Cyber Rape

[Cearbhall]

Yes, you can give me example after example. I've been hearing them my whole life. My point is why you would want to shame a traumatized victim, or why you would assume that a victim didn't know about the risks. Why not just educate people about the potential consequences and let them decide for themselves whether the risk is worth it? Walking on eggshells every moment of your life gets frustrating. Most of us give up on occasion.

 

[TerranceL]

Yes, you can give me example after example. I've been hearing them my whole life. My point is why you would want to shame a traumatized victim,

The problem is you call,

Why not just educate people about the potential consequences

Shaming. Futhermore,

or why you would assume that a victim didn't know about the risks. and let them decide for themselves whether the risk is worth it?

If you know the risks of certain behavior and STILL do xyz thing and it blows up in your face YOU bear partial or considering the action in question.. full responsibility for what happens.

Walking on eggshells every moment of your life gets frustrating. Most of us give up on occasion.

Why is common sense things walking on eggshells? Good lord this isn't rocket science.

 

[Armoured]

Why is telling people to be careful "shaming"?

 

[Paradoxum]

There are levels of trust, and unless she was a naive child she knows this kind of thing happens. Any guy who asks a woman for those kinds of pics is asking for a massive amount of trust. Only a fool provides those pics.

Lots of bad things happen. That doesn't mean you hide away from life.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to think someone wouldn't post such pictures on the internet. It isn't obviously crazy to trust someone not to do that. I'd think that most people wouldn't.

And yet it's completely accurate to blame her also. If I leave my doors unlocked and my house gets robbed I am still a victim and I still am partially responsible for my own victimization.

I find the attitude of jumping to blaming the victim to be strange though. Especially when that blaming involves attacking the victim, rather than giving caring advice for the future.

I'm not sure example is quite comparable. I'd say it is more like opening you window at night because it is hot, then someone climbing in and raping you. It's completely reasonable to open the window and think you'll be ok.

Is anybody saying that the man isn't at fault to? Not that I see. It doesn't even mean that we can't feel bad for her, what it means is that we are facing the reality of the situation.

I didn't say anyone was saying that. I do see people attacking the victim though, and claiming that she doesn't deserve sympathy.

Yes. There are certain expected outcomes for behavior and actions. It's one of the reasons why people like the circus and "death defying" acts.

Well I don't disagree with this on it's own.

Nobody has said what happened to her was just. Pointing out it was partially her fault is not saying what happened to her was right.

Sure.

I don't know anybody who believes that.

There is a difference between saying, "Wow that dude totally deserved that!" and "Wow if that dude had only had the foresight to lock his doors he would still have his big screen tv!"

People don't deserve to be victims, it doesn't mean that they didn't necessarily have a part to play in their own victimization.

At least some people aren't saying it in a caring way though. They are saying it to attack the victim and remove sympathy.

So then she has nothing to be mad about right?

It can be socially harmful, and violation of privacy, and trust, are bad too. It doesn't have to be about nakedness being undignified though.

You'd have a point if we've seen anybody telling her to stupid and stop complaining. Have we?

The OP is particularly harsh. Other comments seem to try to place blame on the victim, and thereby downplay her feelings.

I could be wrong, but that's how some of the comments seem to me.

LIES!

OK, so if, for example since we're talking about rape, a woman leaves her doors/windows unlocked in her house/apartment, and someone decides to walk right into and steal from her, or attack and rape her, she's NOT at fault for that?

No, she isn't.

If she goes out walking around by herself at night, face in her cell phone and not looking up, paying strict attention to her surroundings and gets pulled into a van by someone who is intent on raping her (this actually happened in my area several years ago - the woman was able to jump out of the vehicle completely naked and run to the nearest house for help), she's NOT at fault for putting herself into that situation?

She isn't at fault.

And what about the 16-year-old girl I read an article about several months back (in Cosmo - a publication that glorifies the idea of "I can do whatever I want and to h*ll with the consequences"), who threw a party at her father's house while he was out of town on business, and the teenagers all got into the alcohol (including her).... and I think you can guess what happened after that... she got passed-out drunk, was raped, and the photos ended up on-line. She's NOT at fault for what happened? And she not only put herself at risk by drinking to the point of passing out, which makes her vulnerable to whatever the drunk-and-horny males at that party got it into their heads to do (whereas staying sober and fully in control would have put her in a better position to deal with them - better yet, don't throw a party with alcohol when you're not even legally able to drink! Duh!), but she actually opened her father up to legal ramifications, because it was his house.

No... she's not at fault for being raped.

Sorry, but telling someone that they needed to be more mindful of the situations they chose to put themselves into because of the outcome is NOT "blaming the victim." Each one of those situations above could have been prevented... and the way to do it is oh, so simple.

Giving at advice is different from blaming the victim.

 

[elephunky]

Disconnect from "various websites" and leave those "public forums".

To say it's almost impossible to not have an online presence is very wrong.

Teach children to value their own privacy and anonymity.

How is it very wrong?

Perhaps it would be good to teach children to treat each other well and show some respect, then such extremes like feeling like you have no choice other than to leave many online forums would not have to happen.

Even if you remove online presence, it can still effect your future

 

[elephunky]

Just because the victim could have done something to prevent the situation doesn't mean that no one else is at fault.

Exactly

 

[Eudaimonist]

Its reductio ad absurdam.

That is a valid method of argumentation. Showing how following a principle leads to absurd consequences calls into question the validity of the principle.

No one is saying not to go to a party with alcohol.

FreeSpirit74 came pretty close to saying that.

But if you do, it makes sense to take basic precautions. Don't leave your drink unattended. Drink with friends, always let someone know where you're going, and when to expect you back, and so on.

Yes, that's all very sensible. However, where is the line drawn, and why? When girls are blamed for being raped, isn't the tendency to advise girls to live even more sheltered lives? Isn't rape the "proof" that they should minimize their risks even further?

It's not like I haven't seen the tendency in American culture towards minimal-risk ethics. Who was it -- Zig Ziglar, perhaps -- who advocated this explicitly? I'm not saying that it is the cultural norm to advise people to avoid parties that serve alcohol, but there may be sub-cultural tendencies in that direction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Armoured]

That is a valid method of argumentation. Showing how following a principle leads to absurd consequences calls into question the validity of the principle.



FreeSpirit74 came pretty close to saying that.



Yes, that's all very sensible. However, where is the line drawn, and why? When girls are blamed for being raped, isn't the tendency to advise girls to live even more sheltered lives? Isn't rape the "proof" that they should minimize their risks even further?

It's not like I haven't seen the tendency in American culture towards minimal-risk ethics. Who was it -- Zig Ziglar, perhaps -- who advocated this explicitly? I'm not saying that it is the cultural norm to advise people to avoid parties that serve alcohol, but there may be sub-cultural tendencies in that direction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

well you're always going to get people of different opinions as to 'where the line should be drawn'. Frankly, as with most things, I believe sensible moderation is the appropriate answer, I'm not telling anyone to be a potato sack wearing teetotal hermit, but at the same time, its possible to tell people to take sensible precautions without being shaming. And while a rapist is always, 100% to blame for his or her actions, surely any victim who could have reasonably forseen that they were getting into a risky situation and did nothing to avoid it carries their own, seperate burden of blame?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe sensible moderation is the appropriate answer, I'm not telling anyone to be a potato sack wearing teetotal hermit, but at the same time, its possible to tell people to take sensible precautions without being shaming.

Yes.

And while a rapist is always, 100% to blame for his or her actions, surely any victim who could have reasonably forseen that they were getting into a risky situation and did nothing to avoid it carries their own, seperate burden of blame?

Blame for what, though? Life is risk. Any situation is risky.

One way of interpreting what you write above is that one should avoid the risky situation altogether. Another interpretation is that one may embrace the risky situation, but not in a way that is needlessly unprepared for danger. I'm assuming that you mean the latter because you referred earlier to taking "sensible precautions", but don't you see how easy it is to get the idea that you had meant the former?

So, back to blame, I take it that you mean that someone may be blamed for not being "sensible" enough, but I hope not for the rape itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TerranceL]

Lots of bad things happen. That doesn't mean you hide away from life.

Taking common sense precautions isn't hiding away from life.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to think someone wouldn't post such pictures on the internet. It isn't obviously crazy to trust someone not to do that. I'd think that most people wouldn't.

If you post something on the internet it's pretty much there forever you don't get a choice in how it's used.

I find the attitude of jumping to blaming the victim to be strange though. Especially when that blaming involves attacking the victim, rather than giving caring advice for the future.

Whose attacking her? And the advice she's getting is to not send nude pictures of herself to people.. which we are being told is somehow "attacking the victim".

I'm not sure example is quite comparable. I'd say it is more like opening you window at night because it is hot, then someone climbing in and raping you. It's completely reasonable to open the window and think you'll be ok.

That would totally depend upon the neighborhood.

I didn't say anyone was saying that. I do see people attacking the victim though, and claiming that she doesn't deserve sympathy.

In this thread? Where?

At least some people aren't saying it in a caring way though. They are saying it to attack the victim and remove sympathy.

The victim isn't here we aren't talking to her, I'd be more worried if people were talking to her that way directly than talking about her foolishness when she'll never know it.

The OP is particularly harsh. Other comments seem to try to place blame on the victim, and thereby downplay her feelings.

The victim DOES hold some blame, I don't see how that downplay's her feelings.

I could be wrong, but that's how some of the comments seem to me.

I gotcha.

No, she isn't.



She isn't at fault.



No... she's not at fault for being raped.

In these cases does she bear any responsibiity for doing something foolish that made her an easier target?

 

[TerranceL]

How is it very wrong?

Because you aren't required to be online, or have a social media presence.

Perhaps it would be good to teach children to treat each other well and show some respect, then such extremes like feeling like you have no choice other than to leave many online forums would not have to happen.

Pretty sure most people already teach their kids that. And yet kids still act like brats.

 

[Armoured]

So, back to blame, I take it that you mean that someone may be blamed for not being "sensible" enough, but I hope not for the rape itself.

Thats a very good way to put it, I think.

Yes, no one but the rapist is to blame for the rape. The victim, however, may carry some blame for putting himself or herself in an unnecessary amount of danger that was reasonably forseeable.

 

[Paradoxum]

Taking common sense precautions isn't hiding away from life.

Sure true, but I was reply to the point you made that she would know that sometimes such pictures are posted online. My reply was that just because you know something bad could happen, that doesn't always mean you shouldn't do it. Bad things can always happen.

I guess it comes down to what you think the risk is. How bad is the consequence, and how likely is it.

I don't think it's obvious how bad, or not bad, the risk is; so you aren't a fool if you calculate it incorrectly. I'd doubt that most people would post such pictures on the internet. But I simply don't have the numbers to be able to know what the risk is.

You can say that they made a miscalculation, but I think that is different from blaming them. I think we are also disagreeing about the use of the word 'blame'. I'd say there is a difference between saying that they had bad judgement, and saying they are to blame. The latter, in my opinion, is closer to saying it's their own fault, so they deserve what they get.

Sorry, I'm just trying to make my points clear.

If you post something on the internet it's pretty much there forever you don't get a choice in how it's used.

Sending a picture to someone doesn't have to be by internet though.

Whose attacking her? And the advice she's getting is to not send nude pictures of herself to people.. which we are being told is somehow "attacking the victim".

I didn't read advice, so much as condemnation. Perhaps the advice is good, but what has been said by some wasn't merely advice.

That would totally depend upon the neighborhood.

True. I guess it comes down to how bad you think the risk is again.

In this thread? Where?

The OP. I think the insults that others have aimed at her may implicitly be making it sound like she deserved it. That just my interpretation anyway.

The victim isn't here we aren't talking to her, I'd be more worried if people were talking to her that way directly than talking about her foolishness when she'll never know it.

Insulting someone to their face is obviously worse, but I'm not against the insults because they are insulting. I'm against them because they seem to be advocating a bad moral evaluation of the situation... in my opinion. I'm not sure that's the right wording for what I mean though.

In these cases does she bear any responsibiity for doing something foolish that made her an easier target?

It depends what you mean.

 

[RDKirk]

That is a valid method of argumentation. Showing how following a principle leads to absurd consequences calls into question the validity of the principle.

Reduction to absurdity is not, however, a valid tool for determining public policy, which is what is being discussed here.. It leads to extremely poor laws--in this case, there is a call to treat an attempt to humilliate as though it were a physical assault. Some states sentence rapists to death--is that what you're calling for here?

Yes, that's all very sensible. However, where is the line drawn, and why? When girls are blamed for being raped, isn't the tendency to advise girls to live even more sheltered lives? Isn't rape the "proof" that they should minimize their risks even further?

What's wrong in this conversation is the conflation of the word "blame." The real issue here is "foolishness," which can be evident even if it does not result in unfortunate consequences.

It's not like I haven't seen the tendency in American culture towards minimal-risk ethics. Who was it -- Zig Ziglar, perhaps -- who advocated this explicitly? I'm not saying that it is the cultural norm to advise people to avoid parties that serve alcohol, but there may be sub-cultural tendencies in that direction.

And you seem to be advocating minimal-consequence ethics, a society in which everyone is free to be foolish and all negative consequences of foolishness will be blamed on someone else.

 

[elephunky]

Because you aren't required to be online, or have a social media presence.

Everyone is online somewhere somehow. It is impossible to do anyting without being online these days, even something as simple as applying for a job.

Pretty sure most people already teach their kids that. And yet kids still act like brats.

Obviously they are doing it wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

Everyone is online somewhere somehow. It is impossible to do anyting without being online these days, even something as simple as applying for a job.

Just heard on NPR today...14 % of American adults are not online at all. Actually, I'd have expected the number to be larger.

 

[elephunky]

Just heard on NPR today...14 % of American adults are not online at all. Actually, I'd have expected the number to be larger.

Most things require an email address thse days

 

[RDKirk]

Most things require an email address thse days

Considering that there is a lot of stuff on the internet--like millions of forums to log on to--it would be true to say "most things" at least in an industrial country.

But there are lots of people living lives in this world where "most things" that are actually necessary don't require an email address.

I can't actually think of anything necessary even in the US that requires an email address.

 

[elephunky]

Considering that there is a lot of stuff on the internet--like millions of forums to log on to--it would be true to say "most things" at least in an industrial country.

But there are lots of people living lives in this world where "most things" that are actually necessary don't require an email address.

I can't actually think of anything necessary even in the US that requires an email address.

I was thinking of western countries specifically.

My sister has to be online with the way her school stuff is set up.
I have to have an email address when applying for jobs or setting up a membership of some kind. That kind of thing. We live in the digitial age.

I shouldnt see why people should have to avoid being online because of bullies etc anyway.

 

[Armoured]

Everyone is online somewhere somehow. It is impossible to do anyting without being online these days, even something as simple as applying for a job.



Obviously they are doing it wrong.

Everyone is online (more or less) sure. But no one is forcing people into social networks where they are bullied or forcing anyone to post nude selfies. I get that the desire to be accepted and belong is very strong, really I do, but surely there comes a point where even the loneliest introvert can recognise that they're involved in a toxic online community, and that its time to leave.?