Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[BubbleBurst]

snip

snip

snip snip snip

And we can both agree that those are some fucked up ways of approaching this.

BUT. And, god do I hate that I have to say this, BUT the second one doesn't seem to be advocating for the defense or blaming the girl for being raped.

"Do you think it was fair, what they got?

They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people," Williams said to Rodrick. "She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously, I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

I'll admit that she's dipping into blame territory, though I think it's blaming her for making the decision to drink rather than being raped, and it's not exactly the best way to put it overall, but I think she's just harping on responsibility...which seems to be interpreted as 'rape apology' way, way, way, way, way too often. Her language is ultimately too vague though...and suspect in parts (What's with the virgin thing? What does that matter, Serena? And 'she's lucky'? How is she lucky!?), which can lead to an obvious misunderstanding...and she specifically points out the "slipped her something" thing too, which I'd argue leads back into the overarching "there are a lot of grey areas" conversation.

Then again, maybe I'm just misinterpreting and she's a rape apologist. I dunno.

The other two? Right there with ya. Fuck those guys.

I posted a bit more in-depth in a post above, I just wanted to respond to you specifically.

I think you're right, the second one is the least egregious by far. I don't think she's a rape apologist, I don't think she was intentionally blaming the victim, I'm pretty sure she didn't even realize it. But at its core, victim blaming is about what we decide to talk about. It means, instead of focusing on the men who saw a passed out woman and decided to rape her (and film it), we talk about the victim, and what we think she might have done better, or what she did wrong.

We can all do that if we're not thinking or careful; I've certainly caught myself thinking that way. It's kind of natural to think "well I would never be that stupid" or "God, I will make sure to teach my children not to drink that much, because look what happened to her." That's natural, and it's not necessarily wrong. But if we voice those thoughts in a certain way, it reshapes the story so that it's about the victim rather than the rapist, and that is wrong.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I posted a bit more in-depth in a post above, I just wanted to respond to you specifically.

I think you're right, the second one is the least egregious by far. I don't think she's a rape apologist, I don't think she was intentionally blaming the victim, I'm pretty sure she didn't even realize it. But at its core, victim blaming is about what we decide to talk about. It means, instead of focusing on the men who saw a passed out woman and decided to rape her (and film it), we talk about the victim, and what we think she might have done better, or what she did wrong.

We can all do that if we're not thinking or careful; I've certainly caught myself thinking that way. It's kind of natural to think "well I would never be that stupid" or "God, I will make sure to teach my children not to drink that much, because look what happened to her." That's natural, and it's not necessarily wrong. But if we voice those thoughts in a certain way, it reshapes the story so that it's about the victim rather than the rapist, and that is wrong.

I was under the impression that "victim blaming" referred to, quite literally, blaming the victim of a wrongdoing for said wrongdoing. In fact, it's the very first line over on Wikipedia, "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them."

I'm probably giving people the benefit of the doubt, in a positive way here, but I'd like to think that the reason some people seem to focus on the victim and their choices is because...well, it's an immediate given that the rapist/perpetrator of the wrongdoing is, well, in the wrong.


The line of thought then becomes, "Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-" etc. So, people work from that being the accepted, initial premise and, in doing so, give the appearance of ignoring or attributing an undue amount of blame to the victim which can unintentionally marginalize the perpetrator and their actions in the eyes of a reader/listener.

Perhaps that needs to be addressed, though I've seen qualifying statements to that effect be utterly dismissed in favor of harping on the ensuing line of thought.

 

[Nukekitten]

BUT. And, god do I hate that I have to say this, BUT the second one doesn't seem to be advocating for the defense or blaming the girl for being raped.

[...]

Then again, maybe I'm just misinterpreting and she's a rape apologist. I dunno.

The other two? Right there with ya. Fuck those guys.

The entire section of speech she gave was, if I'm reading it correctly, in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys:

"Do you think it was fair, what they got?

They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people. She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously, I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

How does any of that reflect on the degree of punishment that they should get? Oh wow, she wasn't a virgin. Less punishment! It's alright, they got her totally shitfaced first. Less punishment!

