View previous topic | View next topic

Assault vs Sexual Assault - a civilised debate

Page 2 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Celebaelin
1372115.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:30 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
This is the thing that always annoyed me when my sister would be told to be careful going to some places, but not me, and I even had to "chaperone" her to a couple of her first concerts as protection.

And now I see my nieces at the age when they're going out more (well, last year anyway) and they get the same advice, and it pisses me off. If one of them gets attacked and hurt, I hate the fact that somehow they're at fault for not taking extra care that other people don't have to. It's not about me being a "feminist" or a "liberal", owning a pair of sandals or occasionally craving a quiche, I hate that anyone my flesh and blood, or people I know can be blamed for being attacked, regardless of their sex, age, stature or other.

As I've never felt compelled to attack anyone I don't know what the major causes are, but I would hope there are people who can study these things. Whether it's part of a lack of certain education, a lack of recreational facilities, economic hardship, alcohol\substance abuse or other, there may be ways of tackling these issues.

Sure, there will always be the exceptions to the rule that don't fit any of these general reasons, but they should be far and few in between.

 
Celebaelin
1372116.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:31 pm Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
The worst sexually motivated murderer in Irish history was a celebrity architect, with a wife, two kids, the whole perfect world shebang. Don't make excuses. The issue is not some men or other men, it's systemic. The first thing any woman reporting a sexual assault will be asked is what she was wearing, was she sober, and was she out on her own after dark. If the answer to any of those three is anything but a flour bag, stone cold sober, and no, it'll be used for her rapist's defence. And no, a miniskirt does not entice men to sexually assault women nor implies consent. There are countless statistics that in societies that have only recently enforced strict modesty dress codes for women, rapes have actually gone up. It's never about sex, but always about power. Also, the woman who's been raped will deal with the after effects of the trauma for the rest of her life, but her rapist will as likely as not go scot-free if he is white, middle-class and has a promising career laid out for him because surely one silly mistake shouldn't be allowed to ruin his life. This is not about the occasional arsehole, this is about a system that facilitates that arsehole's behaviour and tells women it's their own fault for falling victim to him.

 
Celebaelin
1372117.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:31 pm Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
Well said, AFB.

 
Celebaelin
1372118.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:32 pm Reply with quote

My point originally was that this is an issue for both males and females and everything Iíve personally seen suggests to me that females are much in the minority as regards being the victims of assault. I would go so far as to say I have never seen a female victim of assault but I have seen a great many males in the process of being beaten up, with blood pouring from them immediately afterwards and with the evidence and consequences of cuts, bruises and more serious injuries at still later stages. From time to time I have seen these things in the mirror.

My contention is that any individual should be concerned enough for their own welfare to make rational assessments of what it is and is not safe for them to do and whilst there should be no mitigation of the crime because of a lack of caution on the part of the victim

i) The attacker will not always be caught
and
ii) Crimes subsequent to the taking of unnecessary risks will never be condoned by the police since the increase in reported crime makes them look bad

Jenny wrote:
Why should we think that people of reduced physical capacity have a reduced right to live their lives as they choose because others are scum-sucking cowards?

I think itís important to point out that the only reference to any reduced physical capacity I made was with regard to myself and I was expressing the view that we live in a real world not an idealised one where everyone gets to behave exactly as they please without accepting that some choices they make may be more dangerous than others. As such I do not expose myself to as much danger as I once did because I am in greater doubt of my ability to extricate myself from any given situation. Disregard for the bold facts of existence starts to look like sheer bloody-mindedness rather than a rational decision. There are a great many things I havenít done as an adult because I was not and am not physically suited to the task e.g. rock climbing - but I wouldnít complain about some bias in the organisation of those activities because I cannot achieve the power to weight ratios required to spend much time doing anything other than dangling from a rope.

Jenny wrote:
When you point out that a person of reduced physical capacity is 'exposing themselves to risk', that's basically what you are doing.

