So apparently Kelly Brook has a thing for punching her boyfriends

[Eauneau]

Kelly Brook was on This Morning today and was talking about her autobiography.

She totally flippantly talked about punching two of her ex boyfriends and Holly and Phil were sort of laughing about it with her. She also talked about her 'wild' parents and how they would get drunk and smash things up and that she has probably got her 'fiery' nature from them. It was all just so 'jolly' and jokey.

AIBU Tto think that if this was a bloke saying this they would be (rightly) crucified? Why is it seemingly ok for Kelly Brook to assault her partner and then boast about it on television and in her book?

It's not okay . But I haven't seen anyone saying it is

i haven't seen the interview but i haven't seen any comments saying that it's ok (apart perhaps from lally's)

it sounds like KB had a pretty shitty example of what a relationship should be like from her parents

All hitting is not alike. World of difference between what Kelly describes and "real DV", IMHO. Can't imagine Jason Statham being intimidated, scared, downtrodden by it. People do much worse to each other, but we overlook it because it doesn't neatly fit a box.

Jesus, I don't believe I just read what Clock said.

What logic is that Clock?
How can you say Jason Statham didn't feel intimidated/scared in that moment? You can't.
Just because it's a big man being punched by a wee damsel doesn't make it ok, or a lesser crime or a 'different sort of violence'. She was violent towards somebody (multiple) who she was meant to love. Dysfunctional upbringing or not, it's not right.

You're right - I don't know. But I think it's possible. I know it's unpopular, but I just don't think we can generalise that all hitting is terrible. It's more complicated than that. IMHO.

I think there ARE "different sorts of violence". None is great, but they're not all the same, and some are not that terrible.

Ah, so, violence CAN be OK depending on who does it to who, how much force was used, whether the person felt scared at the time, whether it was a slap or a punch.

Some sorts of violence are "not that terrible"?

Keep digging your hole, Clock

i don't think that women being violent towards men is a systemic, societal problem that contributes to the oppression of an entire sex in the same way as men's violence towards women

but that doesn't make it ok, obviously

Yes, that is (partly) what I think. Maybe not "OK", but certainly not the end of the world.

A small woman in a downtrodden position in her relationship giving her massive bully DH a slap, for example?

(that was to notnew).

Good point Petula.

Petula - no, you're right, it doesn't

Clock - the likelihood of that example occurring seems very very tiny because the small woman would probably know that her massive bully of a DH would react appallingly. I do get your point, that a one-off slap in the middle of a very heated argument isn't the same as sustained violence, but two wrongs don't make a right and unless ALL violence is regarded as wrong, then it just gives ammunition to morons. And it is NEVER right, even if it was a one-off occasion, to laugh it off. In the case of Kelly Brook, it is clearly not a one-off occasion.

Think that the fact that this little revelation has made it into her book, which presumably has been proof read and edited, and that she talked about it in the way she did on national telly and the presenters didn't pick her up on it, makes it seem like plenty of people think its ok and something to joke about.

I haven't read the book but from the way she was yesterday I'm guessing its no written even as a 'faux remorseful but actually just excuses' Denis Waterman type thing, but rather as a 'oh look isn't this a funny anecdote' thing, as of she had hidden his toothbrush or something.

I'm not sure of the point of the 'well male violence is much more of a problem, not that that makes this ok' posts?

i was responding to the "different sorts of violence" point, as well as those about "if a man did it" etc

violence is wrong, and distressing to the abused person, and should be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly.

but male-on-male, male-on-female, female-on-male, and female-on-female violence is set in different contexts at a societal level. do you not agree with this?

No-one should hit anyone, except in self-defence, et cetera.

However, that doesn't mean all violence is all the same. Before we even consider gneder-relations, surely I am not the only one who remembers "never hit anyone smaller than you"?

No, that doesn't mean it's okay to hit someone your size. It means it's even worse to hit someone smaller than you.

To me, gender is a part of it, but my main objection is to lumping all instances of physical violence together and thinking they're all really terrible. Some are, some aren't.

The theoretical example above (small woman slapping big bullying man) is an obvious example of when it may not be so bad (and I don't think it's particularly rare for a bullied woman to "snap" in this way, NotNew). At the other extreme might be a big bullying man subjecting a scared woman to systematic physical abuse. Genders (and other details) could of course be switched (or indeed in any combination) in individual instances, but the point remains - some instances of violence are worse than others, in that they do more (physical/psychological) damage to the victim. I don't think we can really judge Kelly's case (at least not without talking to Jason Statham too), but it's quite possible - to my mind at least - that it's not that bad.

Would it still be wrong of her to laugh about it if Jason Statham was laughing with her? What if he really didn't consider himself to be - or want to be considered - a victim?

What if Jason Statham had been bullied as a child or witnessed violence in his familial set up...?
Still fine as he is a big man and she an ickle woman?

He was flirting so she taught him a lesson?
She blamed her victim

I know we aren't condoning violence on this thread but as always we are saying that it is much less worse to be beaten if you are a man

What if an ordinary man beats a woman who does martial arts? Is it fairer then?
If they are of equal size and weight?

Violence against anyone is frightening controlling demeaning punishing pattern forming whatever. It doesn't matter what size the perpetrator is imo/e

Disgusting behaviour from KB and both presenters. She's gone massively down in my estimations, and that's saying something.

I think size is one relevant factor among many. So is childhood history, martial arts training, etc.. So is gender - statistically, I think it's been shown that more women (than men) feel properly scared and threatened. Of course the stats won't apply to everyone.

I just think it may have not been that bad (in its impact on JS), and the fact that she is female and he is male makes it less likely that it was bad. Obviously none of us really knows in their particular case, and I think that's a reason for the world not to lay into KB for laughing on GMTV.

Ackshurely, martial arts is a good example. I did martial arts when I was younger. In my opinion, that would make it worse of me if I hit someone, because I know that I know how to punch and kick properly. Which means I would do more damage.

After years of abuse, my brother's ex-wife stabbed him multiple times, almost killing him. He was fighting for his life for several days.

My brother is 6ft+ and built like a house.

His ex-wife was tiny in comparison.

It isn't just about physical attributes, it's also about CHARACTER, and when you have someone like my brother - built like a house, but wouldn't hurt a soul - coupled with someone who has a violent character, physical differences matter jot. My brother didn't dare to defend himself, as he knew if he had, he would have really hurt her (and he'd have been in the shit for it).

Sorry to hear what your brother went through, Tess.
Yes, character is another important factor/set of factors.
Again, we don't know about that in KB's case.