![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yes, it IS your fault!
Aug. 2nd, 2002 05:20 pmSo, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
endogenousardor made a post here about a debate he got into. (Um, I use the word "debate" rather loosely...)
The debate is ostensibly about whether or not a woman who goes home with a strange man, makes out with him, gets naked, and then changes her mind has more to do with getting raped than a woman who is simply abducted off the street and raped. (Did that make sense? Well, I'll try to be clearer.)
Mostly, it is really about whether or not a person who chooses a line of action that puts them at greater risk of danger has more personal responsibility if something happens than a person who did NOT choose a line of action that was dangerous.
So,endogenousardor's position seems to be that you are responsible for stupid actions that result in your injury/death UNTIL you are somehow violently attacked, and then this absolves you of all responsibility you had for putting yourself in harm's way. BullSHIT, I say.
I thought part of the problem here is that he has the impression that someone who holds my position perhaps is not looking at the situation from a particularly "human" point of view, but a logical one, and he is right, but...would it help if I said I do not hold myself exempt from my own rules? That's what the first part of this post (behind the cut) is about.
The second part is trickier...somehow, the question of "sympathy" got into the debate...and it fucked things up royally, if I do say so myself. I'm sorry I ever got drawn into discussing sympathy.
But last night, I read one of his comments in which he asked about how society's view of sexual women ties into a lack of sympathy for the club-hopping rape victim. And when I responded to that comment last night, I had a very visceral, very defensive, very ANGRY reaction. (I don't know how much of that is apparent in the comment, but I did indeed get very angry.)
This morning it occurred to me to ask myself what that anger was about, and how that relates to my answer to the "sympathy" question...and that's what the second part of my post is about. I'll give a heads-up though, since this part is going to get very personal, and you probably don't care.
( Okie, here we go... )
endogenousardor made a post here about a debate he got into. (Um, I use the word "debate" rather loosely...)The debate is ostensibly about whether or not a woman who goes home with a strange man, makes out with him, gets naked, and then changes her mind has more to do with getting raped than a woman who is simply abducted off the street and raped. (Did that make sense? Well, I'll try to be clearer.)
Mostly, it is really about whether or not a person who chooses a line of action that puts them at greater risk of danger has more personal responsibility if something happens than a person who did NOT choose a line of action that was dangerous.
So,
endogenousardor's position seems to be that you are responsible for stupid actions that result in your injury/death UNTIL you are somehow violently attacked, and then this absolves you of all responsibility you had for putting yourself in harm's way. BullSHIT, I say.I thought part of the problem here is that he has the impression that someone who holds my position perhaps is not looking at the situation from a particularly "human" point of view, but a logical one, and he is right, but...would it help if I said I do not hold myself exempt from my own rules? That's what the first part of this post (behind the cut) is about.
The second part is trickier...somehow, the question of "sympathy" got into the debate...and it fucked things up royally, if I do say so myself. I'm sorry I ever got drawn into discussing sympathy.
But last night, I read one of his comments in which he asked about how society's view of sexual women ties into a lack of sympathy for the club-hopping rape victim. And when I responded to that comment last night, I had a very visceral, very defensive, very ANGRY reaction. (I don't know how much of that is apparent in the comment, but I did indeed get very angry.)
This morning it occurred to me to ask myself what that anger was about, and how that relates to my answer to the "sympathy" question...and that's what the second part of my post is about. I'll give a heads-up though, since this part is going to get very personal, and you probably don't care.
( Okie, here we go... )
