It is mentioned also in several other novels written by Alexandre Dumas, including some where the action happens in the 16th century, by the time of Catherine de' Medici (a time when in reality there have been many allegations that some suspicious deaths have been caused by poisoning).
Therefore in these novels the use of "aqua tofana" is an anachronism, as it precedes by almost a century the time when "aqua tofana" is supposed to have been invented.
There's no evidence that "Agua Tofana" ever existed, and yet, for centuries, Europeans widely believed it was real, and widely feared it as a colorless, odorless, tasteless, undetectable, gradual-acting poison that could be added to anyone's food. Unscrupulous salespeople, as always, found clever ways to package and sell fake Agua Tofana -- similar to the fake snake-oil sold as "medicine" in the 18th and 19th centuries. The capacity of human beings to believe in things for which there is no evidence never ceases to amaze me.
Alimony is awarded in approximately 10% of divorce cases[0] and varies quite a bit in length, amount etc. and it’s done a practice that ref elects most commonly when one partner in a marriage contributes significantly less monetarily than the other. There’s also threshold circumstances that need to be met in most cases.
Now child support is not alimony, it’s support for your child(ren) that is paid to the parent that is the primary caretaker and for their needs.
Both have much different justifications and serve purposes that can’t really be boiled down to some form of nefarious “extraction” and in the case of alimony is far from widely granted
[0]: Judith McMullen has written good works on this topic but unfortunately I can’t find an unpaid link
Your arguments don't form a rebuttal. Alimony does make divorce easier, and child support makes it easier for the children to go to the mother; courts predominantly assign children to her, which is indeed sexist. And there are still quite a few families with a single provider, so it does contribute, and when you go back in time, that effect is more pronounced, which contributed to the social acceptance of divorce.
I do not share the GP's opinion about divorce, implied in terms like "cash out," though, if only because that would be rather hypocritical.
>Your arguments don't form a rebuttal. Alimony does make divorce easier, and child support makes it easier for the children to go to the mother; courts predominantly assign children to her, which is indeed sexist. And there are still quite a few families with a single provider, so it does contribute, and when you go back in time, that effect is more pronounced, which contributed to the social acceptance of divorce.
Not a rebuttal to any of this, there are some real issues with divorce laws and that deserved to be talked about, namely around family equity. The laws often can tilt toward some very outdated assumptions and be manipulated as well, but that doesn't mean alimony and child support don't have their place, they absolutely do.
Divorce is often hard and messy, no doubt, but I think the original statements missed the mark by a long shot as to why.
>I do not share the GP's opinion about divorce, implied in terms like "cash out"
This is what I was addressing at heart, is this mindset.
Unfortunately, many divorce laws are not based on research but on prevailing culture norms at the times they were passed (as what they were attempting to address and/or redress), and trying to unwind that hasn't been easy.
The laws are more unfair to men in states with more patriarchal cultures. Liberal states have way more equitable arrangements for them. Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up.
"Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up."
This sounds like an assumption that a woman could not have a career or get ahead of her own accord without relying on a man. Is that the thrust or did I misinterpret? And if so is it because the culture of that state is so patriarchal that a woman cannot have opportunities? I'm American but I haven't been to Alabama.
Brain drain from the rural areas to urban ones is extremely real and is only getting more serious. It's an economic problem created by politics that lands on women harder. Marriage laws are patriarchal culture's answer to this. The mindset goes, "real men provide and care for their family and if they can't, it must be their fault." Cruelty is a feature, not a bug, and they're more than willing to apply it indiscriminately.
I wouldn’t present it as a fact. Note that even the article is uncertain how much of that was urban legend or moral panic - perhaps fueled by comments like the parent comment.
> “This elaboration of claims resulted in belief in a poison that was very widely feared, but never actually existed,” Dash wrote. He further suggests that many deaths attributed to Aqua Tofana were likely due to natural causes and that its notorious reputation was largely the result of a moral panic.
What’s lawful varies, in both time and jurisdiction. I’m glad our current setup lets people unilaterally end a marriage, thus presenting much better options for self-defense than battered spouses in medieval Italy.
2. Maybe not. It might have been a legend even though some women were punished for this.
3. Maybe misogyny was the worst poison after all that poisoned society and law with suspicion.
It's like it's written by AI prompted with few tidbits of content.
Why not just openly state that most poisoners are still men because men lead in any class of murder (apart form infanticide). No need to perpetuate doubts.
Demographic discrimination may be instinctive, but we are neither wild animals nor pre-programmed automatons incapable of using rationality and reason to modify our behavior to treat others with more kindness than our instincts would guide us to.
I can't tell you how to live your life, but life is better for all us when we avoid demographic-level collective blame, which leads to demographic-level persecution, something I'd hope nobody here wants.
It’s mentioned 9 times in The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas.
It is mentioned also in several other novels written by Alexandre Dumas, including some where the action happens in the 16th century, by the time of Catherine de' Medici (a time when in reality there have been many allegations that some suspicious deaths have been caused by poisoning).
Therefore in these novels the use of "aqua tofana" is an anachronism, as it precedes by almost a century the time when "aqua tofana" is supposed to have been invented.
Definitely it had its mind share so it was possibly a tad bit overhyped.
Great find! Thank you for sharing the OP on HN.
