| sundin13 said: 1) To act like "Marital Rape" is sufficiently different from "Spousal Rape" is to basically use semantics to build a wall where none exists. While "marital rape" does have some additional stigma, in effect, the two are extremely similar. This leads to point 2... 2) Your cutting of my sentence seems to have cut out all the context of my question. Go back and reread the whole sentence and you should see that you did not answer my question. My point was that, as marital rape and spousal rape are not sufficiently different, the act of marriage does not incur further risk in effect. This means that by getting married, all you are doing is changing the verbiage of abuse, not the effect or reality of said abuse. As such, there is no logic in saying that someone accepted the risk by getting married, as that risk was already there. Are you understanding what I'm saying? 3) To introduce these additional elements is to move the goalposts, more or less. Basically, you have been arguing from a position where responsibility of the raped individual for the actions that led to this occurrence is the default, assumed position. You are not arguing from specific circumstances where risk is more apparent, you are arguing from this broad statement, that responsibility is the default. This is the core of my problem with your argument. That these "mistakes" are inherent to the situation. You are not asking for clarification as to whether these individuals were swimming in Australia or England (so to speak), you are simply placing the responsibility on the victim by default. 4) And finally, I would just like to stress that there is a pretty big difference between telling someone to make responsible decisions and telling someone that they have made poor choices. I'll add that one of my biggest problems with your arguments has been that you have been applying these criticisms to actions that someone took in the past. You have been pushing for telling a rape victim how their actions led to them being raped. I have no issue with, say, encouraging victims of domestic abuse to go to the police. I do have a pretty big problem with saying to victims of domestic abuse "You did say 'for better or for worse', so I mean, you shouldn't be surprised by the fact that you have been abused. You need to take responsibility for your actions." |
First I want to say that in an ideal situation I would be speaking with a person that has NOT YET been raped so the core of my message would be about prevention in the form of advice to make responsible choices so I don't have to tell her that it's her fault or whatever you are saying I would try to tell that person.
Second I made that very clear in past posts that the language I hold here is a language of debate and not the actual language I would have with someone that is a victim of rape. So I'm sorry but you are wrong about my intentions. I would not tell someone that is a victim of rape that their choices are the cause of what happened etc. That would be pretty much the same as telling them that the rape is their fault, why would I do that? What I would do is discuss with them about how to NEVER be raped again by making responsible choices in the future. I have explained that already so I'm not sure why you keep believing that I'd be this guy pointing an accusing finger at the victim's poor choices.
I'm the guy that tells a little kid that just got burned out by matches "I told you it would burn" in the hopes that he understands that fire is not to be played with because it will inevitably burn. The ACTUAL responsibility of keeping the child safe from fire is STILL MINE, I CANNOT leave a little kid unattended cause if he hurts himself it would still be my entire responsibility. But if I don't try to make him take the very basic responsibility of his choice, if I tell him "poor little sweetie who got burned by that bad mister fire" in his head he does not have to be careful cause he will believe he has absolutely no part or responsibility in what happened. So he's gonna play with fire again cause the burn has nothing to do with his choices. But if I tell him "I told you that fire would burn" chances are he will get a little more wise and not play with fire next time cause hopefully he understands the very basic notion that CHOOSING to go ahead and play with fire will have a consequence of this unpleasant feel of burning.
I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this cause I see no other outcome. But I want to point out that while I fundamentally disagree with your approach of the situation, I still respect your opinion.
