95
Giving men a common antidepressant could help tackle domestic violence: world-first study
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
95 points (91.3% liked)
Science
5654 readers
496 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
You are suggesting government issued licenses/permission for private people to engage in private relationships.
I'm not seeing where that was said?
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?
Why couldn't you just respond like that to me?
False.
For example, if one is a sex offender/domestic violence perpetrator in the US, they can be disallowed to have a relationship as part of their probation. Therapy can also be a requirement for probation.
There are probation officers who handle these cases and violating the terms of probation usually results in a loss of freedom/punishment of the person serving probation.
The state has different obligations to protect children than they do adults. Which is why we have things like drinking age laws and legal concepts such as in loco parentis.
You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices, and instead, inserting the government into those relationships, under the penalty of incarceration and government sanctioned violence, for the crime of having an unauthorized interpersonal consensual relationship between two adults.
And that's only taking your proposal at face value and ignoring the plethora of unintended consequences, such as perverse political incentives and privatization.
Violent, reoffending adults who specifically engage in domestic violence - and I clarified that it should be as part of their incarceration/probation. Such restrictions already exist in certain cases as terms for probation and it doesn't always revolve around protecting children.
Probation officers handle this just fine, there is no need for licenses affecting all adults. You twisted what I said, just admit it.
Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.
Yes, all adults.
Unless you're proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.
You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.
Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.
You haven't even left the confines of Lemmy, and you're already running headfirst into unintended consequences.
You replied to yourself and meant to reply to this comment:
Probation is an established system. You suggested licensing I'm not engaging with you anymore because that's not my argument. It's your spin.
Just because I'm pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn't mean it's spin.
You realize that you're not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?
The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.
Just some food for thought.
You are saying I'm suggesting it affect "all adults". That's false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don't need to abide by that system.
Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?
The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don't agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.
They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I'm not hurt.
Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.
Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That's the nuance and it's not "rhetorical flair". You misread or you are in bad faith.
Such a system already exists in some individual people's terms for probation and adults don't need to get a license.
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.
Never heard of this person, but given that there are accusations against them that are at the forefront of search results I'm unsure if I feel it prudent to expose myself to their 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.
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.