View previous topic | View next topic

Assault vs Sexual Assault - a civilised debate

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

Celebaelin
1372100.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:18 pm Reply with quote

To begin with - an explanatory note:

I'm transferring this from its place in The Venting Thread because it doesn't belong there frankly and I suspect more contributions will be forthcoming.

I've decided to post each contribution separately; as I don't have Jenny's Moderatory super-powers these will all appear in my name but I've separated them so that anyone wishing to reference a particular point can do so more precisely as each original will retain a separate identity rather than being a part of a single huge post of point and counter-point.

At time of writing Jenny feels she has concluded her argument but I have not as yet replied to her last illustrative post at any length and I certainly intend to do so the debate may yet rumble on. Whatever the outcome of later posts may be the topic was raised for discussion like this:

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
Nice to be a man I guess. There's plenty such places around here and I'd love to go up there on my own to stargaze, but if I did and anything happened to me, I'd be blamed for exposing myself to such obvious danger...

It saddens me that your apprehension is immediately set out as a sex-based complaint rather than looking to a universal principle of responsible self-preservation; not that I doubt the necessity for individual caution or that an average person would take a greater risk for the same action simply by the fact of being female but this point is not divided exclusively along gender lines - guys can be, and are, attacked and part of the reason this happens more to younger men is that they are more likely to ignore, or seek to overcome, their fears and thus will deliberately expose themselves to danger. Loathsome as it is there are scum-sucking cowards out there who relish bullying in all its forms because it inflates their egos; they are, if you like, overcoming their own fears by victimising other people in various ways. Without any pause for thought I can think of five separate occasions when, as an adult, I have been physically attacked by groups of young men - the times when I've managed to dissuade assailants by talking to them don't even register as unusual incidents in the long term.

As my level of fitness has become eroded by accumulated long-term injuries and the gradual drip of passing years I no longer feel competent to risk putting myself in danger to promote general public safety but there was a time when upon occasion I'd go out of my way to walk the darkened paths of local parks and lay eyes on any loitering groups. At what point the level of physical response a given individual might be able to provide makes that person more of a game warden than a victim is a matter for debate but I trust you will agree that as a rule females are, by physicality and training, generally less able to meet any threat with the appropriate level of response; especially given the superiority implicit even in the circumstance-dependent definition of reasonable force in English Law. The whole concern shouldn't really be demarked along the lines of sex or gender though but rather along the lines of one's willingness to expose oneself to potential hazards presumably as a result of one's ability to respond in a reasonable and controlled way to any resulting physical threat.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:36 am; edited 3 times in total

 
Celebaelin
1372101.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:21 pm Reply with quote

(quote of the whole of the above omitted)
Alfred E Neuman wrote:
So your argument essentially boils down to “She was asking for it”?

 
Celebaelin
1372102.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:21 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Afaics, what Cel is saying is that smaller and physically less able people are less safe in such situations, and such people tend to be female. Where you got "she was asking for it" from, eludes me atm.

 
Celebaelin
1372103.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:22 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
He is placing the blame on the victim, instead of the aggressor. You may not see where I got “she was asking for it” from, and Cel probably won’t either, but I’m pretty certain many, if not most, women would.

 
Celebaelin
1372104.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:23 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
So your argument essentially boils down to “She was asking for it”?

If only I'd realised that my views could be paraphrased so accurately and succinctly I wouldn't have bothered writing two paragraphs. I was at pains to point out how, in my opinion based on personal experience, a reasonable proportion of assaults are not an issue of sex or gender but one of perceived (by the attacker or attackers) individual physical capacity.

I thank you for your mindlessly accusatory and completely distorted summation - I shall mentally place it in 'the round file' where I will be able to give it all the consideration it deserves; it clearly took both jots of your intellect to construct such a piercing and insightful critique of my views.

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
[Cel] is placing the blame on the victim, instead of the aggressor.

No I'm not.