There's no evidence that "Agua Tofana" ever existed, and yet, for centuries, Europeans widely believed it was real, and widely feared it as a colorless, odorless, tasteless, undetectable, gradual-acting poison that could be added to anyone's food. Unscrupulous salespeople, as always, found clever ways to package and sell fake Agua Tofana -- similar to the fake snake-oil sold as "medicine" in the 18th and 19th centuries. The capacity of human beings to believe in things for which there is no evidence never ceases to amaze me.
[flagged]
This portrayal is far from the truth.
Alimony is awarded in approximately 10% of divorce cases[0] and varies quite a bit in length, amount etc. and it’s done a practice that ref elects most commonly when one partner in a marriage contributes significantly less monetarily than the other. There’s also threshold circumstances that need to be met in most cases.
Now child support is not alimony, it’s support for your child(ren) that is paid to the parent that is the primary caretaker and for their needs.
Both have much different justifications and serve purposes that can’t really be boiled down to some form of nefarious “extraction” and in the case of alimony is far from widely granted
[0]: Judith McMullen has written good works on this topic but unfortunately I can’t find an unpaid link
> This portrayal is far from the truth.
Your arguments don't form a rebuttal. Alimony does make divorce easier, and child support makes it easier for the children to go to the mother; courts predominantly assign children to her, which is indeed sexist. And there are still quite a few families with a single provider, so it does contribute, and when you go back in time, that effect is more pronounced, which contributed to the social acceptance of divorce.
I do not share the GP's opinion about divorce, implied in terms like "cash out," though, if only because that would be rather hypocritical.
>Your arguments don't form a rebuttal. Alimony does make divorce easier, and child support makes it easier for the children to go to the mother; courts predominantly assign children to her, which is indeed sexist. And there are still quite a few families with a single provider, so it does contribute, and when you go back in time, that effect is more pronounced, which contributed to the social acceptance of divorce.
Not a rebuttal to any of this, there are some real issues with divorce laws and that deserved to be talked about, namely around family equity. The laws often can tilt toward some very outdated assumptions and be manipulated as well, but that doesn't mean alimony and child support don't have their place, they absolutely do.
Divorce is often hard and messy, no doubt, but I think the original statements missed the mark by a long shot as to why.
>I do not share the GP's opinion about divorce, implied in terms like "cash out"
This is what I was addressing at heart, is this mindset.
Unfortunately, many divorce laws are not based on research but on prevailing culture norms at the times they were passed (as what they were attempting to address and/or redress), and trying to unwind that hasn't been easy.
The laws are more unfair to men in states with more patriarchal cultures. Liberal states have way more equitable arrangements for them. Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up.
"Places like Alabama, practically the only way women can get ahead is to either move out of state or keep marrying up."
This sounds like an assumption that a woman could not have a career or get ahead of her own accord without relying on a man. Is that the thrust or did I misinterpret? And if so is it because the culture of that state is so patriarchal that a woman cannot have opportunities? I'm American but I haven't been to Alabama.
Brain drain from the rural areas to urban ones is extremely real and is only getting more serious. It's an economic problem created by politics that lands on women harder. Marriage laws are patriarchal culture's answer to this. The mindset goes, "real men provide and care for their family and if they can't, it must be their fault." Cruelty is a feature, not a bug, and they're more than willing to apply it indiscriminately.
As utterly terrible as divorce is, it’s preferable to being murdered. Although it might not seem like it at the time.
I wonder how much the rate of spousal murder has declined as divorce has become easier.
No-fault divorce probably saves a lot of lives, in other words. Good!
So get a prenup? You have options.
[flagged]
I wouldn’t present it as a fact. Note that even the article is uncertain how much of that was urban legend or moral panic - perhaps fueled by comments like the parent comment.
> “This elaboration of claims resulted in belief in a poison that was very widely feared, but never actually existed,” Dash wrote. He further suggests that many deaths attributed to Aqua Tofana were likely due to natural causes and that its notorious reputation was largely the result of a moral panic.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Some of these'll be genuine murders, sure.
Some will be self-defense by battered spouses in an situation where divorce was not really a option.
Murder is not a case of legitimate self-defense.
What’s lawful varies, in both time and jurisdiction. I’m glad our current setup lets people unilaterally end a marriage, thus presenting much better options for self-defense than battered spouses in medieval Italy.
All the same, it doesn't and didn't justify murder.
Sure it does. Even in the modern justice system it’s at least a mitigating circumstance, and that’s with people having the right to leave.
I read it as motive rather than an excuse.
What a pointless article.
1. That thing happened.
2. Maybe not. It might have been a legend even though some women were punished for this.
3. Maybe misogyny was the worst poison after all that poisoned society and law with suspicion.
It's like it's written by AI prompted with few tidbits of content.
Why not just openly state that most poisoners are still men because men lead in any class of murder (apart form infanticide). No need to perpetuate doubts.
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/the-myth-of-the-female-poisone...
Is 'AI-generated' the term we're using now for content we don't like?
What a killjoy you are.
Why draw demographic-shaped boxes around criminals at all? We all know the kinds of thinking this leads to - why encourage it?
Yeah. That would be great if we could stop doing that. Sadly human brain doesn't seem to work that way.
Demographic discrimination may be instinctive, but we are neither wild animals nor pre-programmed automatons incapable of using rationality and reason to modify our behavior to treat others with more kindness than our instincts would guide us to.
I can't tell you how to live your life, but life is better for all us when we avoid demographic-level collective blame, which leads to demographic-level persecution, something I'd hope nobody here wants.