Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes...

Thanks for noticing.

OTH, what is it with you lately? I deliberately try to be a good boy here, which really doesn't matter because 99% of my activities are "Read-Only", but you insist on trying to chase me to ground - even when I ask you politely, as in "please", or try to make light of the situation, as in "running into you in SoHo".

What do you want? To "plumb the depths" of my psyche? (Ummm... that's a joke Bells, since you seem quite deficient on picking up humor lately...)

For real - why? I highly respect you - do you truly dislike me this much? Not like I can put you on ignore, my moderat[ess?]

Any way, if you have any intentions beyond trolling, PM me and I will be happy to do the whole "dissect the post, tear it to pieces and throw it back in your friend's face thing"...

TTYL...

It would be fun, but I think this is something deeper, going back aways - what is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ask wynn. (Why hold me responsible for what wynn said?). I never claimed that a 4yo had any "mature adult responsibilities" (my exact words from a previous post) in her rape. Being less than 18yo, she was not an adult, had not reached the age of majority (~12yo), had not even reached the age (~7yo) to know reality from fiction, and has a profoundly incomplete perspective of life. The responsibilities of a 4yo are assumed by the child's parents etc. So for example, if the parents responded by explaining "good" and "bad" touching to the 4yo, then perhaps they were negligent in not having done so before.

Yes, as I said previously (verbatim), "criminal responsibility" versus "mature adult responsibility".

These are claims that I never advocated. And no, I do not. No one does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not in any way. For example, I consider you stupid, but there is absolutely no hostility in that assessment, it's just plain deduction from observation.

Indeed, it is the very opposite of hostile. If I thought you were intelligent and held the views you do then my reaction would be extremely hostile. So, by recognising your stupidity I isolate you from any potential hostility.

 

Screw it...

You are trolling by trying to elicit an emotional response from your adversary, rather than discussing the topic at hand. Textbook..

You already have the explanations Bells. You had them three years agao. I linked the thread. I also divulged personal information, which you oh so kindly elected to ignore...

It's really not that difficult - everyone. Now you are able to say I am a paranoid schizophrenic and we can all go home peacefully, right?

This is all so much political posturing and bullshit that it doesn't even deserve dressing - or stuffing... (Wait, I'm in the states and it's Thanksgiving...)

You know precisely, exactly, what I am saying. I can't even believe that I am typing these words again - "It is not unreasonable to personally take precautions that match your expectations of immortality and to advise others to do the same". If you want to be a journalist on the battlefield don't complain if you get shot. Get it?

I have never advocated anything beyond reasonable care. This is "Part II" of the very first thread I participated in on this site. You're aware of that. You were involved in the previous rendition. What, exactly, is your problem with my stance? Because I truly, really, honestly, absolutely (hmmm... out of synonyms, but I imagine I could come up with some more if you can't quite "get it" yet...) don't understand why you have such a problem with me on this issue. I have a quite functional family, albeit with history, yet you approach me as an adversary. Why?

Do you secretly have a crush on me? I mean, what?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are correct. And the sole onus upon the dead is not to have died - they would be fine today if they just hadn't gone and kicked off, right?

Define "works". Lessens the probability? Sure it does. Notice I'm very careful to leave out sexuality (male, female, hetero, etc...) because these are simple concepts that apply to everyone in all circumstances - to one degree or another.

Every military, police force, self defense group, et. al. promotes the idea of situational awareness. Be prepared - live to fight another day. This is the same stuff I'm saying - check your back seat before you get in your car, don't go around crack-town at night, etc. What exactly do you have a problem with here? Give me one, that's one, just one, fucking example of something specific that I advocate that you don't agree with. Just one... Can't do it, right?

Exactly. So one must balance "freedom" against "security". The same issues that nations struggle with, and you know this. I'm not just going to let you get away with acting like a total moron here, you know...

Not likely to happen anytime soon...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Check this word out Bells: BALANCE. Do it slowly, one letter at a time. Now do it again. Now do it again. Is it seeping in yet?

Really? Is it "stupid" to say "be careful" ever? Under any circumstances? Really? Stupid? For real?

See, this is where you lose it at - no where do I ever say: "Here, follow this prescription and you will never get raped, or assaulted in any way." You try, really hard, to read that in there. It doesn't work Bells. Not now. Not ever. Give it a rest. I'm not buying...