Celebaelin wrote:
Loathsome as it is there are scum-sucking cowards out there who relish bullying in all its forms because it inflates their egos; they are, if you like, overcoming their own fears by victimising other people in various ways.

and
Celebaelin wrote:
...I can think of five separate occasions when, as an adult, I have been physically attacked by groups of young men...

If you're going to quote me - in full no less - in future please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I wrote before doing so.

What I did say is that I have stopped occasionally deliberately 'patrolling' in deference to my gradually diminishing physical capacity. Everybody has to make a decision about what is wise in terms of personal safety - it is not an exclusively male/female point of concern although for reasons of average physical size and strength women are more likely to be vulnerable.

Did you even look at my post again before responding to crissdee or did you just ignore his appraisal and assume your own assessment was unassailably correct?

 
Celebaelin
1372105.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:24 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Although I see and respect where you are coming from, Cel, I can also see why Alf responded as he did.

Assaults on a person of reduced physical capacity are more likely to happen precisely because a scum-sucking coward chooses to inflict them. The assault is therefore the fault of the coward, not of the victim. 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? When you point out that a person of reduced physical capacity is 'exposing themselves to risk', that's basically what you are doing.

 
Celebaelin
1372106.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:26 pm Reply with quote

franticllama wrote:
I was going to respond along a similar line to Alf but then decided I couldn't be bothered to get into an internet argument / discussion. 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.

 
Celebaelin
1372107.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:26 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
franticllama wrote:
As you point out, you are a physically larger male


Who does "you" refer to here? I've re-read the thread a few times and I can't see anyone claiming to be a physically larger male.

 
Celebaelin
1372108.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:27 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
I’m not about to enter a discussion (or an argument, or even a mudslinging session) with you. I don’t give enough of a shit quite frankly, particularly because it’s not going to go anywhere, given that your first line of defence is to attempt to bully me.

If you read my reply to crissdee, you’ll see that I wasn’t expecting you to be able to see my point, and you didn’t even try. For the record, I’ve read your post a few times, and it reads the same. Your personal experience, as a man physically and mentally able to challenge “loitering groups“, does not translate to what a woman experiences.

So all that’s left now is for you to throw a few more petulant insults my way and we can call it done.

 
Celebaelin
1372109.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:27 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
If I understood correctly, the suggestion given is that women are more likely to be attacked because of their smaller size, but I have to disagree with that.

Having previously lived near some rough estates it was not that common to hear about smaller men or boys attacked (other than idiotic turf wars), but it was all too common to hear about women being attacked.

 
Celebaelin
1372110.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:28 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
Alfred E Neuman wrote:
I’m not about to enter a discussion (or an argument, or even a mudslinging session) with you.


And who does the "you" refer to here? Me? Franticllama? Jenny? Celebaelin?

Please everyone, if you're going to use second-person references, give some indication of who they're addressed to. Otherwise the thread is impossible to follow.

 
Celebaelin
1372111.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:28 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I've lived near a few rough estates as well CB - and the issue was often not down to "size" but more often than not it was down to stature.
You can often see who is more likely to be the victim of an attack just by looking at them. and AFB is actually correct, if she isn't confident in visit certain areas, then avoiding them is the best plan. That is nothing really to do with gender, but everything to do with common sense.
The problem that I think Celebian is seeing is the precursor that "as a male" it is safe to visit an area. It isn't fact that the stargazer in AFB's example is male, it's he (in the example given) has the confidence to visit without fear.

 
Celebaelin
1372112.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:28 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
I understand, but I think it's wrong to accept that people, and especially women, should avoid going to places because of the actions of others. I think it's equally wrong to approach the problem as having to teach self defence to people.

Instead it should be highlighted so that we can study and look to what might need to change. This could involve making some areas safer, or it could be looking at how society\economy\education is structured that people feel the need to commit these attacks.

 
Celebaelin
1372113.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:29 pm Reply with quote

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

 
Celebaelin
1372114.  Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:30 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
How about just telling idiotic cowards not to be one?

 

Page 1 of 9
Goto page 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