You know? She's talking about what they should get in relation to the vulnerability and perceived 'morality' of their victim. It's dressed up a lot prettier, but she may as well have turned around and said 'Well, that girl might have been a slut, so raping her's not as bad if she was.'

She might say she's not victim blaming, but I don't see any ameliorating factors in what she's talking about unless she is blaming the victim.

 

[BubbleBurst]

snip

I was under the impression that "victim blaming" referred to, quite literally, blaming the victim of a wrongdoing for said wrongdoing. In fact, it's the very first line over on Wikipedia, "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them."

You're right. My point was that "the victim of a crime or any wrongful act [being] held entirely or partially responsible" can be more subtle (and yes, unintentional) than just "The victim was asking to be raped, look at how they were [Dressed, Drinking, Talking, Walking, etc.]." Bringing up what the victim did wrong, or could have done different, also frames the story around them in a negative light.

I'm probably giving people the benefit of the doubt, in a positive way here, but I'd like to think that the reason some people seem to focus on the victim and their choices is because...well, it's an immediate given that the rapist/perpetrator of the wrongdoing is, well, in the wrong.


The line of thought then becomes, "Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-" etc. So, people work from that being the accepted, initial premise and, in doing so, give the appearance of ignoring or attributing an undue amount of blame to the victim which can unintentionally marginalize the perpetrator and their actions in the eyes of a reader/listener.

Perhaps that needs to be addressed, though I've seen qualifying statements to that effect be utterly dismissed in favor of harping on the ensuing line of thought.

You might be right. I'd like to think (I do think) that most reasonable people think that way. That's less a reason to excuse our doing it, however, and more a reason to analyze what we say. Every time the media reports someone talking about what they think a victim did wrong, I think it makes it harder for another victim to come forward, because they don't want to be blamed. This is an issue that's enough in the shadows as it is, in terms of reporting.

I think you're right, though, with most people thinking "'Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-' etc." Like I said before, I've caught myself doing that, and I've seen people I really respect do it. That doesn't make it any better, or mean we shouldn't try to avoid it.

Anyway, I think I've said everything meaningful I can on that topic, and I really do try to not repeat myself.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The entire section of speech she gave was, if I'm reading it correctly, in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys:

"Do you think it was fair, what they got?

They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people. She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously, I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

How does any of that reflect on the degree of punishment that they should get? Oh wow, she wasn't a virgin. Less punishment! It's alright, they got her totally shitfaced first. Less punishment!

You know? She's talking about what they should get in relation to the vulnerability and perceived 'morality' of their victim. It's dressed up a lot prettier, but she may as well have turned around and said 'Well, that girl might have been a slut, so raping her's not as bad if she was.'

She might say she's not victim blaming, but I don't see any ameliorating factors in what she's talking about unless she is blaming the victim.

Ah, ya see? I was coming at it from a different, more general angle, so I was misinterpreting. If anything, this just makes it more blamey and clumsily stated...but I still don't see it as "rape apology" like some of those twitter responses were claiming, nor does she call for less punishment.

I did make a point of addressing the more distasteful portions of her comment (The lucky/virgin bits...zero to do with the case, Serena) and yet I...you know what? Looking at it in that light, I definitely get what you're saying.

Ya know what? I recant. This falls on the "teetering toward victim blaming" end of the scale, without actually falling off into the abyss...but it IS staring into it...and said abyss is staring back.

snip

I was under the impression that "victim blaming" referred to, quite literally, blaming the victim of a wrongdoing for said wrongdoing. In fact, it's the very first line over on Wikipedia, "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them."

You're right. My point was that "the victim of a crime or any wrongful act [being] held entirely or partially responsible" can be more subtle (and yes, unintentional) than just "The victim was asking to be raped, look at how they were [Dressed, Drinking, Talking, Walking, etc.]." Bringing up what the victim did wrong, or could have done different, also frames the story around them in a negative light.