Yes it is, but the point I was making is that it's not in and of itself a male/female divide as was originally asserted - each person must make their own choices given the circumstances that exist. I would not and do not through choice approach the edges of high vantage points because I dislike the sensation I get from it. Do I resent this? Well yes, a bit, but this is a circumstance beyond my control and the appropriate response is to avoid taking the risk of falling where possible. That the agent of fear in this case is gravity not sociopathic humans is not really relevant to determining the safe course of action.

The decision is a practical one not a moralistic speculation over how much nicer the world might be if we were evolved from herbivores rather than cooperative hunters.

Do I wish it were safe for everybody to wander around in low light areas late at night without fear?
Yes.
Have I ever taken steps personally to try and ensure that this is at least less hazardous for other members of the public?
Yes.
Can I or anyone else guarantee the safety of any person who chooses to do this?
No.
Given that there are known risks is the decision to voluntarily undertake such walks the responsibility of the individual?
Yes.
Should the legal ramifications for any person apprehended and convicted for being involved in crime be lessened because of imprudent choices on the part of the victim?
No.
Are they?
Dunno. On the basis that the words Ďin his/her/their own homeí are sometimes heard maybe so but this also implies an intruder in a private residence and thus a raft of other potential offences.
Given that the same crimes have been committed is any of this in any way changed by the sex of the attacker or victim.
No.

franticllama wrote:
As you point out, you are a physically larger male and I will simply take it as read that this has largely, if not wholly, informed your opinion.

As has been said I didn't actually point that out in this conversation but that is the case and it has certainly influenced my behaviour in this regard. That is rather the point of course - as a younger and physically fairly competent guy I have felt essentially morally obliged to register a presence from time to time to level the playing field. If I had considered myself vulnerable I would not have done so as the unsavoury 'elements' we are talking about here tend not to respond kindly to territorial challenges when they think they can get away with it.

That I neither approve of nor tolerate such intimidatory pack responses should be obvious from my stated actions; I merely acknowledge those responses as a normal mode of behaviour amongst the young, stupid and occasionally, more worryingly, mentally disturbed.

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
Nice to be a man I guess.

Nope, not really; the threats are mainly the same but the element of duty by reason of physical competence enters into it such that deliberately exposing oneself to the risk of physical attack is something one ought to do for the common good rather than something one would happily choose to do with a song in ones heart and a cheesy grin on ones face.

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
How about instead of telling me not to expose myself to danger, just tell men not to be one? Just saying...

Consider it done Ė on several occasions; especially since this exchange of views is the first time Iíve ever mentioned it in writing or in conversation. It is of course almost exclusively men who are the perpetrators although I have been dismayed to hear a female voice urging them on to greater heights of stupidity from time to time. A warning wonít always work however Ė it might slip from memory or never be heeded in the first place Ė Iím reminded of this

Blackadder wrote:
Come on, I wasn't born yesterday.
More's the pity, we could have started your personality from scratch.

If I may ask AFB are there any actions or modes of behaviour on the part of the victim that you would consider as mitigating circumstances? I fully understand that the answer to this question may be 'no' when I suspect the answer in law would be 'yes'. Indications of mutuality would seem to be a case in point although I've not given this a great deal of thought or investigation.

In general Iím going to say that I obviously donít know if or how many times any of you have been attacked but I can say that it has happened to me a perhaps a dozen times and Iíve been threatened countless more. I canít say Iím a big fan Ďcos you can never win in that situation except possibly by running away successfully or the vindication of ultimately seeing people arrested while you are free to go about your business. If youíve been drinking at all the chances are that the outcome will be nothing more than a police taxi ride home for the aggressor although I did once get a quiet ĎWell doneí from one of the officers before he took the Ďgentlemení, who were previously known to the police, home. On another occasion I brought a series of local burglaries to an end by laying eyes on the perpetrators but only after fighting off three of them in a deserted pub car park while the others were burgling my parents house. Hardly any of these instances were in circumstances that Iíd identified as high risk because basically I wouldnít have hung around there if Iíd perceived that as being the case. Thereís a sort of incredulity bubble that has to be burst before you realise that something unpleasant is about to happen so mainly you just donít see it coming Ė quite often literally as the concept of a stand up face to face one on one fight is unknown to the sort of people weíre talking about. Attacking from behind and/or with a blunt object is more their speed if theyíre committed to the notion so whilst the police do make an effort to establish evidence against criminals the best a private individual can do under most circumstances is to minimise the risk to themselves and if that means staying away from certain places at certain times thatís what you should do and no amount of bleating about how you shouldnít have to is going to change that in a free society.

