[ty6853]

Yes I'm sure we could keep digging up more. I've been down this rabbit hole before so I know how it always ends: I provide a data driven take backed by source after source which ends in endless nitpicking and scrutiny and rejection of the sources, meanwhile unsourced hot takes go completely unchallenged without the demand sources, as seen in your sister comment.

This is the key of this two-pronged approach, one commenter can bury the data driven comment in source rejection (without being beheld to prove a counter point, since the asserter has the burden of proof) while the sister comment can drive the more approved comment unchallenged. Of course we really know, in many cases, the two separate commenters are advancing the same line of opinion, but using this split strategy both are compartmentalized in their burdens.

Although, the truth is, the scrutinizer is rarely offering counter sources of their own, which they of course are under no obligation to provide. But barring that, we're left at worst with "I don't know" which is a terrible standard under which to assume the word of the wife is predictive of guilt, thus even if all the sources are rejected you leave from a practical perspective no off no better than you started in predictive guilt.

[BryantD]

Oh, I have no interest in going around and around about it -- that's not a good use of anyone's time. I think it's a somewhat understudied field, and was legitimately interested in your cites. Your material is way better than surveys about how many people feel like they've been falsely accused; relying on self-reporting like that is clearly flawed.

I also, for what it's worth, think that "did you talk to the wife" is too high a standard in this case. For one thing, the wife didn't bring a complaint, as I understand it.

[ty6853]

My hot take is the majority of complaints made by people who otherwise had planned on staying together are probably valid.

The divorce industry and divorce lawyers request these orders like candy, as leverage for proceedings and to take away custody briefly during the temporary order while the custody hearing is going on so that during custody hearings it can be argued the child already is only with the mom or dad and they should get full custody. It also lets you eject the partner from the home without a legal eviction process, so they are at their weakest and homeless when fighting in court. They produce a massive number of weak DV claims, the point was never to take them final but to provide enough of a discontinuity in their life to crush them.