I'm probably giving people the benefit of the doubt, in a positive way here, but I'd like to think that the reason some people seem to focus on the victim and their choices is because...well, it's an immediate given that the rapist/perpetrator of the wrongdoing is, well, in the wrong.


The line of thought then becomes, "Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-" etc. So, people work from that being the accepted, initial premise and, in doing so, give the appearance of ignoring or attributing an undue amount of blame to the victim which can unintentionally marginalize the perpetrator and their actions in the eyes of a reader/listener.

Perhaps that needs to be addressed, though I've seen qualifying statements to that effect be utterly dismissed in favor of harping on the ensuing line of thought.

You might be right. I'd like to think (I do think) that most reasonable people think that way. That's less a reason to excuse our doing it, however, and more a reason to analyze what we say. Every time the media reports someone talking about what they think a victim did wrong, I think it makes it harder for another victim to come forward, because they don't want to be blamed. This is an issue that's enough in the shadows as it is, in terms of reporting.

I think you're right, though, with most people thinking "'Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-' etc." Like I said before, I've caught myself doing that, and I've seen people I really respect do it. That doesn't make it any better, or mean we shouldn't try to avoid it.

Anyway, I think I've said everything meaningful I can on that topic, and I really do try to not repeat myself.

*nod* Gotcha, sir/madam. I can certainly understand "victim blaming" as taking a less direct form, but I'd caution against knee-jerk reactions that slap such a weighty term on events/stances/statements/ideas/etc that may not necessarily be indicative of it occurring.

Making it entirely about the victim or, indeed, blaming them for what happened (if they didn't directly impact what happened, mind...which leads back into my previous personal responsibility not-quite-diatribe) is unacceptable, however, I do not see the harm in digging into what happened in an effort to better understand the circumstances of the case and, hopefully, find something positive that can potentially help someone else in a similar situation.

I fear that attributing all such criticism/investigation to malice or victim blaming and shutting it down entirely would cause more harm than good, since it effectively cuts exploration of certain subjects off at the knees. Perhaps people need to get better, a lot better, at framing these sorts of discussions in such a way as to not cause undue stress for a victim.

And I didn't mean to give the appearance of excusing the thought, I was just trying to figure out a reason for the, seemingly, endemic nature of it when such things come up.

 

[Netrigan]

BUT. And, god do I hate that I have to say this, BUT the second one doesn't seem to be advocating for the defense or blaming the girl for being raped.

[...]

Then again, maybe I'm just misinterpreting and she's a rape apologist. I dunno.

The other two? Right there with ya. Fuck those guys.

The entire section of speech she gave was, if I'm reading it correctly, in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys:

"Do you think it was fair, what they got?

They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people. She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously, I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

How does any of that reflect on the degree of punishment that they should get? Oh wow, she wasn't a virgin. Less punishment! It's alright, they got her totally shitfaced first. Less punishment!

You know? She's talking about what they should get in relation to the vulnerability and perceived 'morality' of their victim. It's dressed up a lot prettier, but she may as well have turned around and said 'Well, that girl might have been a slut, so raping her's not as bad if she was.'

She might say she's not victim blaming, but I don't see any ameliorating factors in what she's talking about unless she is blaming the victim.

Take a good look at your post just now. Notice how you spent far more time speaking about her behavior than the rapists.

This is the fucked up part of it. Whether or mot you intended it, you focused on what she did wrong.

Now if you want to let young women know how to protect themselves, take a step back from individual cases and list ways to make a night out safer... There's plenty of resources which do this without putting the responsibility of not being raped on the woman. They can do everything "right" and still be victimized. A momentary lapse of judgment shouldn't over-shadow the hideous crime comitted against them.

 

[BubbleBurst]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

*nod* Gotcha, sir/madam. I can certainly understand "victim blaming" as taking a less direct form, but I'd caution against knee-jerk reactions that slap such a weighty term on events/stances/statements/ideas/etc that may not necessarily be indicative of it occurring.