Ultimately when violence becomes an element it is a matter of an individualís ability to control a situation physically and so itís a case of do as I say not as I do (or more accurately did) Iím sorry to say.

 
Celebaelin
1372119.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:32 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:

... deliberately exposing oneself to the risk of physical attack is something one ought to do for the common good...


What an extraordinary statement. In what way is "the common good" served if you go round trying to get attacked?

Quote:
In general Iím going to say that I obviously donít know if or how many times any of you have been attacked but I can say that it has happened to me a perhaps a dozen times and Iíve been threatened countless more.


Well I'm not surprised if you go round deliberately doing it for "the common good". I certainly don't. I keep well away from that sort of thing, thank you very much, but I like to think I've got a bit of common sense.

 
Celebaelin
1372120.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:33 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:

... deliberately exposing oneself to the risk of physical attack is something one ought to do for the common good...

What an extraordinary statement. In what way is "the common good" served if you go round trying to get attacked?

The key word there is risk. Basically I'd rather it was me metaphorically checking doors and padlocks rather than someone less able to deal with the situation if anything went awry.

Brock wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
In general Iím going to say that I obviously donít know if or how many times any of you have been attacked but I can say that it has happened to me a perhaps a dozen times and Iíve been threatened countless more.

Well I'm not surprised if you go round deliberately doing it for "the common good". I certainly don't. I keep well away from that sort of thing, thank you very much, but I like to think I've got a bit of common sense.

Doing what? There I was maliciously and contemptuously breathing while taking a walk down a lit high street, sitting on a bench by a bus stop with a mate, strolling home by the most direct route along a poorly lit tarmac pavement etc. - these are all circumstances under which I have been attacked and my behaviour in all cases was assuredly not provocative so much as carefree. Unfortunately there are plenty of little shits around who it seems are so desperate for their due sum of fear and 'respect' that they will demand it, and often more material objects as well, with menaces; I'll give you one guess how much fear and respect I think they're due.

 
Celebaelin
1372121.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:34 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I came here to post some things, but found Cel had pretty much covered everything I had to say. However, the first part of Brock's post above struck something of a chord with me.

As many of you (but perhaps not Brock) will know, in my younger days I dedicated a good deal of my time and money, and a small but not insignificant amount of my blood, to the Guardian Angels. We certainly felt at the time that we were working for the public good, by making whatever part of the world we happened to be in at the time, rather safer for the vulnerable than it otherwise might have been. The huge amount of positive feedback we got from the public only served to strengthen our conviction. I know my personal intervention in numerous situations prevented people suffering injury, and at least twice my actions may have saved someone's life. Regardless of the irrelevance it became, I will always consider the time I put in well spent.

 
Celebaelin
1372122.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:34 pm Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
And very fair play for you for it! :-) That doesn't, however, change the systemic misogyny that facilitates violence against women.

 
Celebaelin
1372123.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:35 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Brock wrote:

Quote:
In general Iím going to say that I obviously donít know if or how many times any of you have been attacked but I can say that it has happened to me a perhaps a dozen times and Iíve been threatened countless more.


Well I'm not surprised if you go round deliberately doing it for "the common good". I certainly don't. I keep well away from that sort of thing, thank you very much, but I like to think I've got a bit of common sense.


So you are saying that when Cel was attacked it was his own fault because he was clearly gagging for it, and he should change his behaviour to avoid being attacked?

PDR

 
Celebaelin
1372124.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:36 pm Reply with quote

(quote of the whole of the above omitted)
Brock wrote:
No, I said that I don't deliberately get myself into situations where I'm likely to be attacked, whether it's for "the common good" or for any other reason.

I'm sorry to hear that Celebaelin has been attacked so many times. He must either live in a very violent neighbourhood, or be extremely unlucky. He talked about "taking a walk down a lit high street, sitting on a bench by a bus stop with a mate, strolling home by the most direct route along a poorly lit tarmac pavement etc. - these are all circumstances under which I have been attacked and my behaviour in all cases was assuredly not provocative so much as carefree". Well I've been doing the same sorts of things all my life and I don't think I've been attacked once in the last 30 years. (A drunken tramp laid into me once in 1988, I think, but he was essentially harmless.)

If this sort of thing is routinely happening to Celebaelin and not to me, there must be some sort of reason for it, but I'm at a loss to understand why.

 
Celebaelin
1372125.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:39 pm Reply with quote

Sense of humour failures aside I should point out that the many and varied attacks have taken place in a range of locations around the country and if I was to guess at a reason I'd say that mainly it's precisely because I'm a physically big bloke and these morons are trying to prove that they are superior and not afraid by attacking a perceived threat en masse. What they actually establish by doing that is precisely the opposite of course which is at least slightly amusing. Was I responsible for making other people feel threatened by my mere presence? I'd say no but there are those who would criticise my choice of attire as a younger man for making people feel uneasy; I have been known to argue that that is their problem not mine and that nothing in my behaviour indicates any threatening intent. Anyway since that's going to happen anyway putting that reaction to good use by ensuring paths are relatively safe to walk for at least a window after I've used them seems worthwhile.

 
Celebaelin
1372126.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:40 pm Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
Small man syndrome is very present in the pubs in Glasgow. Drunk little weegee fancies his chances and usually winds up in the gutter.

 
Celebaelin
1372127.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:40 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Brock wrote:

No, I said that I don't deliberately get myself into situations where I'm likely to be attacked, whether it's for "the common good" or for any other reason.


So you are saying that for a man to avoid scenarios where there is a higher probability of being attacked is normal and reasonable.

In this thread people are suggesting that to advise women to avoid scenarios where there is a higher probability of being attacked is unacceptably abnormal and blaming the victim rather than addressing the behaviour of the assailant.

I'm just trying to understand why it's reasonable to advise a man not to go down dark alleys in the early hours, but it is unreasonable to offer the same advice to a woman.

PDR

 
Celebaelin
1372128.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:40 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
PDR wrote:
Brock wrote:

No, I said that I don't deliberately get myself into situations where I'm likely to be attacked, whether it's for "the common good" or for any other reason.


So you are saying that for a man to avoid scenarios where there is a higher probability of being attacked is normal and reasonable.


I was speaking purely for myself. I'm not very physically strong, and would have great difficulty defending myself in such a situation, so my policy is always to keep well away from potential trouble.

Quote:
In this thread people are suggesting that to advise women to avoid scenarios where there is a higher probability of being attacked is unacceptably abnormal and blaming the victim rather than addressing the behaviour of the assailant.


I have made no such claim one way or the other. Other people will have to speak for themselves on that issue.

Quote:
I'm just trying to understand why it's reasonable to advise a man not to go down dark alleys in the early hours, but it is unreasonable to offer the same advice to a woman.


Well I don't agree with that statement. People have to make such judgements for themselves. I try not to make such judgements on behalf of other people.

 
Celebaelin
1372129.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:41 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
Iím so grateful to my parents for mixing the genes in the correct proportions to make me the Goldilocks size - not too big and not too small. Iím big enough that I can demand attention and am taken seriously and yet small enough that Iíve never had to swing a fist (or collect one for that matter) by someone trying to prove his masculinity. Of course that might well be related to my naturally sunny disposition and charming nature.

On the other hand I have acquaintances of various sizes (oddly though, all smaller than me) who have been in many fights over the years. Iíve always assumed itís just because they actually quite enjoy it and gladly sail in, blocking punches with their jaws and noses, while others are still at the ďmy dad is bigger than your dadĒ stage.

 

Page 2 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group