The article: “it appears that domestic violence has roots in the mental health of men, as this antidepressant appears to reduce incidents of DV in some cases. A more comprehensive mental health care system would improve these results.”
The Chuds in the comments who didn’t read the article: “SO NOW THEY WANT TO DRUG ALL MEN TO PROTECT WOMEN! WHAT ABOUT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!? MEN ARE THE VICTIMS IN THIS SCENARIO!”
Study: “Treating depressed men who commit domestic violence can reduce the amount of domestic violence that occurs.”
Internet scum: “WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??? THOSE FEMINAZIS ARE TRYING TO DRUG US!!!”
Or… OR!.. Or: we treat the root cause of depression in men.
are you suggesting public funds be used to help the public? what are you? a filthy commie?
What do you believe the root cause of depression in men to be?
Lol, right?
…are you aware of what ‘antidepressants’ are for? The answer may shock you.
Turning the frogs gay?
Many participants had issues such as homelessness, untreated mental health disorders, substance use, relationship crises, disengagement from health services and conflicts with government institutions.
Society is unwilling to help these men in desperate need of help until it is proven that it will help women first
What a weird thing to take away from the article.
Certainly you can think of at least a few organizations tackling homelessness, untreated mental health disorders, substance use, relationship crises, disengagement from health services and conflicts with government institutions.
Seriously it’s a single study into another topic. That’s just how science works. I’ll never understand when people get mad that a study exists and that it is somehow unable to cover every possibility of a complex topic in a single study.
I’m not mad the study exists. It’s a useful finding. It’s the framing of the article I object to. It could just as easily be framed that mental health treatment for men at risk or incarceration improves outcomes and is more cost effective.
At risk of incarceration for what
“Men should take medicine for their violence against women! That’s just how science works!” jesus christ will this ever stop already? It’s just a bunch of alienating dumb shit proposed by a bunch of stuck up assholes who thrive on sowing this exact division between people- “Who should we help- the homeless, or the women? YOU DECIDE!”, while they oppress everyone equally and extremely successfully.
What am I to take away from that title as a man? I should be medicated for something I already don’t do? It’s just a bunch of ragebait bullshit. If you are in favor of civil rights, you don’t profess the equality of only whatever specific group you happen to personally belong to, you are in favor of civil rights for all people. Anything else is just fucking ragebait to keep us occupied with who gets the most of the least.
Men should take medicine for their violence against women!
Cool so you didn’t actually read anything I said. That’s not what the study said at all. It found that in select groups of men the usage of an antidepressant can decrease the occurrence of domestic violence. If anything this is an advertisement for the treatment of men’s mental health.
What am I to take away from that title as a man?
Idk man maybe read the fucking article instead?
If you are in favor of civil rights, you don’t profess the equality of only whatever specific group you happen to personally belong to
I’m a man, and I do favor civil rights for all people.
If you took the time to read the article you’d see the test group was selected from people through courts and prisons. Participation was voluntary and no one is using these results to force medicate the entire male population.
Maybe read the article next time?
The authors of the article and the publishing platform are NOT the people sowing this division or profiting off identity warfare.
The conversation is a platform where essentially all articles are written by scientists for a broader audience. They publish all sorts of scientific work, including several recent pieces on specifically male issues and masculinity. We know they aren’t optimizing for clicks because they don’t get many.
The authors here did a study on exactly the population you are most concerned about, selected by domestic violence. Surely you agree that men being prosecuted for spouse abuse have been failed by society; exactly the people who are falling through the cracks. Here we have scientists who are giving data and trying to find ways to help, and that’s who you want to blame for this political landscape? Really?
You can nitpick the framing, but I would blame funding agencies for that.
It’s a whole suite of issues we blame the victim for; there are a good number of women in these buckets too. I suspect the male focus here has more to do with domestic violence.
Remember, women.
Remember, finding study cohorts is hard.
I’m reading the study to find the part where it says that these participants didn’t have any social or societal support to attempt to deal with their other problems.
Oh right - sorry I see now that you were just vocalising the chip on your shoulder.
The homeless and those with untreated mental health disorders don’t have social or societal support, or they wouldn’t be homeless and untreated.
That’s cool, I never really deeply considered how important impulse control is in emotional regulation.
If they put fluoride in drinking water, they can put this in protein shakes and those shower gels that come in the angular gunmetal-coloured containers
That’s excellent news. The random tiktok videos inserted into the article are still making me lose my cool, though.
More sertraline for you.
And impotence I’m sure. So, a two-fer
This study suggests that reduced sex drive is the most common side effect, but it impacts about 1/10. I can find no evidence that it is permanent (though see comments below!); stopping the drug should return most folks to normal.
Compare this treatment to incarceration: would you prefer to be less horny and free, or in jail? See also the patient reports in the article, talking about finally having some control in their lives.
You can be both horny and impotent at the same time. I’d still prefer to be free, of course.
I can find no evidence that it is permanent; stopping the drug should return most folks to normal.
Most, but not all: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12991-023-00447-0
As someone who’s battled chronic depression since 1989, I can tell you that of all the antidepressants I have tried (just about all of them) only one triggered erectile dysfunction and it went away once I stopped taking the pill. None reduced my sexual appetite, some actually increased it (one dramatically). The most common sexual side effect I found was difficulty climaxing, which combined with increased sexual appetite made for some extended and amazing sex.
Scientists can’t rule out that a soft pp might be the main causal variable
The “can’t rule out” fallacy, often referred to as the appeal to ignorance, occurs when someone argues that a lack of evidence against a claim is taken as evidence for its truth. This fallacy suggests that if something cannot be disproven, it must be true, which is a flawed way of reasoning.
Ah shit I would love to take more antidepressants that will let me punch women in the face less which I already do 0 of!
And yet… Research has repeatedly shown it’s women who instigate relationship violence.
Ah yes, the inevitable downvoters.
It’s been well established. You don’t like it? Shame that.
No I’m not providing a source. Your anger should motivate you to look.
Here’s a place to start: which relationships experience the most violence: Male/Female, Male/Male, Female/Female?
Interestingly, the male/male is the least violent, and female/female the most violent.
'Nuff said.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30186202/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6113571/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30465625/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7034778/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23271429/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046894/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21731790/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8766270/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sexual-orientation-disparities-ipv/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32064141/
So take your biases and fucking read.
Further, if men are the primary cause of violence in relationships then:
F/F relationships should show orders of magnitude less violence.
M/M should have the highest levels of violence and be orders of magnitude greater then F/M.
And yet none of this is true in any study.
Those articles contradict your claims, because you’re wrong.
They very clearly state that men report intimate partner violence at lower rates than women do, which explains why M/M IPV numbers are low and F/F higher.
Thank you for proving youself wrong! I trust you’ll update your opinions and beliefs accordingly.
From one of the abstracts.
Gay patients (aOR = 5.50; 95% CI = [1.60, 18.94]) and females (aOR = 2.70; 95% CI = [1.46, 9.99]) had significantly higher odds of reporting physical or sexual IPV than heterosexuals and males, respectively.
So it’s over reported more, that’s your evidence?
And on that day children, not a single citation was given.
May we see this fabled research?
“Look what you made me do!”
Thank you for your comment, and welcome to my blocklist.
deleted by creator
Responding to a fallacy with a fallacy doesn’t really help either.
Maybe if they are violent and reoffending they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship until they receive intensive therapy, which may include medication?
This is just masking a problem that is multi-faceted and the results aren’t really that impressive.
Edit: I am not suggesting a license for private interpersonal relationships, I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate prisoners/offenders and give them therapy/mental health treatment. Commenters below are twisting my words and saying I’m suggesting things that are not in the above text, not even a little bit. I quickly stated that I meant this to be a term for probation (which is conditional freedom), not something retroactively applied to past offenders or applied to all adults in the form of a license.
Oi where’s your gf license mate
Are you proposing that people should have to obtain a government-issued licenses for private interpersonal relationships?
Keywords are: violent and reoffending.
I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate offenders after they offend to give them better tools to deal with their emotions and relationships to prevent more hurt from happening.
Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.
I’m a firm believer in rehabilitative and restorative justice, not criminal justice/punitive punishment (which is a far cry from justice and punitive justice doesn’t properly disincentivize crime).
You could have just said yes.
Just untrue. Your twisting is not reflective of what I was saying at all.
The current system punishes people who commit domestic violence, and chances are, they go straight back to relationships and are incentivized to scare their partner to not report further abuse because they have been taught nothing through their punishment.
Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.
You are suggesting government issued licenses/permission for private people to engage in private relationships.
I’m not seeing where that was said?
they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship
The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.
No amount of rhetorical flourish can get away from what they are essentially presenting, which is requiring government permission for interpersonal relationships.
How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?
How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?
And then we get to some fun questions, like what happens if the government privatizes the relationship approval system that OP is proposing?
Nope. I’m suggesting that people who offend (especially reoffenders) should go to therapy (locked ward) instead of prison and be taught how to be functioning human beings who don’t hurt others, especially those close to them. The sentence would be similar to their incarceration.
What I’m suggesting is akin to a prison sentence and probation (which may have terms and conditions).
You are acting like I’m talking about all people, but I’m limiting this to people who commit violent, domestic crime against others, especially repeatedly.
Lundy Bancroft is known for conducting the very thing you seem to be describing. If you haven’t already you should check out his works.
I’m all in favor of rehabilitation instead of punitive imprisonment too, but you did say “they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship”, not that they should be sent to rehab. We’re not twisting your words at all. There’s no other way to read that. You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation, you were talking solely about restriction of relationships. If you meant something else, you should say what you meant.
You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation
I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.
People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.
The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.
You later clarified it, yes, but you’re getting bent out of shape when people responded to what you had initially written. We can’t see the future edits, nor read your mind for intent. We can only read what you have written.
The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.
See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263
Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).
I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.
So lemme guess, sex outside of marriage should be illegal? Is that where you’re going with this?
You can see my reply to limonfiesta, there is a profound misunderstanding y’all are having. I’m addressing our failing systems, like “criminal justice”, which is a total and complete farce.