Making it entirely about the victim or, indeed, blaming them for what happened (if they didn't directly impact what happened, mind...which leads back into my previous personal responsibility not-quite-diatribe) is unacceptable, however, I do not see the harm in digging into what happened in an effort to better understand the circumstances of the case and, hopefully, find something positive that can potentially help someone else in a similar situation.

I fear that attributing all such criticism/investigation to malice or victim blaming and shutting it down entirely would cause more harm than good, since it effectively cuts exploration of certain subjects off at the knees. Perhaps people need to get better, a lot better, at framing these sorts of discussions in such a way as to not cause undue stress for a victim.

And I didn't mean to give the appearance of excusing the thought, I was just trying to figure out a reason for the, seemingly, endemic nature of it when such things come up.

I've snipped a ton, for brevity's sake.

You're right, knee-jerk reactions are another easy trap to fall into. I imagine one person's idea of what qualifies can differ from another person's, with neither side being objectively wrong. There does need to be reasonable discussion, I agree.

You didn't come away as excusing to me, at all. And I appreciate having a reasoned discussion on this with someone who doesn't entirely agree, it helps me keep myself honest.

I do apologize if I jumped into saying you were victim-blaming, at first. I'm not sure I was wrong... But I may have jumped the gun.

 

[Nukekitten]

Ah, ya see? I was coming at it from a different, more general angle, so I was misinterpreting. If anything, this just makes it more blamey and clumsily stated...but I still don't see it as "rape apology" like some of those twitter responses were claiming, nor does she call for less punishment.

I did make a point of addressing the more distasteful portions of her comment (The lucky/virgin bits...zero to do with the case, Serena) and yet I...you know what? Looking at it in that light, I definitely get what you're saying.

Ya know what? I recant. This falls on the "teetering toward victim blaming" end of the scale, without actually falling off into the abyss...but it IS staring into it...and said abyss is staring back.

Mmm, I agree with you that she's not saying they should get off Scott-free but... yeah. The abyss isn't very pretty.

Take a good look at your post just now. Notice how you spent far more time speaking about her behavior than the rapists.

This is the fucked up part of it. Whether or mot you intended it, you focused on what she did wrong.

Now if you want to let young women know how to protect themselves, take a step back from individual cases and list ways to make a night out safer... There's plenty of resources which do this without putting the responsibility of not being raped on the woman. They can do everything "right" and still be victimized. A momentary lapse of judgment shouldn't over-shadow the hideous crime comitted against them.

I can only assume you missed that a large part of the post was a quote. You're just not making any sense to me otherwise. Where did I talk about her behaviour in a negative sense, or as an ameliorating factor to their crime, (other than in clear sarcasm, marked with exclamation points)?

As for telling young women how to protect ourselves... pretty much everything I could say would just be common sense to another young woman my age. We can all come up with lists, but the information those lists encode doesn't allow us to break the world down into black and white rules, unfortunately. Sure it's not safe to experiment with mind-altering substances when you're not in a safe place... but young girls are gonna if they can't do it at home, and people tend to feel relatively safe when they think they're somewhere they're welcome anyway. Sure it's not safe to go anywhere alone with a person or group of people who you don't trust. But who do you trust and how much is enough?

Here a young girl's trust was terribly, horrifyingly abused. But I'm not sure another list; reminding us that drinking too much makes us vulnerable; - as if we don't live with at least a certain degree of awareness of this stuff all the time - would have done her, or people who end up in similar situations, any good.

 

[R0guy]

The Outreau Trial you linked seems to be a pretty clear case of that, albeit not one that I'm very familiar with. But it has nothing to do with victim blaming, unless I'm missing something. It seems to have been a pretty strong impetus to take a hard look at the conduct of the prosecution in France, and maybe the evidentiary standards used when accepting testimony, particularly as part of a deal. No one ever tried to turn it around, and make it about the children who were abused. ("They were much older than their chronological age." "He was asking for it." "She was dressed provocatively, and why was she visiting someone alone?") Again, it's possible I'm missing something.

