Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Can You Be Responsible For Your Own Rape?

Can You Be Responsible For Your Own Rape? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 04:50 PM
 
I've tried responding three times now and each time the forum has eaten my lengthy diatribes. I give up.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 06:14 PM
 
The new hack worked, it prevented pooka from posting!

When you log in, be sure to check the "remember me" box, which sets a cookie. If the board doesn't see you for 15 minutes, it assumes you've gone away. With cookie, the post should still submit. Without, you get routed to the login page. Personally, I compose any longish response in a word processor, to protect the time investment.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
it's against this sort of mindset that I made the original comment that sparked this topic (in another thread). And I would like to propose right now that my original concept is also a solution to this conundrum.

In short, guilt is not zero-sum. The man* can be 100% guilty and the woman can (theoretically) be 100% guilty at the same time. The percents aren't distributed between the 2 (or more) participants, but rather what the percents refer to is how much each of them is independently guilty, on their own personal non-shared scale of 0-100. In support of this premise, I offer that if there are 2 rapists, then they don't split the guilt for the crime 50/50, they are both 100% guilty; so why must the guilt be split between rapist(s) and victim? My answer is it isn't. So let's imagine that a woman chooses to put herself at risk by drinking to excess while unclothed and passing out on a frat-house couch. Any man who comes along and has sex with her while she's unconscious and unconsenting, is 100% guilty. However, let's suppose that her actions create an objectively predictable 25% chance of getting her raped she is also 25% guilty. It's not 75/25, it's 100/25. Furthermore, if all we are able to determine is the degree to which she is guilty, then knowing/proving that number doesn't tell us whether the man is himself guilty. She could be 0% guilty, and his possible guilt could still range from 0% to 100%. She could be 100% guilty (but I can't honestly think of any action she could take that I would personally judge her 100% guilty for), and his guilt could still range from 0% to 100%. He's responsible for his crime, no matter how much she is additionally responsible for it, if any.

*for simplicity and to avoid pre-judging rapist and victim, I'm going to go ahead and assume we're talking about a man (allegedly) raping a woman, just so I have something to call each of them.



It solves the problem that we feel we can't let any guilt get on the victim, even in cases of the victim doing something they shouldn't do, for fear that it will take guilt off the perpetrator by doing that. But it doesn't have to take any guilt away from the perpetrator, just to identify additional guilt on the victim, in fact I argue that it's more accurate if it doesn't work like that (see again multiple perpetrators). The victim doesn't share guilt for what happened, they just (could possibly) have guilt for it, without taking anything away from his share of guilt.
I'm not talking about guilt, I'm talking about responsibility, "Can You Be Responsible For Your Own Rape?". Can a woman be to blame in that instance? In situations where they multiply the likelihood by orders of magnitude willingly, I believe that they partially can. Whether they feel "guilty" after the fact is a different matter entirely. I've seen folks feel guilty over things that aren't their fault, like the weather, and others show none at all for even the most heinous actions, like premeditated murder. It's entirely subjective, like morality.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But all of these comments are mere excuses:
...
That's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy, isn't it? They're not excuses unless you let them be. They're statements, which can be true or false statements, but either way they're just appeals to emotion. My point is that they don't work as excuses, and if you just step back a moment to identify why, then you can acknowledge that they are sometimes in fact _true_ statements, while still offering absolutely no _excuse_ for the crimes committed. The reason they don't work as excuses, is because even if true, even if the victim was the worst person in the world and everyone knew it, you are still just as guilty if you commit a crime against them. It is NOT an excuse. It's a failed excuse. There's no point in revisiting the victim's guilt in the first place, because even if we discover maximum guilt there, it doesn't tell us anything about the perpetrator's guilt. They're completely independent.

