Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

Oh yeah. I thought I would drop by just to eliminate misunderstandings. There is no such a thing as victim's responsibility.

Let's say a homeowner is NOT required to lock his house. A girl is not required to dress "politely". etc.etc.

But you guys can blabber about such things....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never did answer this question...Sorry, a bit of business with a friend on another board...

-Doing something foolish is doing something foolish. When it strays into the area where one is dealing with civil or criminally actionable negligence, that negligence has harmed someone else...and that's a bit different.

Whether one should do the supremely foolish thing again...entirely depends on what that foolish thing is. What constitutes a foolish thing? And what constitutes an overriding imperative to do it anyway?

Through my dad's actions I found that loving people gave them the power to destroy me.
This has now become what I expect. Allowing myself to love anyone at all, to depend on anyone at all...this is my supremely foolish thing.

I love people now even though it terrifies me to do so. Even though it often makes me despise myself for being weak enough to have to have others.
Because I have to do so to remain even vaguely sane, because as much as I tried, I could not get away from the need for human interaction.

All life involves risk.

You ought not to take foolish ones with yourself.
If someone else hurts you when you take any risk, foolish or not, that does not mean you agreed to be hurt.

That's what the word complicit means.
It means you agreed to be a victim. You wanted it.
Saying "That was incredibly stupid, I'm not going to ever pull a dumb stunt like that again," Is not saying "Yes, I wanted to be a victim."

Here's a question in return:

Why would someone WANT to be a victim of a violent crime?
Can you give me a list of potential reasons why someone might desire that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Totally unoffically, a trans male friend of mine said this discussion came up on his message board.
It was generally observed among the membership that while testosterone does make you think about sex an inordinate amount of the time, nobody on the board was tempted to rape.

Which suggested to my friend it's not the hormones doing the talking in male minds.

But very little research has been done on female-to-male transsexuals. If one found a trans male convicted of rape, it would likely be so unusual as to be good only as a case study.

Reposting my question to Cifo, as I'd really like an answer::

In fact...
Can ANYBODY tell me why someone would want to be a victim?

 

Indeed. The average dominant German Shepherd doesn't either.
There is one in my neighboord: she doesn't care about anyone - head high, tail up or straight. Her owners cannot control her, she generally doesn't obey. Fortunately, she doesn't seem to be very aggressive. It seems she is so dominant that everyone, people and other animals, rather back off, than get into a fight with her.

Encounters with such animals can really challenge our preconceived notions about how the world should be.

Some people seem to think that there should be such absolute risk management, or they think that some people are advocating that everyone should be able to manage risk absolutely.

Bells and some others here seem to think that what Cifo, Randolf, some others, and the law are advocating is absolute risk management;
and that people are to be held at fault if they don't absolutely manage risk.

But nobody here, nor the law, have ever expected to manage risk absolutely.



There is indeed a stream of pop-psychology that makes claims such as
"Whatever happens to you, is your fault, you are responsible for eveything that happens to you."
"Whoever you meet, whatever they do to you: it is because you wanted them to do that to you."
"You are what you attract."
and the like.

But nobody here, nor the law, have ever advocated this.


What further makes the discussion difficult is that some people insist in the perpetrator's interpretation of events.

If the perpetrator says "I assaulted him because he is black," some people apparently introject this, believing the perpetrator's interpretation of the events - "I was assaulted because I am black. My being black is what caused the assault. If I wouldn't be black, I wouldn't be assaulted."
Or they believe that this is the only way to understand the situation.

 

It doesn't look like you understand what I and some others are getting at.

It seems that you are trying to understand the whole topic on a superficial, simplistic, external level.
Which also happens to be one that doesn't particularly help in recovery.


A problem is that some people seek from the legal system something that the legal system cannot give them.

The legal system is able and obligated, to some degree, to reestablish the material state (such as by returning the stolen property) or award a monetary compensation.

But the legal system is not obligated to restore the victim's personal wellbeing.
It is a mistake to expect that from the legal system.

Depending on the country and resources available, the legal system may provide some medical and counselling services.
But beyond that, it is the person's own responsibility to recover.

 

If a child plays with matches and things go out of hand and the house burns down, this doesn't automatically mean that the child intended to burn the house down.
But if he didn't play with the matches, the fire probably wouldn't start.

If you run down the stairs, fall and break your leg, this doesn't automatically mean that you intended to break your leg.
But if you wouldn't run down the stairs, you probably wouldn't break your leg.