That's actually a pretty accurate assessment of it, yeah. My point with that was to present a counter example to those cases you mentioned, one where people didn't have the "guts" (or willing enough to give up on their morals, I guess) to cross-examine the kids properly. The judge in the Outreau case claimed later that he convicted the adults knowing the case was a hack job without saying anything, because he was afraid of getting fired, threatened or attacked by people riled up by media outlets and political parties.

My basic point: Victim blaming is everywhere if you're aware of it, it's not always mean-spirited or intentional, I honestly think ost people don't mean to do it or even realize they're doing it. It just means talking about what we think the victim did wrong, or could have done better, rather than talking about what the rapist (who, again, is a rapist) did wrong.

Ah ok, I only disagreed with you because I thought victim blaming was, by definition, an intentional act. I now stand corrected.

 

[Netrigan]

Ah, ya see? I was coming at it from a different, more general angle, so I was misinterpreting. If anything, this just makes it more blamey and clumsily stated...but I still don't see it as "rape apology" like some of those twitter responses were claiming, nor does she call for less punishment.

I did make a point of addressing the more distasteful portions of her comment (The lucky/virgin bits...zero to do with the case, Serena) and yet I...you know what? Looking at it in that light, I definitely get what you're saying.

Ya know what? I recant. This falls on the "teetering toward victim blaming" end of the scale, without actually falling off into the abyss...but it IS staring into it...and said abyss is staring back.

Mmm, I agree with you that she's not saying they should get off Scott-free but... yeah. The abyss isn't very pretty.

Take a good look at your post just now. Notice how you spent far more time speaking about her behavior than the rapists.

This is the fucked up part of it. Whether or mot you intended it, you focused on what she did wrong.

Now if you want to let young women know how to protect themselves, take a step back from individual cases and list ways to make a night out safer... There's plenty of resources which do this without putting the responsibility of not being raped on the woman. They can do everything "right" and still be victimized. A momentary lapse of judgment shouldn't over-shadow the hideous crime comitted against them.

I can only assume you missed that a large part of the post was a quote. You're just not making any sense to me otherwise. Where did I talk about her behaviour in a negative sense, or as an ameliorating factor to their crime, (other than in clear sarcasm, marked with exclamation points)?

As for telling young women how to protect ourselves... pretty much everything I could say would just be common sense to another young woman my age. We can all come up with lists, but the information those lists encode doesn't allow us to break the world down into black and white rules, unfortunately. Sure it's not safe to experiment with mind-altering substances when you're not in a safe place... but young girls are gonna if they can't do it at home, and people tend to feel relatively safe when they think they're somewhere they're welcome anyway. Sure it's not safe to go anywhere alone with a person or group of people who you don't trust. But who do you trust and how much is enough?

Here a young girl's trust was terribly, horrifyingly abused. But I'm not sure another list; reminding us that drinking too much makes us vulnerable; - as if we don't live with at least a certain degree of awareness of this stuff all the time - would have done her, or people who end up in similar situations, any good.

Virtually your entire post was about the victim. Not just the quoted bits. Granted we're in the middle of an on-going conversation, but it's amazingly easy for the conversation to drift over to what the victim didn't do right.

Let's use a drunk driving analogy.

Now, I expect everyone knows about Defensive Driving and how you can prevent quite a number of accidents by paying attention and giving people room to make mistakes.

Okay, so let's assume we decide that teaching people not to drink and drive just isn't getting the job done, so we start focusing most of our attention on getting people to drive defensively. And you're struck by a drunk driver and permanently injured. And let's say it's a slow news day and the press picks up on the story and instead of hammering home what an asshole the drunk driver was (who for the sake of this argument was 100% at fault), they start going on about all the ways you could have prevented that accident.

Let's say you were going slightly over the speed limit, but someone proves that had you been going at the speed limit, you could have avoided the accident. Maybe you were distracted by the radio and didn't see the drunk dart into your lane, so they obsess over your playing with the radio knobs at that moment. Maybe you didn't notice him driving erratically, and you really should have been on the look-out for that kind of thing. And, oh my god, you weren't wearing your seatbelt... my god, you were just asking to be maimed or killed. There are literally hundreds of things you could have done to prevent this accident and drivers should learn to drive defensively.