It works both ways, if the victim is maximally sympathetic, it doesn't turn an innocent (eg) mistake into a crime. The guilt of the suspect is determined 100% by their own actions and decisions, and 0% by whether the victim was guilty or innocent at the time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not talking about guilt, I'm talking about responsibility, "Can You Be Responsible For Your Own Rape?". Can a woman be to blame in that instance? In situations where they multiply the likelihood by orders of magnitude willingly, I believe that they partially can. Whether they feel "guilty" after the fact is a different matter entirely. I've seen folks feel guilty over things that aren't their fault, like the weather, and others show none at all for even the most heinous actions, like premeditated murder. It's entirely subjective, like morality.
Yeah ok, in this thread "guilt" is more ambiguous. I was talking about "culpability," not self-blame.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, so why a thread on the topic? I mean...

OP: is it ever acceptable to club a snowseal pup?
Respondent: well... not really, but if...
OP: What?!? Buzzkill!
This is an utterly unfair assessment.

Shaddim's example of "reality" is personal experience with an infant being clubbed to death.

Is that your reality? It's sure not my reality. It's not relevant to the topic, it's not true insofar that Shaddim was claiming this was reality for everyone, and, let's call a spade a spade... it was a ****ing buzzkill.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit, but this couldn't wait.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy, isn't it? They're not excuses unless you let them be. They're statements, which can be true or false statements, but either way they're just appeals to emotion. My point is that they don't work as excuses, and if you just step back a moment to identify why, then you can acknowledge that they are sometimes in fact _true_ statements, while still offering absolutely no _excuse_ for the crimes committed. The reason they don't work as excuses, is because even if true, even if the victim was the worst person in the world and everyone knew it, you are still just as guilty if you commit a crime against them. It is NOT an excuse. It's a failed excuse. There's no point in revisiting the victim's guilt in the first place, because even if we discover maximum guilt there, it doesn't tell us anything about the perpetrator's guilt. They're completely independent.

It works both ways, if the victim is maximally sympathetic, it doesn't turn an innocent (eg) mistake into a crime. The guilt of the suspect is determined 100% by their own actions and decisions, and 0% by whether the victim was guilty or innocent at the time.
The thing though is we're talking about actions which are considered a mistake purely due to the actions of others. There's nothing objectively mistaken about any of these things.

For example, jumping off a cliff is inherently a mistake. It remains a mistake regardless of the acts of others.

Unlike jumping off a cliff, chosing a particular piece of clothing, having gold bricks in your backpack, or walking somewhere in public at 2 AM are not inherently mistakes. They only become so once an individual choses to violate you because of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is an utterly unfair assessment.

Shaddim's example of "reality" is personal experience with an infant being clubbed to death.
Right and you claimed he lived in buzzkill world for this example and then reiterated it when he responded to your challenge of a naked man. Not, gosh I'm sorry you had to endure such a horrific ordeal or anything, but... buzzkill because of what I can only guess was a severely inconvenient counter to your narrative.

Let me try this another way;
Originally Posted by subego
I'd say you were 100% saving her from the actions of the basketball team and 0% saving her from her own actions. Passing out while scantily clad (or unclad for that matter) doesnt cause you to get raped. Someone choosing to rape you causes you to be raped.
So... why the thread topic? Merely to berate people who don't think exactly as you do on an extremely volatile subject? I mean it was such an apparent lead that you could see it from like a gazillion miles away. You might be the best judge of utterly unfair to date.

Is that your reality? It's sure not my reality. It's not relevant to the topic, it's not true insofar that Shaddim was claiming this was reality for everyone, and, let's call a spade a spade... it was a ****ing buzzkill.
Violence against children and infants is a buzzkill? Not well-versed in reality? An 8 year old girl was strangled to death in Chicago since July of this year. Granted, the threshold for "infant" is 5 years old, but I mean... really? Buzzkill? That's the word you came up with? Throughout the 28-year period from 1980 to 2008, infants under 1 year of age had the highest homicide victimization rate of all children under age 5 and remains between 8 and 9.5 homicides per 100,000 people. That's reality, not a buzzkill.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit, but this couldn't wait.
I can't wait!!!
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 08:52 PM
 
I want to throw out there again the idea that perhaps the blaming of yourself for the actions of others is a survival trait. It's going to help you avoid that situation in the future. As I said earlier, if I get my phone stolen when I'm using it late at night, I'm going to feel like it was my fault. That's going to encourage me to avoid the situation in the future.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right and you claimed he lived in buzzkill world for this example and then reiterated it when he responded to your challenge of a naked man. Not, gosh I'm sorry you had to endure such a horrific ordeal or anything, but... buzzkill because of what I can only guess was a severely inconvenient counter to your narrative.

