathers. Might you consider joining us in the 21st century?

[quote]From the US bureau of Labor Statistics:

*Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
*The largest percentage of employed women (40.6 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations [/quote]

So…women have resources, too.

[quote]It is also not true women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties and ditch guys who they recognize as valuable LTR material for no good reason dedicate whole forests to shame men into committment who have no interest in their reformed slut asses?

All of this is not happening?

Alrighty then.[/quote]

I don’t even know what you mean here, “ride the cock carousel,” but whatever it is sounds disgusting and I’m disgusted. Mostly with you, since you admit to being a player who seeks to manipulate much younger women onto your own particular merry-go-round. Most of the women I know sleep with men because they LIKE them. The ones who don’t are looking for degradation or paternal love from strange men, or what have you. How charming to know that there you are, ready to help them with their needs while classifying them as “women who ride the cock carousel during their twenties.”

But good luck with that.[/quote]

A woman who kicks her man out and is a single mother is not reviled. In fact, if you critisize their decision an army of white knights hears the call of the boogle and take up arms. No such luck for “deadbeat dads” who, in the majority of cases, have not left their children but were thrown out.

Then, 90% of the times women get the children and they know that. Apparently, nothing lowers divorce stats like them knowing that the outcome wont be so sure.

Finally, of course they “like them”. And then they like the next one, and the next one and the next one, you know, the form of rotating polyandry that is socially accepted these days.

However, once they are done and are looking for a “nice guy” to “man up” and “do whats right” an entire football team might as well have run a train on her.

As to you assumptions of what it actually is I am doing, it starts to approach a caricature. but it is true that if a young woman decides to hop on the carousel, she might as well hop on my dick too. [/quote]

Well, then, that is the company you keep.

The girls I know who engage in that kind of promiscuity are deeply troubled teens, who hate themselves and the boys or men they’re engaging with. This is not socially accepted, better quality (emotionally healthy) boys and men avoid these girls, as do healthier females. The boys who are their target demographic are similarly broken. Water finds its level.

As for single moms being socially accepted, yes, as are single dads. It’s the non-custodial mom who isn’t around I’m comparing your dead beat dad to. And she is despised to a degree he is not. We expect more on the maternal side.

600

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
The unhappiest, most virulent of the feminists are the bed partners of orion’s ilk, which seeks revenge as much as positive change. Orion’s motto may as well be "you’ll be sorry!’

In fact, positive change is already occurring and has been. I’m determined to stay on schedule this morning so I’ll have time to run and lift, so I’m not going to look it up, but wasn’t the Violence Against Women Act amended in 2004 to address unfairnesses to men? I’ve posted it a half dozen times. I think it was '04.
[/quote]

And then female arrests skyrocketed and the model of the “prinary aggressor” was introduced which lead to the following result:

The primary aggressor. This is who law officials are trained to take into custody on a standard domestic violence disturbance. How exactly is the primary aggressor defined? According to the Violence Against Women Act, which happens to be the blueprint law enforcement departments use when handling a domestic violence case, the primary aggressor is the person with the most height, weight, and physical strength while the primary victim, an appropriate title for the one not being arrested is the person who will most likely need protection. Basically, if one can read in between the mile wide lines of this law, the main party that law officials are instructed to arrest upon arrival to the disturbance are men since most men are physically stronger than women.

http://jmnzz.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/primary-aggressor/[/quote]

That is some top-notch fear mongering, but I believe that nowadays everyone is brought in in a domestic violence complaint unless one party is clearly drunk or high and out of control, which certainly happens.