How fucking pissed off would you be? You did nothing to cause the accident. Your slight speeding and minor distraction didn't cause an accident. The other guy was drunk. He came speeding into your lane against all traffic laws and horribly injured you... but everyone is criticizing you for getting hurt.

Under-age drinking isn't a smart choice, but it's a common one. And like many things, drinking is one of those things you learn how to do responsibly after quite a few irresponsible moments. It's easy to drink far too much when you're starting out. And if reasoning with kids worked... well, seriously, we're talking about making teenagers see common sense. People might delude themselves into thinking they had common sense when they were younger, but just about everyone has quite a few stories of really, really stupid things they did when they were younger and didn't realize how stupid they were being.

There's a time and a place to discuss the matter and that time & place isn't when talking about a girl being raped. That's when we should be focusing on the much more serious lapse of judgment, the one that carries a felony charge.

 

[Nukekitten]

Virtually your entire post was about the victim. Not just the quoted bits. Granted we're in the middle of an on-going conversation, but it's amazingly easy for the conversation to drift over to what the victim didn't do right.

Let's use a drunk driving analogy.

[...]

There's a time and a place to discuss the matter and that time & place isn't when talking about a girl being raped. That's when we should be focusing on the much more serious lapse of judgment, the one that carries a felony charge.

I just don't know what you're talking about. It's not that I disagree with you, it's just like you didn't even read my post or something.

Here's the post without any quotations in it:

The entire section of speech she gave was, if I'm reading it correctly, in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys:

[quote-removed]

How does any of that reflect on the degree of punishment that they should get? Oh wow, she wasn't a virgin. Less punishment! It's alright, they got her totally shitfaced first. Less punishment!

You know? She's talking about what they should get in relation to the vulnerability and perceived 'morality' of their victim. It's dressed up a lot prettier, but she may as well have turned around and said 'Well, that girl might have been a slut, so raping her's not as bad if she was.'

She might say she's not victim blaming, but I don't see any ameliorating factors in what she's talking about unless she is blaming the victim.

1st paragraph I say that the woman's response was in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys.

2nd paragraph I question what relevance the victim's behaviour had to the character of that of the boys.

3rd paragraph I give some examples of how her behaviour doesn't relate to the character of that of the boys.

4th paragraph I say that what she said doesn't make a lot of sense without assuming that she thought that it did.

-----------

Okay, so that write-up's difficult to do because it was such a simple and short post that simplifying it further almost necessarily removes information. But still, like... what are you going on about? I mean even if you think you're right in this regard, surely the fact that I was responding to LostGryphon, who didn't think that she was victim-blaming, and LG then updated their belief in the direction that she was should give you some pause here.

I don't know - does anyone else here get it? I'm just utterly confused at this point.

 

[Netrigan]

Virtually your entire post was about the victim. Not just the quoted bits. Granted we're in the middle of an on-going conversation, but it's amazingly easy for the conversation to drift over to what the victim didn't do right.

Let's use a drunk driving analogy.

[...]

There's a time and a place to discuss the matter and that time & place isn't when talking about a girl being raped. That's when we should be focusing on the much more serious lapse of judgment, the one that carries a felony charge.

I just don't know what you're talking about. It's not that I disagree with you, it's just like you didn't even read my post or something.

Here's the post without any quotations in it:

The entire section of speech she gave was, if I'm reading it correctly, in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys:

[quote-removed]

How does any of that reflect on the degree of punishment that they should get? Oh wow, she wasn't a virgin. Less punishment! It's alright, they got her totally shitfaced first. Less punishment!

You know? She's talking about what they should get in relation to the vulnerability and perceived 'morality' of their victim. It's dressed up a lot prettier, but she may as well have turned around and said 'Well, that girl might have been a slut, so raping her's not as bad if she was.'