Let me try this another way;

So... why the thread topic? Merely to berate people who don't think exactly as you do on an extremely volatile subject? I mean it was such an apparent lead that you could see it from like a gazillion miles away. You might be the best judge of utterly unfair to date.


Violence against children and infants is a buzzkill? Not well-versed in reality? An 8 year old girl was strangled to death in Chicago since July of this year. Granted, the threshold for "infant" is 5 years old, but I mean... really? Buzzkill? That's the word you came up with? Throughout the 28-year period from 1980 to 2008, infants under 1 year of age had the highest homicide victimization rate of all children under age 5 and remains between 8 and 9.5 homicides per 100,000 people. That's reality, not a buzzkill.


I can't wait!!!
First off, I must apologize, I misremembered things somewhat, but you are still not accurately describing events.

I did not say his response to to my naked man question was a buzzkill. I responded to his answer.

Shaddim's reply to that response was "[w]e don't live in the same world then, and nothing we've said to each other applies". This is essentially a termination of the discussion. I can't call that a buzzkill? That response from me deserves a dramatic reenactment? If it does, shouldn't that reenactment be rewritten to display what actually happened?

You claim my response to Shaddim should have been sympathy. Frankly, I respect him too much. I'm going to assume he's not making an appeal to emotion. If Shaddim needs sympathy about that situation, he can ask and I'll deliver. Only a jerkass would hide that request in an argument during a debate. Shaddim isn't a jerkass.

Again, I mistakenly remembered I called his story a buzzkill, so I can place no blame for you repeating it, but the fact is I didn't do that, so the accusation is misplaced.

Now, I don't expect you to hang on every word I write, but I didn't add the qualifier "personal" before "experience with an infant being murdered" just to pad my word count. You don't have any more personal experience with the example you gave than I do.

You ask why the thread topic? Because I'm interested in discussion. I've acknowledged multiple times Shaddim has a point. I give you permission to berate me in this manner.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 11:40 PM
 
I feel I've made this clear, but I want to reiterate it because it's not the Internet norm, or even my norm.

This thread is prompted by an honest to Betsy* desire for debate. This would not be possible if I was fully convinced of my argument. If I'm fully convinced of my argument, I'm not debating with you, I'm telling you.

Me arguing my point and asking questions should not be interpreted as rejection of alternatives. The few times I have rejected a premise, I've stated that directly, and will endeavor to make that even clearer in the future. Everything else I expect, and in fact ask, to be counter-challenged.


*This colloquialism always confused me, since if you've ever met Betsy you know she's quite the liar.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The thing though is we're talking about actions which are considered a mistake purely due to the actions of others. There's nothing objectively mistaken about any of these things.
There is if it's sexual. Public lewdness is a crime. Does your forgiveness of bad judgement extend to things that are codified as disallowed (in addition to being terrible judgement)? If so, then I don't see how you wouldn't forgive the mugger too, because the mugging itself wouldn't be a problem either, without your actions of receiving the mugging. You didn't consent to the mugging, but then again, people don't consent to being taunted by public lewdness either, and both are against the law.


Unlike jumping off a cliff, chosing a particular piece of clothing, having gold bricks in your backpack, or walking somewhere in public at 2 AM are not inherently mistakes. They only become so once an individual choses to violate you because of it.
Some dangers of "the streets" are from people who don't really choose their actions, because they are mentally ill. Your bad idea might seem more like jumping off a cliff, if that cliff is a poor soul who's not in conscious control of his actions and reactions to being taunted and tested.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 02:16 AM
 
So we're on the same page, what do you mean by public lewdness?

Do you have something (or several somethings) in mind, or are you asking me to define it as it is defined on the jurisdictional level?