If that's what you think is proper and reasonable, sure. I don't happen to feel that way. If anything, I'm an adrenalin junkie. So is my family. I don't think you missed the skydiving, scubadiving, speed skiing, etc. etc. references over the years, did you Bells? Didn't think so. Why do try to pretend otherwise? I want you to live life to the fullest. I also want you to have a third degree black belt, or to take whatever precautions you feel are reasonable to balance the "fun" in your life with the "safety". This is bad? Why don't you come clean here, like I did? I have a personal vendetta, and admitted such. What is your agenda? Hmmmm, sweetie?

Oh no. Gosh. And Geewilikers. You have a certain set of precautions that you advocate? Well gee wiz cupcake, you just planted yourself squarely in my garden. That is exactly, and I mean exactly, what I advocate. Each person, family, group, nation, etc. must make a determination as to what is reasonable in terms of precautions. It's always a tradeoff - you know this - you're involved in the system for a living. I'm not telling you anything new, nor anything that you haven't heard a thousand times before. Why do you pretend not to accept this philosophy? Your own words belie you, and I don't even have any idea why you adopt this legend. It's not true - you know this. You advise your loved ones to "be careful", yet you tell me i'm being unreasonable to suggest the exact same thing. Why?

/patiently...
One does not "be careful to not be raped", one takes reasonable precautions to avoid assault of any type. Look, this subject is not new to me, go reread the thread from three years ago. What's with the grandstanding here?

I am a wealthy man. You already know this Bells. You need to update your playbook...

Cute. This is actually the comment that got personal. I don't know if you're jousting here or playing for real. Because my statement was closer to reality then fiction...

Absurd. Included only for context...

Well, since I would be a subset of all people, I guess so...

No you.re not.

No you don't. You choose to ask.

Asked and answered.

Reply censored.

To a degree, in the abstract, this would be a be affirmative. What part of "balance" do you not get?

Again, where did I assert: "Here is a surefire recipe to prevent rape" at, exactly? Give it a rest...

No one said it did - except you. If you feel differently, LINK PLEASE...

[Bells;2863338]And it does not mean they are responsible or complicit in their sexual assault if they feel ashamed of what happened to them, if they are angry, vengeful, feel self-hatred, feel embarrassed, etc.[/QUOTE]Repetitive and badgering....

Look forward to your incomplete and out of context attempt at a reply here.

Have a nice night Bells...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow. You are totally unable to sort fact from fiction, aren't you?

You appear to being a good job of playing the part of your own adversary here.

Please quote the bit where I demanded anything of anyone.

To borrow a quote from you, what the hell are you talking about? I addressed your post and provided a point by point response, leaving out not a single word of yours. (That I am aware of)

No, I have no such unreasonable expectations. I do expect you o acknowledge sources cited, however.

What are you trying to convey here? That you don't pay attention to your posts?

And likewise, I have no idea what you are talking about. Befuddled comes to mind, perhaps applicable to both of us?

Please Bells. For real? Can you truly not discern an attempt to be jovial from a serious response? I would think that would be a hindrance to your career.

No.

Actually, since you seem to be a little slow today, I will translate - I'm to lazy too scroll down and see what this one word reply references...

No. Are you?

Ermmm, no. Really. I'm not.

I made no such claim. Which post, please?

I wasn't aware of any time limit. My apologies.

Absolutely misinterpreted. Obvious. I claim you ignored personal information divulged in this thread, like a post or two before your initial rant. Care to check? Perhaps you are the one that imbibed excessively?

See above references to levity and the distinction thereof. Won't make that mistake again. All business with you, no sidebars, no "off the record" comments in your threads. Got it. You would have thought the emoticon might have helped here, but apparently not.

That's why I mentioned it. So that you would, like, be aware of it...

I would love to see any substantiation of these allegations. "Stuck you[r] nose into it"? Since when are threads private?

Bundle of joy, aren't you?

Let's stay on track then. You seem to be mostly concerned with the following reply, made in jest to you: "Yes, thank you for noticing".

What a surprise. We agree.

You offer nothing to "get".

As do I.

Sure it is. That is my point. Apperantly, if one is to mention "precautions" in this context, one can expect a flurry of debate. At least from you...

I am aware of the statistics and agree with you on rapists generally being known by the victim. Please cite your source as to why "there are no true precautions one can take to prevent a rape".