She might say she's not victim blaming, but I don't see any ameliorating factors in what she's talking about unless she is blaming the victim.

1st paragraph I say that the woman's response was in relation to the degree of punishment visited on the boys.

2nd paragraph I question what relevance the victim's behaviour had to the character of that of the boys.

3rd paragraph I give some examples of how her behaviour doesn't relate to the character of that of the boys.

4th paragraph I say that what she said doesn't make a lot of sense without assuming that she thought that it did.

-----------

Okay, so that write-up's difficult to do because it was such a simple and short post that simplifying it further almost necessarily removes information. But still, like... what are you going on about? I mean even if you think you're right in this regard, surely the fact that I was responding to LostGryphon, who didn't think that she was victim-blaming, and LG then updated their belief in the direction that she was should give you some pause here.

I don't know - does anyone else here get it? I'm just utterly confused at this point.

Okay, so I was missing you quoting in there. I was taking you as saying many of those things. So strike the bits which don't apply, but I stand by the rest of my points and just assume I was talking to the room.

The point being that too many of us are talking about her lapses of judgment as if it's the deciding factor. Like if they slipped her something, then that makes her less responsible.... when, NO, she wasn't responsible at all for her rape.

Her decisions may have been a factor in why she was chosen to be victimized, and (when not discussing a particular rape) we can talk about how to protect yourself... and let's be clear, this is constantly being done in a non-judgmental way.

It's simply impossible to discuss the matter in a non-insulting manner when talking about an individual case. We've got people upset that they weren't specifically excluded from comments about rapists and they weren't even victimized by someone. If someone who is just posting on a message board is that touchy about thinking someone might have called them a possible rapist, then just imagine how pissed off someone who has had their entire life turned upside down feels when all of their actions are called into question while the victimizers are barely discussed... or, in some cases, excused.

 

[Varis]

Rape is always wrong, no matter the cause or the way it is inflicted. Everyone has a sense of their private areas. And no one goes running around naked for instance, unless they -decide- to. Thus, no one is shoving their dicks in others before going through a thought process, which involves a part where they think about it's appropriateness. Sex is a beautiful thing, but it's supposed to be a thing that goes by the consent of the two people involved. If the other is unavailable to involve oneself, by word or by action, it's not okay.

And CAPTCHA: "take it all", you got the worst timing ever.

 

[spartan231490]

I never had to be formally taught about consent, it was common knowledge, and in my health class we talked about consent and rape, though it wasn't a topic of the class, it just came up during conversations.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm probably giving people the benefit of the doubt, in a positive way here, but I'd like to think that the reason some people seem to focus on the victim and their choices is because...well, it's an immediate given that the rapist/perpetrator of the wrongdoing is, well, in the wrong.

Well, Steubenville comes immediately to mind as a counter example.

Also, Polanski.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I've snipped a ton, for brevity's sake.

You're right, knee-jerk reactions are another easy trap to fall into. I imagine one person's idea of what qualifies can differ from another person's, with neither side being objectively wrong. There does need to be reasonable discussion, I agree.

You didn't come away as excusing to me, at all. And I appreciate having a reasoned discussion on this with someone who doesn't entirely agree, it helps me keep myself honest.

Glad to have had the discussion. I really do appreciate the reasoned tone of it as well.

In fact, I-

I do apologize if I jumped into saying you were victim-blaming, at first. I'm not sure I was wrong... But I may have jumped the gun.

...

...

I kid. Still appreciate the back and forth.

I'm probably giving people the benefit of the doubt, in a positive way here, but I'd like to think that the reason some people seem to focus on the victim and their choices is because...well, it's an immediate given that the rapist/perpetrator of the wrongdoing is, well, in the wrong.

Well, Steubenville comes immediately to mind as a counter example.

Also, Polanski.

I'd like you to note the "some people" portion of my paragraph.

With that in mind, "some people" are just assholes, but I'm firmly on the "most people are inherently good" side of things.

Call me a raging cynic.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd like you to note the "some people" portion of my paragraph.

Ah, yeah, seem to have somehow missed that, ooops.