Either is okay. Or both.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 06:05 AM
 
I personally think that people should be able to pass out drunk anywhere without getting raped, but we don't live in that world. Whats worse, is that rapes are usually committed by people who know the victim, so presumably most instances such s this involve a woman passing out among friends where she should expect to be looked out for. That expectation should be at least as great as any expectation that someone might try to assault her.

Anyway if you have sex with someone who is unconscious for whatever reasons, thats all on you IMO. People should be able to pass out drunk sometimes if they want to, without fear of being raped.
The real grey areas are where a girl is very drunk but conscious and consent is given at the time but then revoked either at the time, or after the event.
I do not doubt that there are girls who have slept with someone they consider hideous or otherwise hateful and in the morning accused them of rape in order to save themselves from shame or embarrassment. How can anyone be expected to sort this kind of situation where both parties were drinking, from one where they started but then she changed her mind before the act occurred?

I'm very glad its not my job to do that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Amongst my friends, a few have trusted me with their story of being raped (in some cases more than once). All of them knew their attacker beforehand, he or she was a friend, an ex boyfriend or a mother. None of them filed a police report. I'm not sure whether this is representative, but I think the classic »dark alley way« rape that many of us think of is actually not the most common setting.
Bingo! So... apparently our associates can matter. We have to be vigilant. We have to pay attention. The "family friend" who expresses "infatuation" with your 16 yo daughter and who has told her if she were older he'd marry her just might snatch her up into the woods. This is not an "okay" thing for a family friend to express. (particularly when his father went down in an eerily similar scenario in 1989-- I'm talking about the DiMaggio case recently) It's not a normal thing. When something doesn't seem right to you, be aware of that gut-feeling instinct and employ judgement on whom you choose to associate. If you're so accustomed to hanging out with bizarre/criminal people that your instincts are numbed, you are playing a game of odds that are not necessarily in your favor be it rape or any other misfortune. Furthermore, parents who associate with bizarre/criminal people expressing odd behaviors are putting their entire family at risk.

What's frustrating me here is that we're so mired in trying to be PC that we are virtually un-learning common sense.
ebuddy
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:57 AM
 
@ebuddy
You're right, there is a clear lack of common sense. E. g. my sister was surprised when she learnt that one of the rapists comes from a very well-to-do family and has nothing to do with the image of the creepy guy in the alleyway.

Especially with long-term abuse victims (e. g. abused wives or abused children), very often the surroundings know full well what is going on, yet they do nothing. (Although long-term abuse is different than one-time events.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So we're on the same page, what do you mean by public lewdness?

Do you have something (or several somethings) in mind, or are you asking me to define it as it is defined on the jurisdictional level?

Either is okay. Or both.
That I recall, you haven't agreed that any extreme can qualify as doing anything wrong, so I will opt for the most extreme. Naked, acting sexual, engaging people in interaction. Basically a lap dancer who's not in a strip club.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I personally think that people should be able to pass out drunk anywhere without getting raped, but we don't live in that world. Whats worse, is that rapes are usually committed by people who know the victim, so presumably most instances such s this involve a woman passing out among friends where she should expect to be looked out for. That expectation should be at least as great as any expectation that someone might try to assault her.
I understand the attempt to involve common sense on the part of women, e. g. not to turn on and then turn off the aggressive drunk dude. There is also the aspect that some women »seem to attract« rapists or abusive guys, and that you can make an argument that it's in their best interest to modify some of their own behavior.

But prudent behavior just like in any other situation, e. g. carefully storing your wallet to make theft harder or to not always insist on your right of way to avoid traffic accidents, does not mean the victim shares responsibility or blame. What is wrong is still the environment: there are cities where theft is uncommon (e. g. essentially everywhere in Japan) or when taking public transportation at night is safe (e. g. in Munich). Women should not feel unsafe when they walk home at night. They should not have to worry about getting raped when they pass out drunk at a party (something every guy takes for granted!).
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The real grey areas are where a girl is very drunk but conscious and consent is given at the time but then revoked either at the time, or after the event.
If a woman says not before or during sex, it means the guy needs to stop, there is no gray area for me.

