Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think it's even this. It's driving along on a car. A safe car, according to the reviews. You are wearing your seatbelt, the car has airbags. You are following the rules of the road.

You get into an accident anyway. You were not at fault. They hit you.  

The whole "risky behavior" red-herring line of discussion is not an issue here — you were not speeding, you were not driving impaired, etc. Somebody rammed into you anyway. (of course, to be a truer analogy it would be deliberate rather than an accident)

There's the analogy I was looking for! Imagine that a car deliberately ran into you, after you had signalled your intent quite clearly. You know it was deliberate because you could see the driver's face, maybe even heard him say through the open window, "Oh, no you don't!" just before turning the wheel and ramming you.

Now imagine the police started out asking what you did to make the other driver so mad. The more you insist you were doing nothing wrong, the more you're sure they  don't believe you, that they think you flipped him off, or flashed your bright lights, or cut him off, or did something to elicit this totally irrational response. It doesn't seem to matter to the cops that none of those things are an excuse or even a decent reason for what was done to you. 

Further imagine that we start hearing about more and more stories like this, where innocent drivers are being rammed deliberately for no reason. #MyCarToo posts start flooding the web. Would we focus more on warning the innocent drivers, or would we focus more on punishing the assaulters? Or would we allow this assaulter personality type into leadership positions, so they could slowly build up support for the idea that aggressive drivers happen, and we should just watch out for them because we'll never be rid of them completely?

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

"Many people, young ones in particular, and not educated on how to deal with these complex situations that lead to assault. Look at the the US women's gymnastics team for example. A doctor molested dozens of young women, who by their own admission did not understand or know how to respond to the situation. Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact.

Instances like these are really shocking, mostly because in hindsight it's hard to imagine there weren't adequate protocols already in place. I don't have a high opinion of "sports parents" in general, from experience with little league types who focus on winning above all else, including their child's happiness. Take that to the olympic level, and I shudder to think what is allowed in the quest for the gold.

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

A more complex situation is the mixed signals sent out by some celebrities. Telling women to not allow themselves to be treated like sex objects, might be followed the next day by going out in public without underwear and flashing your hoohah. How do men react to that? How do young women react to that? Is that unknowingly putting young ladies at risk who might be tempted to do the same?"

I'm fairly certain that much of the current movement is trying to send the message that seeing someone's hoohah isn't an invitation, nor should it automatically make them a sex object. It shouldn't be so difficult for intelligent human males to resist the jump-and-hump reaction to a naked body. We can look at other things that make us THINK about sex without calling them sex objects. I think insisting that naked parts make you a sex object is one more thing that perpetuates the inequality. 

I think men in general want women to desire sex when the man exposes himself. I think people in general want to be attractive. I think women in general want people to look at them positively without it being an invitation to sex.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The problem with your argument is that , sure the victims may blame themselves  + say " I shouldn't have been there" (That's human nature as already pointed out).
 But there's always "something I could have done to prevent it" so there will always be the regret that "I didn't do that last thing"
That's going to always be the case for all attacks.

If she took a different route home and avoided the alley, it just means the attacker would have had to wait a bit longer in the alley until someone else turned up to be his victim.
From my perspective, that's not an improvement.

That's a fine bit of "mansplaining".

The victims I'm referring to blame their own actions, not unhappy chance. The most recent I'm referring to (a couple of days ago on tv) said that she was ashamed and embarrassed that she got into the car of a total stranger, when she of all people had always warned others never to take those kinds of chances. The cop tried telling her that it wasn't her fault, but it didn't cut much ice. And in no way was she excusing the rapist.

A lot of women don't even report the attack, because they feel ashamed that they behaved so stupidly. It's really paternalistic to say, "no, you shouldn't feel that way" .  These are not idiots, who need to be told what to feel.

The one on the tv a couple of days ago knew exactly what she meant, and so do many other victims, who bitterly regret what they now view as something stupid that made them particularly vulnerable. They make their feelings perfectly clear, and don't need someone to come along afterwards, and explain what they really mean. 

One thing you don't hear very often from victims is a call for changed attitudes of society. They usually want better advice given to girls on staying safe, and longer sentences for the thugs. Maybe when you've been face to face with one of these animals, you get to realise the futility of trying to reason with them.

