You are here

too mean to do to an ex?

the site was a set of pictures of someones ex.
Is that too mean? too horrible, to put up?

for the sake of a reader I've summarised my current line of thinking here:

http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=30890.msg366062#msg366062

how does one put themselves in a position that makes it okay for them to be raped?

I might have missed a post but where does it say on this thread that it's okay for anyone to be raped?

Implying that someone puts themselves at risk is pretty close to diminishing rape as a crime and exonerating the rapist. You'll see this way of thinking a lot in court cases and it's a very, very fine line. It taps into the mentality that men can't help themselves and therefore women should modify their behaviour.

"Of course, he did a terrible thing but if she'd been more responsible/less drunk/wearing more clothes..."

Additionally, you will find through a little research that the majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim already knows, often in their own homes or another familiar place. The stereotype of the bad man waiting in the alley is a minority situation, and the consequence of the rapist's intent, not the victim's actions.

I appreciate that you're probably not intending to outright blame victims, but your attitude is certainly toeing that line and I would suggest that you do some research before you attempt to pass judgement.

In no way am I saying that rape is the fault of the women though. Unless she is the rapist (it's rare but it can happen).
What I'm saying is that if she puts herself in danger, it's her fault that she's in a compromised position.
Because clearly some fault of judgement must have happened.

If you marry someone who rapes you, you've mis-judged who they are, you've had a fault in your judgement.

That in no way excuses the person who tries to rape you.
I can't think of any excuse for rape off the top of my head, apart from perhaps (and I'm not sure I would say it is an excuse) it in some way being the only way to stop a million babies being X'd or Y'd. But I can't think how there would be a direct relationship between the two in the first place, and if I went into something like that it'd be as petty as the whole "you've vegan? so if you were on a desert island" (at which point I generally start aiming my imaginary shotgun at them).

Anyway, back on topic.
You marry X.
X tries to rape you.

You have had an error in judgement about who they are/will be.
This has no baring on them trying to take advantage of your error in judgement.
They have tried to do something which violates your rights, you may have put yourself in the situation, and it's partially (perhaps fully) your fault your in that situation.
But it's not your fault that the situation is how it is with X trying to rape you.

Like I said before, I can't ever imagine rape being excusable

Edit:
I looked very briefly into the whole rape scene (in a law, court case context, not in the context of talking to rapists/victims) and found that a stupidly small % of rapes were reported to the police and the reason was a stupidly small % were convicted for the rape.

Personally I disagree with the way the law functions in most ways, and think rehabilitation is better than punishment or retribution. I'm against the prison system as it stands. But find it hypocritical of the law to not convict/punish them by it's own standards.

To say on the basis of what I've said that someone shouldn't be convicted, is moronic at best.
I know that's not what you're saying, but I'm trying to make clear that anyone who does say that (and you've said many courts do, which I've heard about as well) is something I very strongly disagree with.

0 likes

sunbeam, the fault in your reasoning is that you seem to feel there are certain things that a woman should look for making her judgment about a future partner.  Clues that would tell her that he is a rapist.  There aren't.  There is no such thing as a fault in judgment about whether someone will rape you, because there are no defining characteristics of a rapist.  Like catski said, rapists are usually familiar people.  There is not much a woman can do to prevent someone close to her--someone whom she perhaps lives with, sleeps with, trusts, etc--from raping her.

Furthermore, regardless of any perceived error in judgment on the woman's part, the error in judgment on the man's part is obscenely higher.  The decision to rape someone is one of the hugest errors in judgment that can be committed, and it far out-shadows the "you should have known this was coming" aspect that you are so keen on.

I find your attitude atrocious, and it pretty much epitomizes the attitudes that lead to and justify rape in the first place. 

0 likes

sunbeam, the fault in your reasoning is that you seem to feel there are certain things that a woman should look for making her judgment about a future partner.  Clues that would tell her that he is a rapist.  There aren't.  There is no such thing as a fault in judgment about whether someone will rape you, because there are no defining characteristics of a rapist.  Like catski said, rapists are usually familiar people.  There is not much a woman can do to prevent someone close to her--someone whom she perhaps lives with, sleeps with, trusts, etc--from raping her.