The only one I have difficulty with is when the woman says no afterwards but gives no signal to stop during sex (e. g. by actively participating). Some strange branch of feminists calls that also rape, but I think it's non-sense. I remember a series of articles where the authors (all women) recall situations in which they were »raped« and they let it happen for reasons like they wanted to get together with the guy at any costs, felt obliged to do it or were convinced to have sex without protection. Essentially they figured that sleeping with the guy in that situation was a mistake. If that's the case, this type of »rape« is certainly not limited to women (I would have been »raped« once, too), but I strongly disagree with the choice of words here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What's frustrating me here is that we're so mired in trying to be PC that we are virtually un-learning common sense.
Thank you. Very well said.

-t
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What's frustrating me here is that we're so mired in trying to be PC that we are virtually un-learning common sense.
You know, you've already questioned the point of the thread, and now you're getting frustrated.

It's okay if this is not the thread for you. There's no point on beating your head against the wall to make it such.

I give you permission not to post. I apologize for forcing you.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If a woman says not before or during sex, it means the guy needs to stop, there is no gray area for me.

The only one I have difficulty with is when the woman says no afterwards but gives no signal to stop during sex (e. g. by actively participating). Some strange branch of feminists calls that also rape, but I think it's non-sense. I remember a series of articles where the authors (all women) recall situations in which they were »raped« and they let it happen for reasons like they wanted to get together with the guy at any costs, felt obliged to do it or were convinced to have sex without protection. Essentially they figured that sleeping with the guy in that situation was a mistake. If that's the case, this type of »rape« is certainly not limited to women (I would have been »raped« once, too), but I strongly disagree with the choice of words here.
Had this pulled on me (and later withdrawn with apologies for the accusation). She retroactively realized things could have gone slower had she asked*, and decided to take her regrets out on me.


*What prompted it in the first place was hearing from a friend how when she asked me not to go farther, I didn't. Her thought process was "oh, so he respects her, but not me?"

I actually got the question from this girl "after I took off all my clothes and got into bed with you, how did you know I wanted to go farther?"

I fully admit, this person was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:12 PM
 
Similar situation here. The woman got into my bed wearing a tiny nightgown and nothing else, I sleep commando and have since I was 16. Although she wasn't aggressive, she was compliant and "ready". The next day I got an earful over how I'd rushed things and didn't show her enough respect. Lady, if you climb into a man's bed, start making out with him, and then grab his junk, it's on. Unless you're saying no and/or showing rejection, there will be sex happening.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
ProTip: putting a condom on the guy's dink may be interpreted as a desire to get busy.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
ProTip: putting a condom on the guy's dink may be interpreted as a desire to get busy.
It looked cold.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 04:05 PM
 
Those were my balls.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That I recall, you haven't agreed that any extreme can qualify as doing anything wrong, so I will opt for the most extreme. Naked, acting sexual, engaging people in interaction. Basically a lap dancer who's not in a strip club.
Gotcha. Forgive me if I'm not tracing the chain of discussion back to your questions properly. You are welcomed to correct me.

I see a fundamental difference between the mugging and all the activities you describe here. Both are illegal, but my sense of what's forgivable and what's not is only glancingly related to the law. As the adage goes, "morality is a rapier, the law is a blunt instrument".

What makes the mugging unforgivable is it by definition involves the threat of, or actual use of violence upon someone. The lewd behaviors you speak of do not.

The mentally ill point is a good one. I'm working on that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Gotcha. Forgive me if I'm not tracing the chain of discussion back to your questions properly. You are welcomed to correct me.
You're doing just fine


I see a fundamental difference between the mugging and all the activities you describe here. Both are illegal, but my sense of what's forgivable and what's not is only glancingly related to the law. As the adage goes, "morality is a rapier, the law is a blunt instrument".
The rapier still cuts. One must address what the rapier's target was supposed to be, when dismissing the blunt instrument for missing that target. I feel you skipped that step. Whatever the law was enacted to prevent, can you demonstrate that it too was "a mistake purely due to the actions of others?" Or is it in fact a mistake (also) because it harms others?