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's a fine bit of "mansplaining".

The victims I'm referring to blame their own actions, not unhappy chance. The most recent I'm referring to (a couple of days ago on tv) said that she was ashamed and embarrassed that she got into the car of a total stranger, when she of all people had always warned others never to take those kinds of chances. The cop tried telling her that it wasn't her fault, but it didn't cut much ice. And in no way was she excusing the rapist.

A lot of women don't even report the attack, because they feel ashamed that they behaved so stupidly. It's really paternalistic to say, "no, you shouldn't feel that way" .  These are not idiots, who need to be told what to feel.

The one on the tv a couple of days ago knew exactly what she meant, and so do many other victims, who bitterly regret what they now view as something stupid that made them particularly vulnerable. They make their feelings perfectly clear, and don't need someone to come along afterwards, and explain what they really mean. 

One thing you don't hear very often from victims is a call for changed attitudes of society. They usually want better advice given to girls on staying safe, and longer sentences for the thugs. Maybe when you've been face to face with one of these animals, you get to realise the futility of trying to reason with them.

I'm not buying this at all, not even a little. We all do that, blame ourselves, wish we could take back the last ten seconds, second-guess our judgement with the benefit of hindsight. There will always be something different you could have done, but this argument requires the victim to be essentially prescient. Are you asking women to be mind readers now?

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps someone can tell me why my specific suggestions (five post back) are not the types of suggestions we should be focusing

Well, one problem is that most victims are not gymnasts, nor anyone in such a situation.

Another is that the mechanism you called for is already in place- they are called chaperones.

A third issue is that most pop stars  etc flashing their bits are male; but most of the victims of sexual assault are female.

49 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's a fine bit of "mansplaining".

""to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"."

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining

Now my manner may well be patronising, but, since it's the manner I use pretty much all the time, regardless of whether or not the person I'm addressing is male or female (And, remember, most of the time, on line, here's no way I can tell) it can't be mansplaining.

 

OK,  that's that bit of nonsense out of the way (feel free to start another thread about if if you want).

You are missing the point that it's a human trait to regret things that are perceived as the cause of something bad. Normally that's a good thing- it stops you doing that thing again.

But in some cases it's a bad thing because it makes you think something was your fault when it wasn't. It even makes you think that when it's totally ****ing obvious to all and sundry- even passing police officers- that it's not your fault, but the fault of the attacker.

If the victim thinks it is their fault because they took the short cut through the dark alley- or whatever then the victim is factually incorrect.

It's the perpetrator's fault.Do you realise that?

If it is the perpetrator's fault that they attacked someone (and I think we agree that it is) then it's not the victim''s fault.

If it's not the victim's fault, yet they blame themselves, it's a mistake on their part to do so.

And that leads you to wonder why they think it's their fault.

Well, just maybe it's because people have been telling them that "women who get into the car of a stranger are acting stupidly and  deserve what they get" or "it's their fault for taking the risk".

 

 

[mistermack]

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

in some cases it's a bad thing because it makes you think something was your fault when it wasn't. It even makes you think that when it's totally ****ing obvious to all and sundry- even passing police officers- that it's not your fault, but the fault of the attacker.

If the victim thinks it is their fault because they took the short cut through the dark alley- or whatever then the victim is factually incorrect.

That really is paternalistic mansplaining. A victim gets their own attack wrong, and need you to clarify it for them. It's in the nature of this kind of thing that people who haven't experienced it, are the ones who get it wrong, not the victims. 

Jump off a bus while it's moving nineteen times, and it might not appear stupid. Do it again, and break your hip and nearly die, and you will then realise just how stupid you had been. This is how victims often feel. That's why so many are loathe to report the crime. And that applies to men who were mugged, as well as women who were sexually assaulted. A big proportion don't report it out of shame and embarrassment. 

Just because you do something stupid, it doesn't mean you ARE stupid. Otherwise, we would all be classed as stupid. Intelligent people can do the most stupid things.

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Jump off a bus while it's moving nineteen times, and it might not appear stupid. Do it again, and break your hip and nearly die, and you will then realise just how stupid you had been.