Furthermore, regardless of any perceived error in judgment on the woman's part, the error in judgment on the man's part is obscenely higher.  The decision to rape someone is one of the hugest errors in judgment that can be committed, and it far out-shadows the "you should have known this was coming" aspect that you are so keen on.

I find your attitude atrocious, and it pretty much epitomizes the attitudes that lead to and justify rape in the first place. 

Ditto.

0 likes

sunbeam, the fault in your reasoning is that you seem to feel there are certain things that a woman should look for making her judgment about a future partner.  Clues that would tell her that he is a rapist.  There aren't.  There is no such thing as a fault in judgment about whether someone will rape you, because there are no defining characteristics of a rapist.  Like catski said, rapists are usually familiar people.  There is not much a woman can do to prevent someone close to her--someone whom she perhaps lives with, sleeps with, trusts, etc--from raping her.

Furthermore, regardless of any perceived error in judgment on the woman's part, the error in judgment on the man's part is obscenely higher.  The decision to rape someone is one of the hugest errors in judgment that can be committed, and it far out-shadows the "you should have known this was coming" aspect that you are so keen on.

I find your attitude atrocious, and it pretty much epitomizes the attitudes that lead to and justify rape in the first place.  

You find my attitude that I strongly disagree with all arguments I've so far seen that attempt to justify rape?
If someone chooses to interpreted what I've said as a way to justify rape, as I said, I find them to be moronic. Nothing I've said reduces rape as something to be accepted in any context that I can see. If you can see one then please by all means post it.

I didn't actually put the faults in judgement in a way that compares the two (presupposing that raping someone is an error in judgement).
-sorry this part might seem a bit disjointed, I did some editing-
To say it's an error in judgement in the case of rape seems very different however. The women does not intend to be raped (if she did it could arguably not be rape, depending on if some form of consent was given). But if the man chooses to rape, has a good time out of it, perhaps even gets away with it (unfortunately this seems to be likely) then did he have an error in judgement? Or did he just dis-regard any moral thinking he had that prohibited that? Perhaps he's in-fact a moral nihilist, and believes that liberty is a bad thing.
Again, this in itself does not justify rape (as far as I can tell). I personally see liberty as intrinsically good, but I might be wrong. If I am perhaps it's I who has the error in judgement.
Perhaps however in several months time I'll look back at what I've posted and disagree with it. But at the very least I think it's good to post these things and get feed back on them, look at criticism, work out of it's correct or not, review what was originally put so on so forth. Surely you agree that it's better to get these things out and have some form of peer review of them instead of just keeping them secretly inside and not allowing for debate?
So at the very least I hope you appreciate that I'm trying to keep an open mind about criticism being put forward. Whether I succeed or not is of course another matter.

You choose who to and who not to trust.
If you trust someone who you later wish you hadn't, you've chosen the wrong person.
For example:
I chose to trust a girl recently, she deceived me and was generally manipulative. I then stopped talking to to her. I had made an error in judgement in thinking that she was someone that I thought I would be happy to give emotional authority to. I can't undo the feelings I felt because of her, but I can change, and try to learn from the mistakes I made.
Unexpected things happen, we're not perfect, and that's something I'm trying to put into everyday life.
Now there are no defining characteristics of someone who is (or is not) trust worthy that we can universally apply to each scenario. However, if you fail to realise that X is untrustworthy then there has at some point been a fault in your thinking. The only time and way that there can't be a fault would to be omnipotent (for the sake of any third readers, all knowing, or seeing, when it's all both of those seem to mean the same thing).

I'd argue in another instance, say a society that wasn't technological advanced, that by not seeing a meteor approaching their settlement, where by they could have put up protection or moved away had they seen it, that they have a fault of not having advanced technology enough.

I suspect that if we're still around and technologically progressing at our current rate in 1,000 years we'll be seen as not technological advanced, and that will be a fault of ours.

To put this in the context of political liberal thinking:
If you harm me and I don't see it coming I have some fault with me, that I should try to correct.
However that does not mean that you should harm me, in-fact you shouldn't harm me (provided I'm right in thinking that liberty is good outside of me as a subject, intrinsically or not).

0 likes

"I chose to trust a girl recently, she deceived me and was generally manipulative. I then stopped talking to to her. I had made an error in judgement in thinking that she was someone that I thought I would be happy to give emotional authority to. I can't undo the feelings I felt because of her, but I can change, and try to learn from the mistakes I made."

I think it's regrettable that you blame yourself for an error in judgement. It isn't your fault she behaved that way.

You make a decision based on the facts you have at the time. Some people are manipulative, violent, unkind, dishonest and, crucially, very good at hiding that fact. If they have the ability to present themselves in a good light, it's foolishness to imagine that you should somehow be able to detect their uglier traits.

Emotional abuse is particularly difficult because abusive individuals strip away their victim's ability to make rational judgements and to fight back. If a man reached out and slapped me, or insulted me on a first date, I would get up and leave. Of course I would! However, if I'd been happy with him for some time and was emotionally invested, then he started exhibiting those traits, suddenly he's displaying a side of himself I've never seen. That's neither my fault nor my responsibility. To argue that it is can lead abuse victims into blaming themselves which is self-destructive. I think on a smaller scale, it's what you're doing with the girl you mentioned.

0 likes

"I chose to trust a girl recently, she deceived me and was generally manipulative. I then stopped talking to to her. I had made an error in judgement in thinking that she was someone that I thought I would be happy to give emotional authority to. I can't undo the feelings I felt because of her, but I can change, and try to learn from the mistakes I made."

I think it's regrettable that you blame yourself for an error in judgement. It isn't your fault she behaved that way.

You make a decision based on the facts you have at the time. Some people are manipulative, violent, unkind, dishonest and, crucially, very good at hiding that fact. If they have the ability to present themselves in a good light, it's foolishness to imagine that you should somehow be able to detect their uglier traits.

Emotional abuse is particularly difficult because abusive individuals strip away their victim's ability to make rational judgements and to fight back. If a man reached out and slapped me, or insulted me on a first date, I would get up and leave. Of course I would! However, if I'd been happy with him for some time and was emotionally invested, then he started exhibiting those traits, suddenly he's displaying a side of himself I've never seen. That's neither my fault nor my responsibility. To argue that it is can lead abuse victims into blaming themselves which is self-destructive. I think on a smaller scale, it's what you're doing with the girl you mentioned.

I disagree, I think it's important to point out faults if only to learn from them. Of course the way we say things can be constructive or non-constructive.
If I make a mistake, learn from it, and someone gives me a hard time about it telling me how stupid I was, then yeah that's pretty non-constructive. If on the other hand I make a mistake and get given advice on how to stop the said thing from happening in the future, that's constructive.

With regards to self destructive behaviour I have to admit I have a history of telling myself things such as "I'm so stupid" "I'm an idiot" over and over again. I've done that for many years. It sparked from a lack of confidence at school to a bullying victim cycle so on so forth.
However for the past year I've not had such problems, largely because I view who I am as someone with faults, as I view everyone as someone with faults, but I try to take an active role in correcting what I view as my own faults.
Take this thread for example, there have been times where I haven't communicated my thoughts very well, which I view as a fault. I want to take a positive role however and improve my communication skills surrounding this subject (and in general).

Whilst emotional abuse is particular difficult, and I recognise the system you're talking about (both from personal experience, although definitely not on a physically abusive level, no where near. But at the same time I chose to give X authority over my emotions. And then chose not to take it back. I may not have been conscious that it was in my interests to take it back, but then I'd again put that down to a fault of my own.

One of the things that maybe I could phrase better is that usually everyone is at fault in some way with such situations. However that's different (in the context of how I'm using the word) to being in the wrong. In the rape situation for instance only the rapist is in the wrong (at least in the detail we've gone into, perhaps there's a situation where this isn't true, but yet again, I just can't imagine this being the case, and this is still based in the idea that liberty is good, right, correct, so on so forth).

0 likes

One of the things that maybe I could phrase better is that usually everyone is at fault in some way with such situations. However that's different (in the context of how I'm using the word) to being in the wrong.

How you're using the word, as in "a way in which conveniently nobody else in the entire world understands"?

If you choose to employ a word in a non-standard way, define your terms before you start. "Fault" implies negativity, blame, passive negligence or active error. It is entirely inappropriate for this conversation.

0 likes

One of the things that maybe I could phrase better is that usually everyone is at fault in some way with such situations. However that's different (in the context of how I'm using the word) to being in the wrong.

How you're using the word, as in "a way in which conveniently nobody else in the entire world understands"?

If you choose to employ a word in a non-standard way, define your terms before you start. "Fault" implies negativity, blame, passive negligence or active error. It is entirely inappropriate for this conversation.

In a court of law fault tends to mean "someone is in the wrong".
Out side of that it tends to mean "an error".
I'd say both fit into the standard, but I hadn't thought about it in a court of law context until the post I made before this one.

0 likes

I didn't say you condone rape, I said I disagree with your statement that it's partially someone's own fault if he or she is raped.  Specifically, when you said, "It's your fault if you've put yourself in a position where they can do it. But not that they are trying to do it."  Period.  I'm not sure where I'm being unclear.

I also categorically disagree that being done wrong by somebody you trust represents a fault in judgment.  It means that the person sent signals which suggest, to any reasonable person, trustworthiness.  It is not the victim's fault that the other person hid or changed their true character.  That mentality is of no practical use or significance to anybody.

Finally, I think that these flightier philosophical and ethical arguments you invoke just aren't as important as the concrete realities of rape.  The attitudes you communicate, ethically/morally/philosophically perfect and consistent as you find them to be, do not invite a healthy attitude on behalf of others regarding empowering people against rape.  Attitudes shape behaviors.  And theory is not reality.  Go ahead and try saying to a rape victim, "Well, you made an error in judgment, and you have a personal fault, better correct that for next time!"  That just doesn't fly with me.  It's so wildly insensitive and inappropriate, in the same way that catski pointed out earlier.

I agree with Cat that you shouldn't invoke a legal or whatever other usage of the term "fault" when we are not deliberating in a court of law right now.  If you make yourself more easily understood, we could carry on with the discussion more efficiently rather than quibbling over semantics.  I've said it before, but there is no need to write as if for a doctoral thesis.  This is an informal discussion.  Make your words accessible and we can all have a more enjoyable time.

0 likes

I didn't say you condone rape, I said I disagree with your statement that it's partially someone's own fault if he or she is raped.  Specifically, when you said, "It's your fault if you've put yourself in a position where they can do it. But not that they are trying to do it."  Period.  I'm not sure where I'm being unclear.

I also categorically disagree that being done wrong by somebody you trust represents a fault in judgment.  It means that the person sent signals which suggest, to any reasonable person, trustworthiness.  It is not the victim's fault that the other person hid or changed their true character.  That mentality is of no practical use or significance to anybody.

Finally, I think that these flightier philosophical and ethical arguments you invoke just aren't as important as the concrete realities of rape.  The attitudes you communicate, ethically/morally/philosophically perfect and consistent as you find them to be, do not invite a healthy attitude on behalf of others regarding empowering people against rape.  Attitudes shape behaviors.  And theory is not reality.  Go ahead and try saying to a rape victim, "Well, you made an error in judgment, and you have a personal fault, better correct that for next time!"  That just doesn't fly with me.  It's so wildly insensitive and inappropriate, in the same way that catski pointed out earlier.

I agree with Cat that you shouldn't invoke a legal or whatever other usage of the term "fault" when we are not deliberating in a court of law right now.  If you make yourself more easily understood, we could carry on with the discussion more efficiently rather than quibbling over semantics.  I've said it before, but there is no need to write as if for a doctoral thesis.  This is an informal discussion.  Make your words accessible and we can all have a more enjoyable time.

Toy said you found my attitude atrocious, but you didn't make clear what exactly in that you found atrocious. In that post I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't condoning rape, at which point you said my attitude was atrocious.

I've already put into context better what is meant by fault. If you don't know what someone is capable of and you think they're not capable of something that they are, I'm not sure anything but an error can have occurred. Where by I've put up a comparison to omnipotence.

I've not gone into how psychologically I think rape victims should be treated. So what you've put at the end is a straw-man. Clearly each victim is different, but I don't recall ever saying they should be told "well you should just learn from your mistakes". I'm saying I think a fault has been made, but I don't see how just saying that to a rape victim will help. There's going to be a lot of trauma involved and clearly the first thing they need in most cases will be protection. After that some form of trauma councilling may be necessary, some other form of councilling perhaps (if so linked in with the other).
Support from friends and family is obviously important.