What makes the mugging unforgivable is it by definition involves the threat of, or actual use of violence upon someone. The lewd behaviors you speak of do not.
I think I made a mistake of my own, by choosing the word "forgive," because now I don't understand what you mean by "forgiven." Is it that women can commit whatever harm they wish so long as that harm is emotional and not violent? Or is it that violent criminals stay unforgiven, even after serving their sentence?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You know, you've already questioned the point of the thread, and now you're getting frustrated.

It's okay if this is not the thread for you. There's no point on beating your head against the wall to make it such.

I give you permission not to post. I apologize for forcing you.
I came in to air my distaste for the loaded nature of the thread topic and to lament the demise of common sense. If my frustration is rubbing off on you, maybe you could take a break? Besides, if I were to tell you that I'm doing exactly what I wanted to do here and thanked you; you'd respond with "your welcome".

So... I think I'll stay for a while and see how this thing goes.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 03:30 AM
 
You are of course welcome to stick around as long as you want (no snark), and I wouldn't want a discussion where I want my ideas challenged not to include you (no snark there either, I really mean that).

However, so far your participation has been to hurl accusations, that's not what makes me want to include you.

Something else you may have noticed about me is my big hot button is being accused of having different motivations than I actually have. It's hard for me to behave appropriately in those situations, and as usual, rather than address it properly, I end up getting pissy. I apologize for that.

I assure you that you are mistaken in your assessment of my goals in this thread. What you see as "loaded" is me staking a position for which others are intended to challenge.

Is there some way I should have set up the question which would you have preferred?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The rapier still cuts. One must address what the rapier's target was supposed to be, when dismissing the blunt instrument for missing that target. I feel you skipped that step. Whatever the law was enacted to prevent, can you demonstrate that it too was "a mistake purely due to the actions of others?" Or is it in fact a mistake (also) because it harms others?
I'm working on this BTW. It's a good point and will require some, umm... precision rapier-work to counter.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there some way I should have set up the question which would you have preferred?
Fair enough, subego and in full disclosure -- I have a 19 yo daughter who I am constantly having to remind NOT to attract negative attention with provocative dress. The selfies on FB and the responses of "mmm, I'm so thirsty" that quickly accompany it making me want to reach into my machine and snatch up the people who respond this way. It bothers me. A great deal. But wait, my daughter posted the images. Perhaps she likes the attention, negative and all. BAD. VERY, VERY BAD. This was easy enough when she was younger, but she's a young woman now and I do not have the same level of authority or control over her actions. She now has greater authority over herself and I see she's not being a good steward of this responsibility. And it's extremely (to put it mildly) frustrating. I'd say this is most definitely contributing to my reactions here and I apologize if I'm abusing you with it.

Maybe we should start with clarifying how you define responsible and why that matters.

Some quick definitions;
- in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for.
- accountable, answerable, to blame, guilty, culpable, blameworthy, at fault, in the wrong.

A girl is in charge of her image. She's in control of her intake. She's at the helm of her well-being. If she is not placing her life in the hands of others, it's because she's taking accountability for herself. These are all things good parents teach their daughters. Now, we certainly do NOT want a system in which rapists are given a pass by blaming the girl and/or making her culpable for the criminal actions of the rapist and I'm not seeing any indication that a sane person would do such a thing. However, this does not preclude the need for girls to remain in charge of their image, control their intake, remain at the helm of their well-being, and take accountability for themselves. Shaddim's example illustrates this perfectly and yet you didn't budge. Uncle explained responsibility as not being a zero-sum element which I thought was brilliant. Still you didn't budge.

What definition(s) of responsibility are you employing that none of this is making you budge? I see a lot of folks dancing the PC around that particular word, so let's just go right at it shall we?

And I promise I'll try to leave my personal life out of it going forward so I don't get angry again.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 04:44 PM
 
I'm tied up right now, but wanted to address a quick point.