With that in mind, "some people" are just assholes, but I'm firmly on the "most people are inherently good" side of things.

What does "inherently good" mean, though? Can't you be "inherently good", but still act like an asshole, because you don't know any better?

If everyone knows to blame the victim, it's not a matter of right and wrong, the victim just is the one to be blamed.

Various cultures throughout history have had varying degrees of what we'd now call good or bad, but they are all made up of the same species as us.

 

[BubbleBurst]

I'd like you to note the "some people" portion of my paragraph.

With that in mind, "some people" are just assholes, but I'm firmly on the "most people are inherently good" side of things.

Call me a raging cynic.

You're a raging cynic.

*Clears throat*

 

[Tsun Tzu]

With that in mind, "some people" are just assholes, but I'm firmly on the "most people are inherently good" side of things.

What does "inherently good" mean, though? Can't you be "inherently good", but still act like an asshole, because you don't know any better?

If everyone knows to blame the victim, it's not a matter of right and wrong, the victim just is the one to be blamed.

Various cultures throughout history have had varying degrees of what we'd now call good or bad, but they are all made up of the same species as us.

Well, I was trying to separate "good" from "assholes" with the word "just" to indicate that said people were "only" assholes and not "good," but it was, admittedly, a throwaway statement calling the "some people" in the Steuben case "assholes."

I view "inherently good" as not intentionally acting in a malicious manner. People can certainly be misguided, or unintentionally do or say things that could be negative, but the lion's share would correct themselves if shown the 'error of their ways.' The example I gave was sort of all about that idea.

The line of thought then becomes, "Oh, that rapist is a fucking monster and deserves what's coming to them...anyway, why was the victim drinking so much, that seems irresponsible, I would never-" etc. So, people work from that being the accepted, initial premise and, in doing so, give the appearance of ignoring or attributing an undue amount of blame to the victim which can unintentionally marginalize the perpetrator and their actions in the eyes of a reader/listener.

Said idea being that they'd be doing it without realizing while jumping off from what is essentially a positive starting point. As I said to Mr./Mrs. Bubble -

...I didn't mean to give the appearance of excusing the thought, I was just trying to figure out a reason for the, seemingly, endemic nature of it when such things come up.

I...I don't really want to get into a philosophical discussion about what constitutes base goodness in man though, if that's all right?

I'd like you to note the "some people" portion of my paragraph.

With that in mind, "some people" are just assholes, but I'm firmly on the "most people are inherently good" side of things.

Call me a raging cynic.

You're a raging cynic.

*Clears throat*

*Fry GIF Intensifies*

 

[Karadalis]

I'm a little annoyed that BuzzFeed article/thing uses the same tweet for point two and point eight. Does that make it only 16 reminders that sex education is important? I think you're overreacting a bit chiggerwood because BuzzFeed is for stupid people. They're the audience they have, this is the message they need to hear.

I'd disagree. A quick trip to places such as /r/TheRedPill (and /r/RedPillWomen) clearly shows that there are people who believe that they are entitled to sex. Along with beliefs in statements such as 'If they dont want to have sex, they are cheating.' with people on both subreddits admitting to spousal rape which is, to my knowledge, one of the most common forms of rape if not the most common.

And you believe that "educating" these people would have changed anything about their warped mindset?

Thats very optimistic to say the least.

Even if you really want to believe in the current rusting educational system where money basically means higher education, im pretty damn sure that even those crazies should understand what rape is and what consent is simply by the fact that rape is illegal. I mean if they know what rape is they should know what consent is.

This doesnt even necesarly have to be about rape per say anyways... it could be stealing as well. After all what is stealing then taking someone elses property without his or her consent?

Consent is a principle thats not only used when it comes to sexual relationships. So theres no excuse for anyone not to know "what it is" by claiming "they werent thought about it in school"

I wasnt tought in school that im not suposed to kill people with guns... but im pretty sure if i went on a killing spree the defence "well they didnt tought me" wouldnt quite hold up in court now would it?