|
LeJackal posted:Thats a long winded way of saying that though you are aware of potential power disparity opportunity outside of a purely physical sense, you promptly ignore them in the context of a sexual interaction. It's okay though, that kind of situation-specific blindness due to deep-seated misogyny is pretty commonplace. LeJackal's post took me a while to process, but I think I ultimately feel like LeJackal is correct. (That is some drat fine passive voice, because this is causing me to think far harder than I expected.) In BJ2K's scenario, it really didn't matter that he had the physical advantage, because social norms still bound him to restrain himself and rethink the situation; he "only" fractured her foot in self defense versus anything more damaging like fighting back further, but the very situation McAlister describes (ideally limiting one's own actions due to conscious realization of power imbalance) is the one that potentially left BJ2K able to experience "erosion of resolve," versus not giving up (not as in "BJ2K opted for that outcome" but as in "during that moment, post-pushing-her-back, no other options seemed valid to him given her tenacity."). Put in other words, had the genders been reversed, and if the woman fractured the man's foot but the man still advanced, so the woman then kicked as hard as possible to dislocate his knee because she feared for herself, would that be unexpected? Then, taking that theoretical scenario, if the genders were reversed again (e.g. if BJ2K as the man-victim had dislocated her knee after he fractured her foot), is your opinion of BJ2K the same as you'd have had for the woman-victim in the previous theoretical example? If not, why is it acceptable to say that BJ2K's physical strength makes any difference when no one is saying that there's a legal difference between the two scenarios? This thread is blowing my mind because I started to write this post feeling like LeJackal is advancing an MRA dog whistle and I just can't see/explain it (and to a point I fear that my post here could be misused to that direction in a way I cannot see) while I (still) view McAlister's post as, "Come on, factor in reality, it is thoroughly disingenuous to say that having the option to exercise physical restraint versus not having that option does not affect the dynamics of the situation immensely," which seems pretty legit, if not a tangent; that said, just writing out my view of McAlister's post makes me experience cognitive dissonance in that McAlister's post does make me feel like I'm implying, "He could have resisted if he wanted to because of the physical power disparity," which makes LeJackal's post seem valid again.  It's taking everything I have to not go down the rabbit hole of comparing their post histories. This is a surprisingly thought-provoking thread, at least for me.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
It seems slightly weird to tell someone their interpretation of their experience is wrong. And I would agree that giving in via drunken lack of ability to clearly process the situation is rather less disempowering than having it demonstrated that you can't resist even at the height of your own capabilities, because you won't be drunk tomorrow, whereas learning how to beat someone up who is significantly stronger than you is rather harder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
Can you point out the victim blaming? As I understand it the series is: Poster 1 : this bad thing happened to me and I didn't realize how bad it was at the time but looking back I realize that I haven't really come to grips with it, but at least it wasn't a much worse situation because that would really have sucked. Poster 2 : much worse situation isn't much worse, it's what you faced, they are just as bad. Me: what the gently caress? No they aren't. He is right to be happy that it wasn't the much worse situation because that other situation is absolutely much worse. They are not the same at all. I even gave an example of how a woman could do the equivalent of the much worse scenario to a man ... Cause being physically restrained while others do things to you is not a gendered experience. It doesn't matter if the restraints are made of canvas, steel, leather, silk, or muscle. Being rendered physically helpless while conscious and having others do things to you despite fighting against them as hard as you can ... Well it is a very specific trauma that may or may not occur in a rape. Nor is rape needed to cause that trauma. I'm pushing 40 and I still hyperventilate in the dentist chair from memories of being "swaddled" at the dentist as a kid. That particular bad thing didn't happen to him. Yay! I view what the poster I responded to was doing the same way I would view a purity culture rear end in a top hat who hears a female rape victim say, "at least I didn't get pregnant" and responds by reminding them that since their purity is lost and they have committed adultery it's actually just as bad as if they got pregnant. Bullshit. What he went through is bad enough without making poo poo up and trying to pile it on. And when you make up traumas to clutch your pearls at you ignore indications of real issues. Accidentally breaking someone's bones, for example, is guilt++ at the best of them times. When they are substantially smaller and weaker than you, guilt+++. Throw in a societal mandate for people like you to protect people like them. Guilt++++,shame+. And he said right at the beginning that he didn't consider it rape at the time but only came to realize it was after contemplating the meaning of consent later on. So at the time he couldn't justify his actions to himself as self defense. Hopefully he can now because they totally were, a shove was totally reasonable, and the foot an accident. Not only is that a trauma that could reasonably be inferred from the facts at hand, it is generally only a problem for a specific subset of male rape victims making it on topic for a thread about male rape victims. He was bullied socially. Not dominated physically. Hell, he is probably dealing with misplaced guilt for breaking her foot even though the shove that caused it was completely reasonable/appropriate self defense and the break was not an intended injury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:LeJackal's post took me a while to process, but I think I ultimately feel like LeJackal is correct. (That is some drat fine passive voice, because this is causing me to think far harder than I expected.) Thanks. S.T.C.A. posted:This thread is blowing my mind because I started to write this post feeling like LeJackal is advancing an MRA dog whistle and I just can't see/explain it (and to a point I fear that my post here could be misused to that direction in a way I cannot see) Imagine this: You are at a local government meeting of some kind where you wish to plead for some of the budget being allocated to fix a decaying bridge, or something of that nature. Just as you finish your impassioned plea for funds to be used to maintain the town infrastructure for safety and tourism and so on, another person stands up. Its Crazy Racist Jim, and, after putting on his Klan hood, begins screaming out rants that the bridge must be repaired to help stave off the Zionist hordes of mud-people out to capture the town's women! Eventually he is escorted from the hall, but later when asked about the bridge repair topic, what do you think people will remember? The MRA movement is like a one-handed clock made of radioactive cow-poo poo; disgusting in general, rarely correct (and only tangentially), and it taints anything that gets near it. There are legitimate problems with many of the topics they involve themselves with, but their toxic and frankly misogynist thought processes present them from identifying the root cause of the issue or adequate solutions. So I not surprised that when discussing the issue of gender relations, you might be reminded of the MRA movement. If we were in Hypotheticaltown and I brought up the state of disrepair on the bridge over some coffee, you might subtly feel I was advancing a racist agenda, no? S.T.C.A. posted:while I (still) view McAlister's post as, "Come on, factor in reality, it is thoroughly disingenuous to say that having the option to exercise physical restraint versus not having that option does not affect the dynamics of the situation immensely," which seems pretty legit, if not a tangent; that said, just writing out my view of McAlister's post makes me experience cognitive dissonance in that McAlister's post does make me feel like I'm implying, "He could have resisted if he wanted to because of the physical power disparity," which makes LeJackal's post seem valid again. I think that McAlister is considering the situation in a one dimensional way (through the lens of physical prowess) which it obviously is not. As a population (avoiding the :biotruth: trap here) men are larger, stronger, etc and if some alien form transported a man and woman into an alien coliseum for a one-on-one bare-hands deathmatch then okay, his comparisons could be valid. In the world as it is, though, there are factors as strong as or stronger than mere physical ability. There are social, emotional and legal pressures that affect one's actions and can effectively limit their choices. This becomes especially clear in cases like the above, where social dogmatism and legal doctrine provide a suite of pressures that combine to suppress a physical advantage. For example, there is a social pressure to treat women delicately (wife-beater is a pejorative, 'you never hit a girl!'), a social pressure to appear in charge of the situation (a delusion which physical resistance would betray, as would calling it rape), social pressure to seek sex ('dude you said no are you a fag LOLOLOL'), legal pressures like the implied aggression of the male (because the legal system considers women to be invalids incapable of instigation) and so on. You already went through the gender-flipping thought experiment, so you can see the disparity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Alternatively, a primary factor appears to be "being drunk impaired my judgement" which is a fairly specific loss of agency which is very easily remedied, and not an inherent part of one's existence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively, a primary factor appears to be "being drunk impaired my judgement" which is a fairly specific loss of agency which is very easily remedied, and not an inherent part of one's existence. So its his fault for being drunk? Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:So its his fault for being drunk? Interesting. I was waiting for you to say that. The fault lies with the person committing the assault, however both parties in this instance possess sufficient agency to prevent it happening again. It does not have to be your fault for you to do something about it. You are, of course, free not to, but personally I prefer to avoid unpleasant things happening to me more than I like to be absolutely defiant all the time. If you disagree, again, you are free to choose otherwise. But if part of what makes the situation unpleasant is the loss of one's agency, then giving, or showing people that they already possess enough agency to significantly affect their chances of having to endure the same situation again, seems like a good thing? Moreso than telling them they can't do anything because otherwise you're blaming them. I can't undo your past, I can't give you justice for what happened, but I can illustrate that you are powerful enough, with the knowledge you now possess, to effect significant control over whether you repeat the experience. Perhaps that will allow you to feel more confident in future situations? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
quote:When they are substantially smaller and weaker than you, guilt+++. Throw in a societal mandate for people like you to protect people like them. Guilt++++,shame+. And he said right at the beginning that he didn't consider it rape at the time but only came to realize it was after contemplating the meaning of consent later on. So at the time he couldn't justify his actions to himself as self defense. Hopefully he can now because they totally were, a shove was totally reasonable, and the foot an accident. Note that the multipliers here rely on a patriarchal conception of the male/female relationship and that the delay in realizing what happened is a function of the patriarchal conception of sex. If sex is something a man does to a woman, how can a man get raped by a woman. It simply does not compute. And that is toxic to male rape survivors because they have trouble articulating and even conceptualizing their violation. "If it was just a drunken hook up, why do i feel so bad?" Female rape survivors also have to deal with similar questions. Consent and agency can seem subtle but they are really loving important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
This thread was off to a great start with an OP putting the word rape in quotation marks when referring to female on male rape and seems to not have gotten much better. Why are so many people tripping over themselves to discount or even trivialize female on male rape? Can't we all agree that the feminist movement is the best movement to tackle all rape issues in our society as much of the psychological damage is caused by patriarchal norms for both sides of the gender fence without trying to also delegitimize all rape victims of women? All things concidered I don't see how this thread is being any kinder to female victims of female rapists with uncritiqued comments like "just teach guys not to rape and problem solved."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:A sexual scenario I get, but fear or stress not so much. That doesn't make sense from a evolutionary biology perspective. Or from just being a human male for that matter. I know, it's pretty unintuitive, and even the Internet turns up different responses. I think this is something that varies from person to person, but there is something called the reflex erection: quote:Another type of non-sexual erection is the reflex erection, which can happen when a man is nervous, scared, angry, or under stress. Reflex erections can also be caused by an enlarged prostate condition, some recreational drugs, and the need to urinate. It seems like it's mostly meant to make sure you get a boner when you need to pee at night, but sometimes wires can get crossed in stressful situations
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was waiting for you to say that. nothing woulda happened if all them bitches didn't dress so slutty, not sayin, just sayin
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
as a True Progressive Feminist Thinker I'm here to tell you that it's sort of your fault for getting drunk ever, and also if you didn't fight off your rapist or scream loud enough for anyone to hear you it mighta technically by the books been "rape" but we all know it wasn't a real rape, let's be honest here. bodies have a way of shutting that whole thing down
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:nothing woulda happened if all them bitches didn't dress so slutty, not sayin, just sayin Except that isn't actually true. Unless possibly you dressed in some kind of suit made of porcupines and could curl into a ball.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:Doesn't the vast majority of sexual assault against men occur in prison or is that just a myth? Over the course of my college years there were six men raped, by men, that I knew of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
At my very LGBT-friendly university, there was at least four male-on-male rapes during my time there. I don't remembering them getting as much attention as the guy who raped his girlfriend and had one of his professor's bail him out of jail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Hell, we literally had a dude who raped drunk straight guys on this very forum. I have no idea how widespread stuff like that is. It's the sort of thing I imagine would be difficult to find studies on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
I raped the mail once and all I got was papercuts for my trouble. Seriously guys, don't try to gently caress the mail. Edit: Thought this was GBS for a second, wasn't trying to poo poo up a thread my apologies. AbbadonOfHell fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The fault lies with the person committing the assault, but e: Would you say that that rape wasn't legitimate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Muscles! Sobriety! Assertiveness! Shouts! Modesty! *flash of bright light* "With your powers combined, I am Captain Rape Prevention!" *cut to a scene of a woman coming on to a drunken man* Help me Captain Rape Prevention, this broad is all over me and I can't give proper consent! *byooo, zot, Captain Rape Prevention is on the scene* "While the entire fault of this encounter lies with the perpetrator, being drunk is a personal choice and is easily remedied, so in the future you can take this knowledge and
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Hell, we literally had a dude who raped drunk straight guys on this very forum. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Interesting viewpoint. I don't understand the question? It was as legitimate as the person experiencing it considers it to be I guess? If they don't consider it to be especially horrific, well, good? What would be served by them feeling worse about it? It fits the technical definition of rape and violation of consent in general is something to avoid wherever possible. But I would be more inclined to suggest that it's up to the person themselves to decide how "rapey" they want to think of it being, I guess. In terms of how they react to it and deal with it. While it would certainly be preferable if people would respect the wishes of others at all times, that is not the only way to prevent the emotional pain which comes from the violation of consent. If people can, somehow, avoid feeling some or all of the common responses to violation of consent then that also is protection from rape, in a way. Rape is bad because it hurts people, if you can remove the hurt, you partially solve the problem. It isn't a perfect solution but I think it's preferable to the idea that people must always feel very bad about it because otherwise it delegitimises the concept of rape being a terrible thing. If you don't feel completely disempowered following rape, that's a good thing, because there's nothing productive served by you feeling that way. If you can, to some degree, brush the experience off, then that is preferable to agonizing over it. Understanding what happened is useful insofar as it allows you to take more control over future situations, but understanding it to enhance the amount of violation you feel seems... pointlessly cruel? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Not to get too helldumpy but it's Azure_Horizon. He got straight dudes drunk, banged them, and then said it wasn't rape and got really,really angry when others attempted to correct him. He was finally banned by Lowtax with the reason of "Rapist" BrooklynBruiser posted:
"Azure_Horizon" posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Remember kids: Evaluate your life choices leading up to the rape. If better choices on your part might have avoided it, you don't need to feel harmed and it wasn't rape. Rape retroactively prevented! (chorus) "Thanks Captain Rape Prevention!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Remember kids: Evaluate your life choices leading up to the rape. If better choices on your part might have avoided it, you don't need to feel harmed and it wasn't rape. Rape retroactively prevented! As opposed to "you must feel absolutely crushed by your experience and if you don't you're not experiencing your rape correctly, you can't feel like you have any agency in the matter either because you have to be a perfect little victim"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
The other person may have assaulted you, but you made it rape by not getting over it
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
It is literally rape whether you like it or not, but what that means to you is entirely not something I should be deciding for you. If you think it's less rapey because it wasn't violent, good for you. Long may you retain that viewpoint if it helps you feel better. The appropriate thing to do to someone who has been robbed of agency is not to start taking away more of their agency because it helps fuel your views about rape. People are not under an obligation to experience their rape properly according to the definition, and you don't get to chastise them for feeling contrary to how you think they should feel about it.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Sort of like how telling someone not to care about their family getting brutally murdered is protection from murder. Justice is served!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Rather more like approaching someone whose response to the loss of a family member is "well they're in a better place now" and telling them they're a loving idiot because heaven isn't real and their family are DEAD AND GONE FOREVER AND YOU'D BETTER loving SUFFER ABOUT IT. Whether it is rational or not is secondary to whether it is helpful. If it shields you from experiencing the full horror of your situation then I encourage you to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
So do you like walk into dialysis clinics and start telling people about how cutting down sugar can prevent diabetes Like what the gently caress is saying, and I quote, "a primary factor appears to be "being drunk impaired my judgement" which is a fairly specific loss of agency which is very easily remedied, and not an inherent part of one's existence" supposed to accomplish beyond telling him YOU HAVE THE POWER, TO HEAL FROM THE RAPE and also you wouldnt have been raped if you werent drunk
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
If he doesn't feel traumatised by it on the basis that he could easily prevent it from happening again, because the main reason it happened in the first place wasn't because he was inherently unable to stop her, but because he feels he wasn't thinking straight, then I'm not going to tell him that's wrong? If it results in him not feeling gutted by the whole thing then that is a good thing. Also "don't get drunk around people you don't trust" is good advice for anyone? Difficult to say tactfully but yes I absolutely would ask people I care about to be careful around people I don't trust. Because I'd like them not to get raped or mugged or something. Ideally people wouldn't do crimes but I still lock my door on the basis that possibly people might not be deterred by my principled approach of not locking it. If someone breaks into your house because you left the door unlocked that doesn't make it your fault, you don't ask to be burgled, but your chances of it happening again can be reduced if you start locking your door? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also "don't get drunk around people you don't trust" is good advice for anyone? Difficult to say tactfully but yes I absolutely would ask people I care about to be careful around people I don't trust. Because I'd like them not to get raped or mugged or something. It's incredibly insensitive advice to give someone after they've just shared a story about being raped, and saying that it's the "primary factor" is one rewording away from being victim blaming, but keep doling out your sagely advice while arguing against the imaginary horde that's apparently saying he should be deeply traumatized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
As before, blame and agency are not the same thing. The blame is on the person committing the crime, that does not mean the victim is powerless. If people want to conflate the two then that's their retarded issue, but you don't need to tell people they're powerless in order to avoid blaming them. Other than actually blaming the victim I can think of little more infuriating than being told you're nothing but a pawn of fate and the entire universe conspired to make it happen. That's not going to make me feel any better. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Yes, you're saying, in essence, "She did a bad thing but you could have done something about it." She is blamed for the bad thing, but, since he has the agency on whether or not to do one of the contributing factors he could have prevented the situation by not doing that contributing factor. She's to blame for the rape, but he could have not gotten drunk. Sure, she raped him, but if he wasn't drunk, this whole situation wouldn't have happened. Do you not loving see how this poo poo works or what
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I understand how easy it is to conflate the two. But I also understand that being told you are not capable of controlling your own life is really loving annoying. I have experience with assault, not sexual, thankfully, but violence yes. It is not my fault what happened to me, but nowadays I can prevent it happening again. I like that, that more than anything makes life a lot better than it was when I was young. I perhaps should not have to do that, but I can, and it works well. I think it's something worthy of a little pride. I have a very clear memory of what it's like to be made to feel utterly powerless and there is little in the world more unpleasant than that, or more apt to cause fear. I haven't really been afraid of anything since then, because I always feel capable of having some agency in the matter, and that is always better. It does apply retroactively, if I'd been smarter when I was young I might have been able to have a better time of things, but that is entirely secondary to my ability to do something now. I would sooner take the effort to not focus on self-blaming than to try to make myself believe that there is nothing I could possibly have done, because I absolutely could if I'd known what I know now. It isn't productive to self-flagellate over that however, so I don't. So maybe I'm partisan, but I'm always going to favor a sense of agency over the alternative, even if it's difficult to separate from blame. There is a difference, a very clear one once you understand it, whether it's easy to see or not, and I know of nothing more horrifying than a loss of agency. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I understand how easy it is to conflate the two. But I also understand that being told you are not capable of controlling your own life is really loving annoying. Have you considered a concealed carry permit? With just a little bit of training, you can prevent assault from happening again! Just a tip from me to you, stay frosty! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier what you are doing is literally the action called "victim-blaming". If I need a convenient reference for victim-blaming I could use your posts. I would put them in the wikipedia article as an example. Trying to crouch it in rhetoric about agency is exactly what victim-blaming is. It's also not helpful because post-facto harm reduction advice is completely loving useless, as the thing already happened and what not to do is rather obvious with the gift of hindsight. At best you're just wasting your breath. At worst, you'll help ferment in the victim's mind the idea that it's their fault because they could've done something but didn't. "Yeah it's awful you got robbed but you should've locked the door, kept a gun near, and..." All that is is telling the person that they made mistakes. Framing it as them having had a choice is perhaps even worse because you're implying that since good choices could've prevented it, and it happened, that they made bad choices. What you think is giving a person a sense of agency and power is, really, just telling them they hosed up and thus deserve what happened. Blaming the victim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Guns are illegal here, and I don't need a gun to be safe.Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:All that is is telling the person that they made mistakes. Framing it as them having had a choice is perhaps even worse because you're implying that since good choices could've prevented it, and it happened, that they made bad choices. What you think is giving a person a sense of agency and power is, really, just telling them they hosed up and thus deserve what happened. Except that is literally not true, people do not deserve to suffer for mistakes, ever. Believing that that is the case is extremely stupid and unproductive. What possible purpose does suffering for your mistakes serve? You're not some stupid animal that needs to be beaten to understand why something is unhelpful to you. I would call it a just world fallacy but it's about as far removed from any concept of justice that I'm not sure it merits it. If you make decisions and they lead to a situation where something bad happens to you, the bad thing is not some kind of loving divine punishment for your sinful decisions. You don't deserve it. But nor does that make the world completely loving random and not at all causative. Your choices are not between universal justice or a non-deterministic universe. Actions have consequences but there's no inherent loving morality to those consequences for god's sake. Things just happen, usually because of previous things that led to them. You often have something you can do to make things a little better for yourself but if you don't do that for whatever reason you don't deserve bad things to happen to you. That's loving children's logic. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I have been raped by two women. One threatened to hurt herself if I didn't have sex with her, the other I had told no to even kissing multiple times, and she waited until I was blackout drunk before having sex with me. I didn't even know I had sex with her until my friend told me (very pissed off) about what I had done, because it was her birthday party. Very few people believed me. I consider myself a feminist, and feminists have helped me in return. Female on male rape happens, and I happened to get struck by lightning twice. I understand why I could never take any of these women to court, nor would I really want to. Male on female rape is a much larger issue, and deserves more resources. As for myself, I just go to therapy, and talk to those that I trust. And drink. I drink a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Rather more like approaching someone whose response to the loss of a family member is "well they're in a better place now" and telling them they're a loving idiot because heaven isn't real and their family are DEAD AND GONE FOREVER AND YOU'D BETTER loving SUFFER ABOUT IT. You are projecting pretty hard, man. No one is going around ordering people to feel worse about getting raped just cuz. But everything in society is constantly belittling people who were raped and telling them they must have done something to deserve it, and that if only they were more careful they wouldn't be raped...and additionally telling men that their normal human emotions of violation and hurt after being victimized are unmanly and the pain is self-inflicted by them being such whiners; so you know maybe stop contributing to that? OwlFancier posted:Ideally people wouldn't do crimes but I still lock my door on the basis that possibly people might not be deterred by my principled approach of not locking it. If someone breaks into your house because you left the door unlocked that doesn't make it your fault, you don't ask to be burgled, but your chances of it happening again can be reduced if you start locking your door? You know those signs in parking lots telling you to lock your doors and keep valuables out of sight? Okay now notice how they don't appear on police report forms for theft saying "well if you had been more careful this wouldn't have happened" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Imagine if we could just get the tactical wisdom of D&D posters out to all rape victims. We could have a word where nobody gets themselves raped again, so simply. I'll set up the Kickstarter
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 15:05
|
|