Are you somehow unable to distinguish between a bus which does not have intent, (and can not be responsible for an incident) and a rapist who does have intent and is therefore to blame for the incident?

Since the fault lies with the attacker, it does not, in fact, lie with the victim.

 

Are you trying to let rapists off the hook?

 

[mistermack]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Are you somehow unable to distinguish between a bus which does not have intent, (and can not be responsible for an incident) and a rapist who does have intent and is therefore to blame for the incident?

Since the fault lies with the attacker, it does not, in fact, lie with the victim.

 

Are you trying to let rapists off the hook?

 

You don't seem able to comprehend that people can regret their own actions, without "letting their rapist off the hook". Is that really so hard to get, that victims can blame themselves, without in any way excusing the rapist? And very often do exactly that? 

You seem to be in some sort of denial of the real world here.

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You don't seem able to comprehend that people can regret their own actions, without "letting their rapist off the hook".

I don't think that ("letting them off the hook") is the point at all. The point I (and, I think, others) was making is that the fact that people blame themselves doesn't mean they have any blame. They may feel they could or should have done something different, but probably they couldn't (I wish I hadn't left the car unlocked - but I had no way of knowing it wasn't locked so its a pointless wish). All the things we wish we had done differently are with the benefit of hindsight.

How often have you heard people say, after the event, "Oh I thought he looked suspicious". Really? Or are they just projecting their knowledge back and altering their perceptions at the time.

To put it another way, I don't think the subjective feeling of guilt or regret has any relevance to the facts of the case. If I had known the car was unlocked and left it anyway, then I would have a reason for feeling guilty and stupid. And then we could argue about whether or not I should share some blame/responsibility for the theft. But I didn't and couldn't, and therefore I cannot be ascribed any blame or responsibility, no matter how much I might regret my actions and blame myself.

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Strange

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be in some sort of denial of the real world here.

 

In the real world, very few rape cases go to court and when they do the victims are subject to inappropriate questioning (borderline abuse) as in Phi's car analogy.

That will only change if we all stop trying to find excuses or reasons that excuse the perpetrator. "Boys will be boys" or "risk mitigation" or "provocation" won't cut it in any other crime and will only be brought up in a court of law as mitigation of the sentence, never the crime.

Edited January 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You don't seem able to comprehend that people can regret their own actions, without "letting their rapist off the hook". Is that really so hard to get, that victims can blame themselves, without in any way excusing the rapist? And very often do exactly that? 

You seem to be in some sort of denial of the real world here.

People can regret their actions even when they didn't do anything wrong, or when their action (or inaction) would have had no effect on the outcome.

[mistermack]

So in a case where a woman goes back to the same psychotic boyfriend, who has put her in hospital five times already, she's wrong to blame herself, when she ends up battered and broken for the sixth time? 

And if she does blame herself, does that mean that she's automatically excusing the psycho that put her there? Can someone actually explain how blaming yourself actually excuses someone else? Is that the nature of blame, that only one person can hold it, at any one time? It's a really simplistic view of the world that bears no relation to reality.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So in a case where a woman goes back to the same psychotic boyfriend, who has put her in hospital five times already, she's wrong to blame herself, when she ends up battered and broken for the sixth time? 

That is a very different subject, and one that might deserve its own thread. This thread was about the inappropriate use of power. (But, no, I am not convinced that the woman in a case like that should blame herself or be blamed by others.)

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And if she does blame herself, does that mean that she's automatically excusing the psycho that put her there? Can someone actually explain how blaming yourself actually excuses someone else? Is that the nature of blame, that only one person can hold it, at any one time? It's a really simplistic view of the world that bears no relation to reality.

I think this is a straw man. Is anyone saying that blaming oneself excuses the perpetrator?

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think this is a straw man. Is anyone saying that blaming oneself excuses the perpetrator?

Yes. Over and over again on this thread. But of course, in the form of "are you making excuses for rapists?" 

That seems to be the silly point we've reached. When a victim blames herself, she's misguided. When someone else says exactly the same thing, they are excusing the rapist. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by mistermack

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Yes. Over and over again on this thread. But of course, in the form of "are you making excuses for rapists?" 

I haven't read every post in this thread. I just skimmed back a few pages and couldn't see anything like this. Could you link to an example or two?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Since the fault lies with the attacker, it does not, in fact, lie with the victim.

 

Are you trying to let rapists off the hook?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

This is not rocket science.
It is the fault of person A then it is not the fault of person B.

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I haven't read every post in this thread. I just skimmed back a few pages and couldn't see anything like this. Could you link to an example or two?

From someone who HAS read every page, it was occurring quite a bit.

However, in this instance you haven't brought it up, so MisterMack should probably drop that point.

Now if he was arguing with one of the others, then it'd make sense. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Yes. Over and over again on this thread. But of course, in the form of "are you making excuses for rapists?" 

No. Not once in this thread, before this tangent into battered women. "are you making excuses for rapists?" is not blaming one's self. None of these scenarios has a member of this thread as the target of sexual assault.

That the victim might blame herself is a psychological phenomenon. Battered women syndrome. But we've been talking about the outside parties, not participants.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That seems to be the silly point we've reached. When a victim blames herself, she's misguided. When someone else says exactly the same thing, they are excusing the rapist. 

Yes, that is indeed the case. You make think it's silly, but the phenomena are real. (see also Stockholm syndrome for hostages)

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

 

A lot of people were saying stuff like that, however, Strange hasn't.

And for the same reason, it's not fair to loop you in as a misogynist simply because of the position you take, it's not fair to loop strange in with them simply because of the position he took.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

From someone who HAS read every page, it was occurring quite a bit.

No, it wasn't. See my previous post, above. 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it wasn't. See my previous post, above. 

 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Since the fault lies with the attacker, it does not, in fact, lie with the victim.

Are you trying to let rapists off the hook?

 

 

Actually, this line that I've underlined is proof that it DID in fact happen.

Simply because MisterMack is arguing a different position does not indicate that he's trying to let rapists off the hook.

Yet, here it is, clearly implied that he is, by John Cuthber.

Again, MisterMack has also repeatedly said the fault does not lie with the victim.

Yet, it's also clearly implied here that MisterMack is somehow blaming the victim.

 

You just said: 

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. Not once in this thread

 

Yet, it's literally right there.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Actually, this line that I've underlined is proof that it DID in fact happen.

Simply because MisterMack is arguing a different position does not indicate that he's trying to let rapists off the hook.

Yet, here it is, clearly implied that he is, by John Cuthber.

Again, MisterMack has also repeatedly said the fault does not lie with the victim.

Yet, it's also clearly implied here that MisterMack is somehow blaming the victim.

 

You just said: 

Yet, it's literally right there.

The confusion your suffering is due to a cultural imperative which MisterMack is unwittingly perpetuating. 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

The confusion your suffering is due to a cultural imperative which MisterMack is unwittingly perpetuating. 

I said nothing about the cultural imperative nor what MisterMack is perpetuating.

I proved that John Cuthber clearly said it. 

That's all there is to it, I'm not debating the ethics of it.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

I said nothing about the cultural imperative nor what MisterMack is perpetuating.

I proved that John Cuthber clearly said it. 

That's all there is to it, I'm not debating the ethics of it.

Look at the context.

[John Cuthber]

OK, since I'm the one who said it, perhaps I should explain what it means.

In an attack there is clearly wrong done to someone.

It's the attacker's fault.

If you say "but the victim shouldn't have been there/ worn that/ done that" then you are seeking to transfer at least some of the blame to the victim.

That's the wrong thing to do because it is never the victim's fault; not even a little bit. The blame lies with the criminal.

It's also wrong because, when you transfer blame to the victim you transfer it away from where it properly lies- with the perpetrator.

And in doing that you reduce the blame  attributed to the attacker.

 

If you are  successful enough in that endeavour, you let the rapist off the hook.

 

If that's not what you are trying to do, then don't try to say it was, in any way, down to the victim.

If, on the other hand you say that it was, for example, "poor risk management by the victim" then you are transferring the blame to them.
That's the point at which I ask if you are seeking to transfer the responsibility for the attacker's actions away from the attacker.

In particular I ask if you are seeking to let them off the hook. OK I should have said "let them off the hook, at least in some degree".

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by John Cuthber