I don't have kids, you and Shaddim do. It's much easier for me to look at this dispassionately, and as an exercise in philosophy.

I didn't really take that into account properly when I was constructing the thread. This is ultimately a "trigger" type discussion, and I shouldn't have just plopped it on the table without a better guide of what I'm trying to accomplish (a philosophical debate about morality). That was a big mistake on my part, and I appreciate you and Shaddim ultimately cutting me slack for it.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 09:02 PM
 
ebuddy, while your daughter is responsible for managing the way she presents herself, she is NOT responsible for how others interpret her presentation. So while she may tone down the way she dresses, it is almost irrelevant in the eyes of a potential rapist. Her image as both you and she see it is not the issue, though avoiding being excessively provocative will help with run of the mill jerks and boors. Fact is that most rapists know their victims, and most rapists are not simply opportunists though they do look for opportunities. They victimize others out of a variety of their own issues, but the overwhelming majority of rapists have a socially accepted consensual sexual outlet, so the sexuality or attractiveness of their victims is not a major factor, and it is never an excuse to violently attack someone else.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 09:14 PM
 
Ah! Okay then. Philosophically, no, I don't believe anyone can be responsible for being raped. Practically, yes, they can at least be partially responsible, depending on the environment and their actions.

Much of this brouhaha is over "the ideal" vs. "the ideal in practice". Quite different things, those. I can visualize a perfect circle easily enough, but damned if I can draw one.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 09:26 PM
 
So you're responsible for your own armed robbery just because you had to go down that one street to get where you're going and that's where the robber was?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
ebuddy, while your daughter...
I'd like to respectfully request this be about a hypothetical daughter. I don't see any of the points you brought up being excluded had you used a more general example.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
So you're responsible for your own armed robbery just because you had to go down that one street to get where you're going and that's where the robber was?
If you know there's a high probability of being robbed by going there, yes. Fortunately, there are many different ways to do practically everything, so there are ways to minimize the risk. It's how we learn caution, how we gain wisdom.

You can curse the sky, being angry over the guy who mugged you and placing all the blame on him, or you can accept that going down that alley at night is a bad idea, and by doing so you'd be contributing to your own "ill fortune" if you're robbed. It essentially breaks down to being either an idealist or a pragmatist. Ultimately, I agree that the robber/rapist/murderer is always at fault, they are to blame for what happened, but "the night is dark and full of terrors" and staying near the light will minimize your grief.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 11:15 PM
 
My cousin's ex wife was walking home from a party when she decided to take a short cut down an alley and was raped.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Her image ... is not the issue
Point of order, there is more than one "the" issue. "The" biggest issue is the rapist, that much I agree with you. However identifying "the" biggest issue does not rule out the possibility of other smaller but not-insignificant issues.

I think that is the major point of contention here. No one is saying that a victim's bad decisions "excuse" the criminal, but some of us are trying not to forget that the criminal's crime also doesn't "excuse" the victim's bad decisions ("excuses" to a far lesser degree, commensurate with the severity of the bad decisions; the point is that they are still higher than null).
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 11:19 AM
 
I think I lean more toward ebuddy and Shaddim's position on this one. At the end of the day people are responsible for their own actions. And that includes the perpetrator and the victim. My father always told me to "Never tempt a good boy to go bad." I think that is sage advice. Whether that's not leaving your doors unlocked at night, to not leaving your iPhone or purse visible in a parked car, to not getting passed out drunk at some frat party. Certainly the person who burglarized the house, or broke into the car, or raped the girl is responsible for their actions. But you are responsible for not knowingly putting yourself into a dicey situation. When I was coming up it was common knowledge that you never leave your drink unattended around people you don't know ... lest someone "slip a mickey" in there and you end up embarrassed at best or in a world of hurt at worst. That doesn't excuse the person who committed that act. Not in the slightest. It just means that one would be wise to not put yourself out there like that. Which is why I wholeheartedly agreed with Serena Williams when she commented on the Steubenville gang rape case and said that the girl "shouldn't have put herself in that position". Which in a case of PC run amok garnered this ridiculous backlash IMO. As if saying that a 16 year old girl getting passed out drunk at a party was the smart thing to do.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 12:29 PM
 