If some people pay you to wait in front of the bank with the car started (while they go to rob the bank), and you accept the payment and agree to drive them where they tell you and drive them there, you are complicit, even if you had no idea that they went to rob the bank.


The degree of complicity can vary, depending on the person's awareness of the situation and their actions.

The definition of legal complicity also varies from one country to another.


But for all practical intents and purposes, complicity refers to thinking, saying or doing anything that may make the situation worse.

 

We would first need to analyze this a bit.

I do not think anyone wants to be a victim.


But there may be some aspects of victimhood that may seem or be appealing.
The person desiring those aspects is probably not aware they are doing so.


For example, a person may have a strong desire to surrender to another person. By surrender is meant here 'seeking love, guidance, intimacy.' Most people have this desire.

But a person might not be aware of this and might go about this very unwisely.
If a person has a poor sense of personal boundaries, they may end up with all kinds of people.
A strong desire for surrender (for love, guidance, intimacy) coupled with poor boundaries can have unintended but disastrous consequences.

 

Stupidity and responsibility are 2 different things. Everyone has the right to be stupid.

Insurance is a different issue. An insurance co. can demand (rightfully so) to make it hard to get burglarized. But what if I don't have insurance? Unless I have guns lying all over the house, it is not a responsibility of a homeowner to make his house a fortress. It is his CHOICE.

And as my first sentence already mentioned, choice and responsibility are 2 different things.

So I still stand unchallenged: There is no such a thing as victim's responsibility. Common sense, sure, responsibility, no.

 

That's because the perpetrator committed the crime.

This is normally the outlook of the casual observer.

The core law of quantum physics is that "if it's not forbidden, then it will happen". Crime happens because it's not forbidden. So far (to my knowledge) there have only been four attempts at forbiding crime that can tout any success. Over-policing (such as is presently done in New York), severly restricting freedom, over-punshment (ex. execution for stealing a candy bar), or arming and continual arms training for every citizen (ex. like Switzerland).

Denmark has taken a hard look at why crime happens and has come to the conclusion that it's mostly a result of people not knowing how to live. Rather than punish criminals, they educate and train them. This is why Denmark has the lowest repeat offender statistics on Earth; however, this approach doesn't forbid crime, it fixes criminals and very effectively I might add.

Switzerland on the other hand has the lowest crime rate on Earth. They train their citizens yearly to defend themselves with guns (as well as how to recognize and handle aggression). People feel that they can defend themselves against any crime committed against them personally and potential personal attackers know that they don't have a high chance of survival because of this.

Victims become victims often because they are weak and have no means of defending themselves against their assailants.

I am guessing because your verbiage implies that a victim's outward identity (how they talk, how they dress, etc.) *causes* crimes against them and most people have a correct understanding that those factors don't *cause* crime. Criminals do (although outward features do in fact help criminals select victims).

 

This and That

That is, you know, a Pentagon definition of trust: Something is "trusted" if it can hurt you.

In the sense of a computer on a network, this makes sense. In human relationships, though, while there is an abstract accuracy about the notion, it doesn't translate well to function.

• • •​

So what are you advocating?

Let us consider your documented use of the word "complicit". Was this a mistake on your part?

Very well. By the logic of mitigation that seems so close to the controversy in this thread, the new asshole you're being chewed is what you actually wanted.

I mean, why would you leave yourself open to that criticism? You know, make yourself a target?

Or maybe we could go with something a little more reasonable. Oh, right:

So much for reasonability, eh?

You do realize, of course, that the appearance of harmlessness is also a targeting criterion for many criminal offenders?

That's a very convenient way of looking at it for, say, a rapist.

A rape survivor, however, often feels guilt for being so stupid as to have trusted people in the world. Maybe she should have gone to the Halloween party as a "harmless" Muslim woman in an abaya instead of making herself a target by having fun dressing up as Barbara Eden from I Dream of Genie.

Most people think crime won't happen to them. People were amazed in 1994 when my 1979 Toyota Celica was stolen. I wasn't. The thing is very easy to break into. People were amazed when my 1990 Toyota Camry was stolen in 2006. Why? It was an old car that is very easy to break into.

But that's a car. Protecting it against theft requires about seven seconds worth of effort. No, really. Okay, ten to fourteen. Setting the steering lock takes five to seven seconds. Removing it takes five to seven seconds.

But living in a neighborhood? Knowing the people one knows? Yeah, sure, it seems easy enough to say one should "think and act as harmless as possible". But what, practically, does that mean? What are the practical limits of this form of crime prevention? How far must a person go to not be "complicit" in willful sexual violence committed against them?