Lastly I'm not writing as if this is for some form of doctrial thesis (if I was I'd be writing a few thousand words per point, in much more formal language, and I'd probably edit everything so it's much more neat). I'm simply having a little explore for faults and looking to play with the idea put forward. At the beginning of the thread I agree'd with it so adopted it. Now I'm reviewing it.

And I'm not invoking fault in the legal sense.

myself wrote:
In a court of law fault tends to mean "someone is in the wrong".
Out side of that it tends to mean "an error".
I'd say both fit into the standard, but I hadn't thought about it in a court of law context until the post I made before this one.

E.G. I had only been using it controversially in the to have a fault way, not a way that could for instance be adopted in another setting.

0 likes

I've not gone into how psychologically I think rape victims should be treated. So what you've put at the end is a straw-man. Clearly each victim is different, but I don't recall ever saying they should be told "well you should just learn from your mistakes".

Nooo no no no no.  That is no straw man.  Right here:

If you harm me and I don't see it coming I have some fault with me, that I should try to correct.
However that does not mean that you should harm me, in-fact you shouldn't harm me (provided I'm right in thinking that liberty is good outside of me as a subject, intrinsically or not).

That's the part I find abhorrent and just false in this context.  Regardless of whether you say those words to a rape victim, it's outrageously insensitive and inappropriate to even hold that opinion, in any sense of the word, "fault."  What is this, the third time I've pinpointed that bit?  I'm done repeating myself.

0 likes

I've not gone into how psychologically I think rape victims should be treated. So what you've put at the end is a straw-man. Clearly each victim is different, but I don't recall ever saying they should be told "well you should just learn from your mistakes".

Nooo no no no no.  That is no straw man.  Right here:

If you harm me and I don't see it coming I have some fault with me, that I should try to correct.
However that does not mean that you should harm me, in-fact you shouldn't harm me (provided I'm right in thinking that liberty is good outside of me as a subject, intrinsically or not).

That's the part I find abhorrent and just false in this context.  Regardless of whether you say those words to a rape victim, it's outrageously insensitive and inappropriate to even hold that opinion, in any sense of the word, "fault."  What is this, the third time I've pinpointed that bit?  I'm done repeating myself.

You're right, philosophical contexts dictate entirely what I may do in a caring, sympathetic physiological context ::)
Saying that there is a fault to be corrected, and being insensitive about it to the victim, are entirely different things.

So yes to say that I'd say x to a victim is a straw man argument, because I've not said, nor do I hold, that view. Perhaps to some victims, if I know them, if we talk about such a topic. But each situation is different.

0 likes

You might have said that to a victim in this very thread, or the friend of a victim, or the family member of a victim.  You don't who here has been a victim of sexual violence.  The statement itself is insensitive, in and of itself, not to just the ears of the victim.  I don't care who you are saying it to.

0 likes

You might have said that to a victim in this very thread, or the friend of a victim, or the family member of a victim.  You don't who here has been a victim of sexual violence.  The statement itself is insensitive, in and of itself, not to just the ears of the victim.  I don't care who you are saying it to.

But clearly who I'm addressing and in which context is important.

0 likes

I was a victim of sexual assault and I find some of these viewpoints and arguments to be appalling.  Typically I wouldn't just you know... come right out with this information, but I really hope it makes SOME PEOPLE think twice about posting philosophical bullshit about topics in which they have no experience or bearing.

0 likes

I was a victim of sexual assault and I find some of these viewpoints and arguments to be appalling.  Typically I wouldn't just you know... come right out with this information, but I really hope it makes SOME PEOPLE think twice about posting philosophical bullshit about topics in which they have no experience or bearing.

Just as long as you know that I'm not blaming you for what happened to you, then I'm fine with you feeling their appalling.

Moral philosophy is something I personally don't consider to be bullshit (I'm not saying you do) so when I put things like this up, it's not without having thought about them a bit first.

0 likes

asleep on a sunbeam:  maybe you should stop while you aren't ahead......

0 likes

asleep on a sunbeam:  maybe you should stop while you aren't ahead......

Rate he's digging he's going to be in Australia soon.

0 likes

Poor Australia! 

0 likes

asleep on a sunbeam:  maybe you should stop while you aren't ahead......

Maybe you should put up an actual criticism of what I've said instead of hinting at me to shut up 8-)

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments