[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Zee

I'm not defending him, I'm saying she has shown an extremely nasty side to herself over the last few years and the fact she's forgiven him and they're back together suggests that she didn't even feel like a victim, it was a personal thing between the two of them and clearly there was room for resolution. If she felt that he was a mindless monster who assaulted her for no reason at all, do you think she would have forgiven him? I don't, I think she knew she'd pushed him and even though what he did was horrible, what he did clearly didn't come from nowhere or she wouldn't be with him again.

I get she can be a bit of a twat, but in no circumstance should that make it okayor give him the right to do what he did/justify his actions. Perhaps it was like cases with 1000's of other people who have been the victim of domestic assualt, she was still too much in love with him/felt that he had learned from his mistakes?

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jake.

I get she can be a bit of a twat, but in no circustance should that make it okay or give him the right to do what he did. Perhaps it was like cases with 1000's of other people who have been the victim of domestic assualt, she was still too much in love with him/felt that he had learned from his mistakes?

It doesn't. I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that, considering it was an isolated incident in their relationship, I believe she provoked him because of that very nasty side to her personality. They weren't together for a couple of years after the incident, and then they got back together. It's not like he beat her up and she kept going out with him regardless - it's different to an abusive relationship.

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Zee

It doesn't. I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that, considering it was an isolated incident in their relationship, I believe she provoked him because of that very nasty side to her personality. They weren't together for a couple of years after the incident, and then they got back together. It's not like he beat her up and she kept going out with him regardless - it's different to an abusive relationship.

But you don't know if she provoked him, you don't know what was said, so therefore I find saying 'I can see why Chris Brown hit Rihanna' doesn't have much basis to it. The whole 'nasty side' to her personailty just boils down to opinion, we don't know the ins and outs of the relationship between them.. maybe after that time she had forgiven him? It doesn't mean that she was at fault. The fact that he did so in the first place means that something there isn't right with him.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jake.

But you don't know if she provoked him, you don't know what was said, so therefore I find saying 'I can see why Chris Brown hit Rihanna' doesn't have much basis to it. The whole 'nasty side' to her personailty just boils down to opinion, we don't know the ins and outs of the relationship between them.. maybe after that time she had forgiven him? It doesn't mean that she was at fault. The fact that he did so in the first place means that something there isn't right with him.

It's just my controversial opinion, I'm not trying to pass it off as truth, it's mere speculation on my part. Having witnessed abusive relationships in real life, I see a marked difference between sustained abuse and the isolated incident between Rihanna and Chris Brown. That's why I believe what happened between them is not quite as clear cut as people generally accept it to be.

If things happened the way I imagine they did, it's not like either party is going to open up and talk about it. If Rihanna said she was at fault, people would say she's defending him. If Chris said she was at fault, people would furiously accuse him of not being sorry. But the fact Rihanna consistently defends what he did, the fact they're back together and the fact he's never beaten her up since, suggests to me that while he does have rage issues, they're generally under control unless he's provoked. Not many people are angry for no reason at all.