I'm sorry. I admit to a bit of confusion here. You have an issue with not trusting anyone or with trusting some people? Look at the wording of your reply here - please clarify.

Thank you.

No. I never made any attempt to even allude to a "guarantee" not to be assaulted. I alluded to changing the odds. The core of my first (and only topical) post:

Please answer the question - "Is that bad advice?"

It certainly doesn't elicit impressions of a good time had by one and all, no. Your logic is sound though, I just would not want to live my life that way.

Wait, on the other hand, although rare, I have heard of sexual assaults against females promulgated by other females, so... Nope - you're just plain wrong.

No.

If this is a sincere request I will find you some web sites hosted by law enforcement agencies as to suggested precautions. Let me know. Although I suspect disingenuity here...

Wow. Yes, I do just happen to have a nice old wooden bat beside my bed, but it just sort of ended up in that corner. I suppose it might come in handy if my wife tries to rape me though - good idea, Bells. Thanks.

*Yawn*

Why?

What about them?

After all, you're right again.

Yes we do. This would also be, IMHO, the hardest type of assault to combat or prepare for - doesn't mean we can't try though, right?[/quote]

See above...

Ummm, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding there Bells. I actually thought you might be capable of holding a rational discussion, but that doesn't seem to be the case today. I no longer "demand" your attention - please feel free to leave at anytime...

Yes. I think you have established your position on this issue pretty well, Bells. Please do feel free to continue your current behavior patterns.

 

Self-loathing and the Mitigator

I disagree in the context of the thread inquiry. It is not taboo to discuss the victims' role in crimes.

The thread, however, seems to have grown around a central theme of the question, and I think in that context the answer is demonstrable.

For those who need it more clearly explained, I recall once upon a time, basketball star Gary Payton decided to go back to the old neighborhood and, as you might imagine, ended up being robbed. And, yes, people chuckled at the time about the question of why one would go wandering through a rough 'hood wearing that much bling.

But it would never come about that a robber would be acquitted on those grounds. The dialogue Chimpkin quoted reminds how ridiculous a proposition that is.

Yet accused rapists have been acquitted because a woman was wearing something sexy; indeed there was a case in Wisconsin, I believe, during the eighties in which a child molester was acquitted because his three year-old victim behaved promiscuously—we might as well make a thesis on Ferenczi an admissions standard for kindergarten.

One part of this whole discussion does strike me as hilarious, though. So let's imagine for a moment ....

Okay, so the women in my neighborhood decide to take the advice of the crowd that tells them how to not make themselves targets for rapists.

I go down to my neighborhood pub. One of the regular bands no longer plays, since it would be unsafe for Kris to come down and play bass; we wouldn't want her to tempt someone who has a thing for rocker girls. And the lovely young lady I call "Rosie" for her Halloween costume (the riveter, not the talk show host) would not be there, and that's probably a good thing. After all, while she is part of the family that owns the pub, she is also what cheap writing might describe as "innocent", "fresh-scrubbed", or "the girl next door", and, hell, that's a really popular look among perverts. And the two or three female friends I've seen in her company would not be there either, including the one with the really appreciable rack that wears conservative clothing which, for its part, fails to utterly hide what really are good curves. In fact, there would be no women there at all. Not that my neighborhood pub is a dangerous place, but, you know, it's up to women to keep themselves safe.

And maybe as I leave, a couple of guys having a smoke outside The Jet are grumbling about the lack of action.

Perhaps about then it strikes me that things really are kind of strange. When I went to the gym, there were no women working out there. And when I drove home from the gym, I guess I did notice that the oft-raucous bar at Boston's was crowded, though now that I think of it, I didn't see any women there. Not even serving, since all the women in the area decided to take the mitigators' advice. To the one, it is common practice to put an attractive woman behind the bar. To the other, that might tell a man she wants him to have sex with her regardless of what she actually says. So ... yeah. Gotta be safe.

Of course, I'm a bit sore from the gym, so it occurs to me that I might be able to use one of the massage certificates my daughter gave me for Father's Day. Of course, there are no women in evidence, since it might send the wrong signals to have their hands on my body while I'm pretty much undressed. Of course, what about the big black guy who played college football? What if he's gay? Does that mean he's going to rape me? Would that be my fault? All I wanted was a massage!

So think about it. As long as the self-protection agenda is without any reasonable boundaries, this is what you're asking for. And if you're lucky, the women won't wise up to the real problem and simply declare a Lysistrata Revolution.

And, frankly, I am sick of the misogynistic effort to remove women from the spheres of my life. It starts to make me wonder if maybe, just maybe, the resulting "sausage fest" isn't actually what the mitigators are hoping for.

So they need to stop loathing themselves. Come out of the closet, guys. Deal with yourselves instead of telling women why your own misery is their fault.

 

Absolutely.

There are many dogs in my neighborhood. Mostly untrained, both spoiled and neglected. Many are quick to bark and charge after people.

Once I was walking home and as I was passing by a house with one such nasty dog, I noticed something peculiar:
The owner went to pick up the mail and was returning to the house, the dog accompanying him. As the dog saw me, I saw that he first looked up to his owner, and then didn't make a sound or seemed to care. It seemed like he looked up to his owner for instruction or assurance, and as the owner seemed to have communicated in some subtle way that I was not a threat, the dog didn't bother about me.
But when this same dog was with the owner's wife, he was downright crazy. He has chased and bitten several people.

So I figured let's try this logic in real cases:
At another house, they have a dog that goes berzerk when anyone passes the house (the house is close to the public road, no fence). So one day the dog went crazy as usual, but I called his owner to come to me on the road and to chit chat with me. It took me some persuasion while he was trying to calm the dog down, but the owner came. Within not much more than 15 seconds, the dog went from crazy to snuggling up to my leg and wanting to be petted and allowing to be petted. It was fascinating to watch.

I tried this with the other crazy dog and chit chatted with his lady. He didn't calm down so quickly, and I didn't pet him, but he did calm down.
In fact, over the months, he has become rather tolerable, barely ever barks when he sees me.

 

People make mistakes. The younger and the less experienced they are, the more likely they are to make mistakes, be negligent.
Children are bound to make many mistakes, to be negligent.

Sometimes, making a mistake can have horrible consequences.

 

People can feel provoked by anything. Often, we cannot do much about that.

The issue is whether a person's intention was to provoke. It is from this that feelings of guilt arise later on.

I would think the best way to keep oneself safe is to think and act as harmless as possible.

This doesn't automatically mean locking oneself in the house and never going out.

 

Domestic violence tends to have a history; it is generally not like everything would be fine for decades, and then suddenly a family member would explode and begin abusing other family members.
Physical violence is generally preceded by a history of verbal and emotional violence.

The problem is that people often let the verbal and emotional violence pass, which tends to exacerbate the situation.

 

With an attitude like that, heaven help you around dogs, thugs and psychopaths ...

 

Not all cases of rape are the same.

There is a difference between the rape of a person who was kidnapped in the middle of the day off a busy street and taken to a secluded location, and the rape that occurs when two people have known eachother for a long time, have been drinking buddies, fooled around, and then one day, things went too far.

Then there are all the other different circumstances in which rape occurs. We would need to analyze each case per se.


If a child freely steps into a stranger's car, and is then abused, the child does carry the responsibility for stepping into a stranger's car.
The child doesn't carry responsibility for the abuse per se, but does carry the responsibility for committing an action (ie. stepping into a stranger's car) that can reasonably be considered as leading to the abuse, given the circumstances.

Sure. Nobody claimed otherwise.


What seems to be causing confusion here is the difference between
the responsibility to prevent the crime
and
the responsibility for the crime.

These are two different things.

We are not at fault if we are not able to prevent a crime.
But we are at fault if we have done something that lead to the crime.

This is like saying "We should be free not to live in fear of an asteroid hitting planet Earth" or "We should be free not to live in fear of aging, illness and death."

I imagine the only way to transcend that fear is to find a refuge in something that is not subject to aging, illness and death, something that doesn't deteriorate, something that cannot be destroyed.

 

@ Rand...
No, I'm not happy.
I'm saddened.
For you, for whoever it was in your life that got hurt.

We all do the best we can to keep the people we love safe.
Not always enough.

 

It is a difficult topic that touches on one's basic beliefs about humanity and how the Universe works.

If one's basic beliefs about humanity and how the Universe works are vague, or are not realistic, one is likely going to be very upset in situations where those beliefs are challenged or proven wrong.