Hmmm... while I think some blame can be shared (As Uncle stated previously) what happens if ask this question: Does a woman have a responsibility to not walk down a dark alley?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hmmm... while I think some blame can be shared (As Uncle stated previously) what happens if ask this question: Does a woman have a responsibility to not walk down a dark alley?
Unarmed? Unescorted? No real reason to do so? Not the wisest move. That being said, she's more likely to be mugged than raped. As has been pointed out, most rapes occur with someone she knows ... not the strange man in the dark alley scenario.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hmmm... while I think some blame can be shared (As Uncle stated previously) what happens if ask this question: Does a woman have a responsibility to not walk down a dark alley?
I don't remember the last time I entered an alley, dark or lit, that wasn't for the purpose of accessing one of the adjoining buildings. Perhaps never. I always considered it to be like a driveway, and using it to cut through would be intruding/abuse. Would it be a burden on any of us to use only streets and sidewalks, and not use alleys in general? I always thought that part of what made it an alley in the first place was that it was unsuitable for general purpose traffic including foot traffic.

I am open to the possibility that alleys are a bigger "thing" in places I haven't lived.

PS. It's a good question. My gut reaction for several minutes was "hell no, they can go wherever they want." But I wouldn't expect to be able to wander freely in any random driveway, the space between houses, on fire escapes, digging through dumpsters, or other places that are accessible to the public but certainly not welcoming to it, and specifically designed for purposes other than public use. Alleys are very similar to those.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Unarmed? Unescorted? No real reason to do so? Not the wisest move.
Does not the wisest move = Yes she bears responsibility?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Does not the wisest move = Yes she bears responsibility?
Responsibility for what? My basic position here is that a crime victim is not "responsible" for the crime. The perpetrator bears responsibility for that. However, everyone is "responsible" for not unnecessarily endangering themselves.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I am open to the possibility that alleys are a bigger "thing" in places I haven't lived.
It depends on the alley. The vast majority of alleys are built where there isn't any value to cutting though them unless you're using a rear entrance.

There are other alleys, because of the way the streets are designed, which function as de facto streets. The most common example is at the end of a street which would otherwise dead-end. Second place is in the middle of a long block.


I'm working on more on topic responses. All in this thread are free to interpret my lack of response as a lack of having good counters, because that would be the correct interpretation.

Edit: though Dakar's question has struck closer than anything I've been able to come up with.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Does not the wisest move = Yes she bears responsibility?
"Not the wisest move"? Paying full retail for a diamond ring is "not the wisest move", a mostly naked girl passing out drunk/stoned at a frat party is incredibly stupid. Do "incredibly stupid moves" entail a person to bear partial responsibility? Yes, I believe they do.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
My cousin's ex wife was walking home from a party when she decided to take a short cut down an alley and was raped.
Let that be a lesson to us all! Don't take short cuts in life!

If a meal is disagreeing with me, I just read this thread to help vomit it out.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 08:11 PM
 
There seems to be a lot of discussion about "being in a bad neighbourhood" here and that somehow relates to the responsibility of being raped. This seems very much like a problem only privileged people suffer from.

What about the people who live there? Maybe the privileged and upwardly mobile denizens of MacNN can happily avoid such places, but many people are stuck living there without any hope of escape.

So to put a blunt point on the subject: if a middle class girl can be held responsible of being in the wrong neighbourhood and getting raped/mugged/murdered, can the poor woman be held responsible if she lives there?

This is a clear-cut "check your privilege" problem. Some people imagine personal capability because they have the power to avoid such circumstances, but not everyone does.

"Stay out of bad neighbourhoods to avoid being a victim" is as helpful a prescription to some people as telling a man in outer space to hold his breath.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 08:52 PM
 
[Facepalm]

That's the point. The privileged person has a choice. We are making an analogy with something wherein you have a choice.

If one is responsible for their own rape it can only be though a choice they made.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2