This is the challenge you're facing, and the reason why some refuse to let up on you. You're promoting an abstract assertion of wisdom without any properly defined dimensions. It sounds nice to say, but the reality is that there are so many rapes justified by so many signs, hints, or acts of "complicity", that there is no reasonable way to to protect against them all. Even locking oneself in the house and never going out doesn't work.

However, the practical effect of potential rape targets taking your mitigation advice so as not to be "complicit" in what might happen to them is such that you are trying to chase women out of social interaction, erase them from the presence of males.

And maybe you don't intend to be so accidentally complicit in that sort of ludicrous misogyny, but it is the practical outcome of the argument you're very poorly advocating.

One of the first things you need to do if you intend to be an armchair psychologist—

—is to develop at least a rudimentary understanding of psychology, which includes what so many would-be shrinkers overlook—the implications of psychology on historical interpretation.

The second thing you need to do is understand the dimensions of your armchair.

As you flit from notion to notion, the common connection is mitigation of perpetrators' guilt. Look at that latest from #148. You have moved all the way from "to find out what people can do to prevent becoming victims of crime in the future" to what a potential crime victim "might not be aware of". Psychologically speaking, there is a functionally relevant difference between those two considerations. In the vulgar, there is a disconnect in your evolving outlook.

The only common theme, in the end, is mitigation of guilt.

And that is why you're meeting such a ferocious response.

 

It seems to me you just introduced something that even you are not sure is relevent.

Or there is hindsight bias. Or all someone did was live.

So if you leave your house, and I mean you personally, and get raped, you are complicit in your rape?

No, because we get to live.

I really don't think that's what rape comes down to.

So 1) you think the parallel is a common attitude in rape victims and 2) you don't think it is common for people to establish their worth and in comparison to others via their purchases? The marketers are very confused if this is not the case. I doubt many have that conscious thought, but many are absolutely jockeying for position with their expensive items.

Yet I never see a thread justifying theft, carjacking, burglary, vandalism, mugging along these lines.

It's always those bitches complicit in their rapes.

 

It wasn't really because they were black, because ...

Well, yeah, but how comparatively how many Euro-Americans killed Afro-Americans for other reasons? You know, like, "How dare you think you can marry a good white woman!" or, "How dare you vote!"

It seems to me that if we apply the mitigators' "logical" construction—such as it dares to pretend—then maybe those black people shouldn't have made themselves targets.

Like 1957: The "Little Rock Nine" would not have needed National Guard protection if they had not made themselves targets.

 

Trying to appear not a threat will only work for a perpetrator who attacks in reaction to feeling threatened or challenged.

If you look at species...I'm thinking wolves, coyotes, cheetahs... that predate animals who can kill them in return...they always go for the weakest in any herd, correct?
We've all probably watched enough nature documentaries that I don't have to go find a source for that.

There's a reason that perps of violent crime are called "predators."

They are, after all going after a prey that is roughly equal in size and strength.
Some human predators use guile. A lot, actually.
The ones who use violence and muscle...are going to pick the target that is least likely to injure them back...just like a wolf would.

To assume other people have the moral sense you do is to project one's own self on them. It is a common fallacy...Er, well, at least I believe it is.

Some people do not empathize with others, and their only concern is to avoid negative consequences to themselves.

You are a wallet, or an orifice, or a punching bag to these people.

Wow...I'm as paranoid as the culture of the Pentagon. And I don't translate well to function either. I believe that shoe fits...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would love to split this off but I dissagre with you about Lasa Apsos, there are times when PB and I get out of the shower and she will growl at US (those she is surposed to be guarding) simply because we smell different, she doesn't like ANYONE and it takes a reasonable amount of time around someone before she stops growling at them. Further more she is as thick as a plank, she was just out of visual sight of the painter I was talking too and so she forgot he was here, when she moved the 1 step forward beeded to see him round the courner she went nuts again, yet when i and my partner were out and the painters here by themselves she was fine with them

 

You would have to show me where does the OP talks about specifics...

But you are right, it was all Poland's fault to be next to Germany, a pretty girl's fault to be pretty and not wash her face with bleach to scare off possible rapers, or the homeowner's fault that he didn't have a panic room with a live-in policeman.

Do you want more examples? We can always blame the victim. You can't give me a definition (after all you are the linguist guy) for victim's responsibility, go ahead and try...

 

WTF it has to do with anything??? :bugeye: