|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
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
|
|