|
Aswad -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/29/2011 3:26:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I didnt say "these guys" would. I say it could happen when someone else read it.
I hope you won't take this post the wrong way. My humor is at times difficult to appreciate.
Some people here read a post of mine on going beyond suspense of disbelief. Something could happen when "someone else" reads it. That is, we can be suspicious of everyone with a cock, and say I shouldn't have said it, even going so far as to imply that my writing might somehow be responsible for a sexual assault. And I can even construct some hypothetical scenarios where it could have a contributory role in causing relationship rape in some kinky couple on the board, just as I can construct such scenarios for just about anything posted in the kink-related parts of the board.
What their writing may or may not contribute to, is irrelevant. That's the cost of free speech: it puts more speech out there and thus carries the risk that someone may be exposed to the wrong piece of speech at the wrong time. The alternative is as simple as it is unpalatable: we can all agree to restrict all reading to the Qu'ran, like certain countries have tried to do. How'd that work out for women again?
Now, there are restrictions on free speech in most countries, of course.
Let's go right for the least objectionable restriction. Inciting crime is one of the most common things to disallow: you can't encourage people to dump British tea, make salt from seawater, sit in the front of the bus with the white folks, or otherwise violate social order. Because inciting them to do so might deprive them of reason and common decency, of which they were originally possessed, thus subverting their free agency and causing them to behave in a criminal manner, for which you would then be responsible.
Just like a cunt-cut skirt might cause an otherwise moral, decent, reasonable man to rape you, right?
Wrong.
The guilt rests solely on the asshole that does it. Not on the myriad people who may or may not have inspired the act in a million tiny steps. The final step, that of undertaking the act itself, is squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator. S/he makes a choice to take a step that is singularly distinct in being an act. It's not a blurry line. Throw in coercion by threat or force, and we can obviously argue the degree of free agency involved. Show a history of sufficient adverse, uncommon events that bias in a certain direction, and we can argue mitigating circumstances.
What these guys did was tasteless, that's it.
You could claim that it's threatening. That would also go for a poll about "name who you would like to kill on campus", but that would go by with scarcely a comment, unless it happened on one of the schools that have had shootings. And, in that case, just as in this case, it would then be the people who take offense (e.g. by feeling threatened) that make it into a threat. It does not sit well with me to disregard whether a threat was intended, and it doesn't seem like one was in this case (though if you care to argue that a threat was indeed their intent, I'm happy to go reread the story to see if I can buy the argument or not).
Some feedback is in order. An indication that this goes against the grain, rubs people the wrong way, and is tasteless. The attention they've gotten so far should make it blatantly obvious that they've stepped on a lot of toes. That's useful learning that they can hold on to in the future. It doesn't need to be bigger than it already is to accomplish that.
quote:
Domestic crime is a perfect example. A man gets away with the harsh words and put downs. Then comes the slap. Then the apology. Next its the fist. Then another apology. Then the beating. Followed by either more apologies after each incident or new threats.
I fail to see the analogy here.
Also, domestic violence, which definitely also exists in woman-on-man, man-on-child and woman-on-child variations, is something best split into two categories. First is that of the genuine assholes, who use apologies as one of many tools that permit them to get away with being malicious, and claiming that category is analogous to this poll is something I would need you to guide me through the mental steps required to comprehend, because I can't even see the connection, unless it comes down to what I've suggested already: bias against men on account of past experiences. Second is that of people of either gender that have impulse control problems or the like, and are genuinely contrite about their actions, which doesn't excuse those actions, but indicates the sensible and effective response will be to address the deficiency, rather than to just lock them up for a few years where the deficiency can only grow. Again, the analogy escapes me, as there is no sign that these guys are substantially impaired, and you've already said it's unlikely they intend to do anything.
The process you're describing is a victim process, whereby the cycle causes the behavior to be perceived as normal or in some way justified in the eyes of the victim. It's not a process that is formative for the aggressor, who already brought a problem to the table long before the first apology, and likely before even meeting up with the victim in the first place.
Are you suggesting that these guys have to be attacked in order to avoid women internalizing a victim role?
Cause I don't get the impression women are that fragile. That skittish, perhaps, but not that fragile.
quote:
All it takes is one individual with a warped sense of morality to turn that "innocent" survey into an actual crime.
Yeah. And all it takes is one Emily Rose to turn an episode of My Little Pony into an absolute nightmare. Have you seen (as an adult) the amount of torture, violence and general mayhem in My Little Pony? Forget nice little tales like Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lector has nothing on some of these cute little unicorns. It's about as crazy as the Grimm tales.
And let's not even get started on porn, right?
There are entire genres of books, movies and so forth that will need to be banned or restricted if you want to prevent the possibility of someone being influenced. Especially if you want to prevent someone being influenced that is actually so susceptible to begin with that this poll might tip them over the edge, because that's not much of a nudge. Maybe all the movies that serve as warnings or depictions of things like domestic violence and sexual assault should be banned, and their function in raising awareness discounted entirely.
I mean, one viewing of Baise Moi will cause anything with a cock to mutate into an armor plated rapemobile, surely.
quote:
No one "went at me". I was a victim of physical abuse, but I was never raped. That doesnt mean I havent dealt with the after effects of both violence against women and rape.
I didn't say rape. I was trying to make a neutral expression. You've had bad experiences in the past, and associated with others who have had the same. That's great. It does, however, tend to lead to a specific and very recognizeable bias. I'm not insisting that's the origin of what I perceive as problematic in your posts. But I will point out that the observation is consistent with what would be expected if such were indeed the origin.
quote:
Your implication is based upon your own misunderstanding. Not what I wrote.
The context you quoted has been borne in mind very carefully in this reply, and I believe it has been fully addressed in the initial set of paragraphs. Your clarification is entirely consistent with my reading of what you wrote, and reinforces the perception that- without necessarily intending to- you are making men out to be an inherent threat to women, and arguing along a very familiar, supremely unproductive line of reasoning.
Or, put bluntly: you clarified it's not just the pollsters that are threats... it's all men.
It's probably not difficult to see why I "ignored" that in the first reply.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
