Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 01-27-2018, 07:17 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The set of "being morally fine" does not include "being a sexual predator." Yes, I do "assume" that.
And once again, that's not even what I just said.

That two sets are mutually exclusive is a different matter than their being mutually exhaustive.

I know you know the difference between these two things. Something about this conversation is leading you not to understand things that I know you understand.

Quote:

The "can have"? According to the experts when the apology demonstrate taking responsibility, true remorse, and validate what the victim feels. Didn't I say that?
That's not what I'm asking. You're telling me the qualities of the apology that lead to good results. I'm asking what circumstances are necessary for apologies of that quality to have good results.
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com

Last edited by Frylock; 01-27-2018 at 07:18 AM.
  #652  
Old 01-27-2018, 03:18 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
No snark intended but I do not think that I am the one having a hard time understanding things here.

The expert opinion reads to me that the circumstance in which a sincere, honestly remorseful (etc.) apology for sexual assault may help is its being given to a victim of sexual assault who been psychologically harmed by that assault. The article suggests that perhaps most helpful for those who are angry at their attacker and that "survivors who get apologies often recover faster than others who receive no closure." Are you going to key in on the "may" or the "often" now? Do you want a 100% guarantee that the right sort of apology will help? Sorry, none available.

And to make very clear - an apology does not include asking for or looking for forgiveness. An apology asks for nothing from the victim.


I really am very struck and disturbed by your apparent position that you committed sexual assault and were "lucky" that your friend did not go to a newspaper presumptively to try to punish you in the name of justice (although of course it would have been her harmed more than you) but that such allows you "to feel relief that for her it was, in the end, (I believe), a minor thing"

Two thirds of the time actual victims harmed by significant sexual assault do not report the crime. Yes the perps can feel relief that they were "lucky" but if it was sexual assault they are delusional to thereby conclude that it must have been, in the end, a minor thing.

Demanding a victim to seek out her assaulter in the hope that he might be able to demonstrate true remorse, take responsibility, and validate her feelings, while asking for nothing from her in return? Your female friends who you think have told you that it is on the victim to seek out the apology and that a perpetrator who is ready to make a real apology should keep it to themselves? I think you are misunderstanding them.
  #653  
Old 01-27-2018, 04:10 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
Amongst the many huge and obvious differences between the two scenarios, there is in particular the following huge and obviously relevant difference: Grace has come forward publicly about the matter, basically inviting response*, while my friend has not.

I've told this story a few times in the past. Are you two both guys? I ask because, though it may be a coincidence, the fact is, it is always and only men who encourage me to revisit the issue with her. Most men, and all women, who have heard the story thus far, have said the best thing is to leave it be, for the reasons I've stated.

*Remember "Don't come to me, I'll come to you"?
I suspect that most people you tell this story suggest that you leave it be because they don't really think you committed sexual assault. I know I don't and I'd probably tell you to not bring it up either. What I am surprised at is that you accept that advice given that you believe you did. If I got drunk and got all handsy with a female friend, I would goddamn well offer up a sincere apology.
  #654  
Old 01-27-2018, 06:00 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
DSeid, when a reader consistently ascribes views to the author that the author didn't state, nor imply, it's not the author's fault.

DSeid and CarnalK, you are both still working on an assumption--which you seem to think I share!--which I have explicitly denied and argued against. Namely, that assumption is the idea that sexual assault is inherently horrific and traumatizing. It can be, but it often is not. This is part of the message we're getting from women these days--that lots of things we've told ourselves as a culture are just "annoyances" or "bad date experiences" because they're not hugely traumatizing--are actually felt by many women to be of a piece in quality if not in severity with sexual assault. It's the same phenomenon, wrong for the same reasons, and to be avoided just as carefully.

Insisting it only "counts" if it's horrific and traumatizing serves only to justify, or at least pass over in silence as though unimportant, the cases that are still moral wrongs though neither horrific nor traumatizing.

CarnalK you definitely should be horrified by what you read about me considering myself to be a "bad dude" who got lucky. That's the point. And the point, further, is that you (if youre a guy, and possibly if you're not) and all guys should be racking their memories for similar instances, because it's time for them to stop thinking of themselves as innocents just naturally doing what guys do, or innocents just being silly and clumsy and awkward, but instead, as what they are: bad dudes who got lucky.

Then, instead of continuing to act like the world is divided into evil monsters and innocents, they'll more helpfully see the world as complex, one about which they must think critically concerning their roles and actions rather than simply feeling like they've picked the right side and that's it.

Instead of centering their self-evaluation on their own circumstances, they'll center it on what they've done to others.

Instead of consciously, half consciously, or unconsciously, using their gender and perceived social maladaptions as an excuse to get away with shit and not wrestle with themselves over it, they'll own up to their behavior.

And instead of seeing guys who are successfully shown to be sexual assaulters as hopeless cases, horrible people who can't be reached, they'll correctly identify with them in a way that will allow for honest, constructive, growth-oriented discussions with them.

All so that men will stop casually mistreating women.

As to whether what I did was sexual assault, or what Ansari did--in the Ansari case the only question is whether he reasonably believed he had consent. No need to rehash that, it's been talked about over and again in this thread. The underlying acts (in particular the kissing and the ramming of a penis into an ass) are unquestionably acts that underly sexual assault in the absence of consent. In my own case, I clearly did not have consent, but as to the underlying act it depends on whether, in the federal statute I linked to, the phrase "including any sexual contact" is meant to _limit_ the definition of "bodily harm" as "any offensive touching," or only to give one possible _example_ of "any offensive touching." If the latter, then even in the narrow legal sense, I certainly committed sexual assault. But even if that's not the case, there is not much moral difference between touching a woman's thighs very close to sexually charged areas without her permission, and touching her sexually charged areas without her permission, no matter what legal distinctions may exist there.
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #655  
Old 01-27-2018, 06:04 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If I got drunk and got all handsy with a female friend, I would goddamn well offer up a sincere apology.
If you got drubnk and got all handsy with a female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not (say she was drunk too), and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later some people on the internet who you don't know said you should now apologize to her... would you think that was reasonable?
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com

Last edited by Frylock; 01-27-2018 at 06:05 PM.
  #656  
Old 01-27-2018, 06:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
If you got drubnk and got all handsy with a female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not (say she was drunk too), and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later some people on the internet who you don't know said you should now apologize to her... would you think that was reasonable?
Apologies are pretty much always for the benefit of the apologizer, not the one receiving it.

In this scenario, you (hypothetical you) assaulted her, and then lied about it.

Every day that you continued to remain friends is a continuance of that lie.

I don't think an apology is quite enough there.
  #657  
Old 01-27-2018, 07:32 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
Yes Frylock no one else in this thread and extremely few in the English speaking world use the word "assault" to encompass actions like pulling someone from in front of a moving train or giving CPR and your idiosyncratic usage of the phrase "sexual assault" as a fairly benign entity is not used by most.

There is some false ascribing going on here and you are the one doing it. FWIW I do not see, and do not read CarnalK as seeing, "the world is divided into evil monsters and innocents." (If anything in the Grace-Ansari story the objection many of us have had is to that simplistic formula in which Grace is cast as "innocent" and Ansari as "The Monster".)

I get the tactic you are attempting. It is one that is tried in other discussions too. We see it often with some trying to get all White people to accept that they are "racists." Wotta surprise that few take being called a racist and lumping them with the Klan as an invitation to examine how they may have behaviors that have racist impacts even though they have no explicit racist beliefs at all. The tactic of getting the average liberal White with no explicit racist beliefs to identify as a racist in order to get them to explore how they may without conscious thought do things with racist impact fails miserably every time.

"Sexual assault" does not include making requests during a sexual encounter in progress, it does not mean an arm around a shoulder in a movie theater on a date that turned out to be unwanted, and it does not include every honest miscommunication. And placing ALL the responsibility for any miscommunication between the genders regarding potential sexual wants and not wants on males is a poor way to get a conversation about how communication regarding sexual interests and disinterest misfires going and a piss-poor way to encourage self-reflection. "You too are a sexual assaulter", "you are a bad dude who got lucky", is a polarizing conversation ender that closes down consideration of complexities and the grey zones.

Communication is complex and communication regarding sex more landmine laden than most. GOOD people of both genders fail to communicate clearly and that failure does not make either of them BAD people. Start for a presumption that GOOD people can make mistakes and learn to improve and consider the process of typical interaction more than labelling men as "bad" and women as victims. Save the bad dude victim language for, well, the bad dudes who are actually victimizing women.
  #658  
Old 01-27-2018, 08:44 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
If you got drubnk and got all handsy with a female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not (say she was drunk too), and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later some people on the internet who you don't know said you should now apologize to her... would you think that was reasonable?
Oh. As to this one. As you are stating these things are "of a piece in quality if not in severity" it seems reasonable to go a bit more along the line to make this clear.

If you got drunk and had intercourse with an even more drunk, basically passed out, female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not, and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later some people on the internet who you don't know said you should now apologize to her... would you think that was reasonable? How about if you had digitally penetrated her while she was virtually passed out and she did not remember and you lied about it? Felt her breasts? Grabbed her ass? Which sexual assault would you apologize for having done and for having lied about and which not? Does its being one year or ten years or twenty three years alter the moral calculus? Why or why not?
  #659  
Old 01-27-2018, 08:45 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
You and I agree that good people can make mistakes and learn to improve and consider the process. For example, I'd call myself a good person. And Ansari himself may for all I know be a good person.

If I had my druthers "good person" and "bad person" wouldn't be terms that exist in any language. However, exist they do. And given that they do exist, it makes sense to me to follow the logic of "bad person" where it leads. Since a person who is not careful about consent is a bad person, it follows that Ansari and I are bad people. It follows that practically all of us are. And it is precisely hat realization, that we good people are also bad people, that the "bad people" aren't these others, separate from us, which can lead us to learn to improve after making mistakes.
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #660  
Old 01-27-2018, 08:51 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Oh. As to this one. As you are stating these things are "of a piece in quality if not in severity" it seems reasonable to go a bit more along the line to make this clear.

If you got drunk and had intercourse with an even more drunk, basically passed out, female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not, and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later some people on the internet who you don't know said you should now apologize to her... would you think that was reasonable? How about if you had digitally penetrated her while she was virtually passed out and she did not remember and you lied about it? Felt her breasts? Grabbed her ass? Which sexual assault would you apologize for having done and for having lied about and which not? Does its being one year or ten years or twenty three years alter the moral calculus? Why or why not?
What is your argument here?

A lot of details would need to be known about each of these situations in order for anyone to be able to say anything informative about them.

But let's assume I gave you the wrong answers in each case. What's your argument?

What is the relevance of your questions to the idea I've expressed, that one thing we're learning from many of the women speaking on this issue, that many things we think of as minor or even normal, are in fact, "of a piece with, in quality if not in severity," sexual assault as traditionally conceived?
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #661  
Old 01-27-2018, 09:14 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
There are no additional details needed to offer an opinion about those scenarios and the effort you are making to avoid responding to them is ... well I'll use the word "amusing."

To state what should be obvious about how it is relevant-

When things are "all of a piece" exploring the gradations and the complexities, figuring out where, if anywhere, it becomes grey, is to me always a more useful exercise than is simplistic labelling. And 'right" or "wrong" is less important than the exploration of where right and wrong answers become harder to give. To me none of those are grey at all. The behavior in each is indeed sexual assault and the man's lying to cover up his crime is also a "not morally fine" thing to do, even though it spared her the retraumatization of knowing that she had been raped or molested while too drunk to consent. Her not knowing because of the lie and time do not alter that calculus either. To you (who had all the information needed to condemn Ansari) these as-ifs are too grey without more details. Huh.

The discussion, not so much argument, could continue from there as to what aspects make those each actual sexual assault and what would need to be altered in the scenario to make it not be. What would not warrant a true remorseful apology with admission of responsibility years later? Well not actually being sexual assault would be a start.
  #662  
Old 01-27-2018, 09:31 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
To me none of those are grey at all. The behavior in each is indeed sexual assault and the man's lying to cover up his crime is also a "not morally fine" thing to do, even though it spared her the retraumatization of knowing that she had been raped or molested while too drunk to consent.

Ah I think there's been a misunderstanding. In no case--including my own--do I consider it okay to have initially lied to cover up the incident. I've been addressing the question of whether to bring it up 26 years later in order to apologize. Does that also seem black and white to you, easy to answer without additional information being relevant?
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #663  
Old 01-28-2018, 10:35 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Relevant SNL skit from last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWiz6WRbCA
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #664  
Old 01-28-2018, 01:45 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
... If I had my druthers "good person" and "bad person" wouldn't be terms that exist in any language. However, exist they do. And given that they do exist, it makes sense to me to follow the logic of "bad person" where it leads. Since a person who is not careful about consent is a bad person ...
Sounds like you want to go all original sin here: we are all bad people. The "logic" does not follow. Dividing the world into "good" and "bad" people may make for a fun show premise ("The Good Place") but it is in general a very silly thing to try to do in the real world. A person who does "a bad thing" is not necessarily a bad person. They are a person who did a bad thing. Should a parent react to their child caught lying to them by labelling the child a bad person?

The terms? [Yoda]Exist they do; use them we not must.[/Yoda] If we choose to use the terms, then let's restrict that use to those who have enough of a pervasive pattern of bad or good enough behavior that labelling them such is warranted. That's a smaller set of humanity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
Ah I think there's been a misunderstanding. In no case--including my own--do I consider it okay to have initially lied to cover up the incident. I've been addressing the question of whether to bring it up 26 years later in order to apologize. Does that also seem black and white to you, easy to answer without additional information being relevant?
First off - yes. Already said so: to me time does not alter the calculus given sexual assault having been committed. The scenarios I presented seem very black and white even without the active lie being told.

And the scenarios were premised off of what you presented:
Quote:
If you got drubnk and got all handsy with a female friend, and you remembered it clearly, but she did not (say she was drunk too), and she asked about it the next day, and you said nothing happened, and you continued to be good friends, and twenty three years later ...
So let's start with the premise as you presented it and as I then varied for the sake of the discussion. In your opinion does it being twenty three or six years later change what is the ethically and morally correct action to take? Does having continued to live the lie for decades make the lie smaller?

Now you want to take out the explicit lie and leave the scenarios otherwise the same? Sure. The next day she did not comment about it and he said nothing and behaved as if it had not happened. "Only" a lie by omission now. Maybe she remembered and chose to stay quiet, for any of a variety of reasons, or she maybe did not remember, but the individual did not himself say anything about it at the time or anytime after, while the whole time remaining what he would claim to be is her "good friend." Do the answers change?

Do you need additional facts? Which additional facts would change your answers? In what ways?
  #665  
Old 01-28-2018, 01:55 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Sounds like you want to go all original sin here: we are all bad people. The "logic" does not follow. Dividing the world into "good" and "bad" people may make for a fun show premise ("The Good Place") but it is in general a very silly thing to try to do in the real world. A person who does "a bad thing" is not necessarily a bad person. They are a person who did a bad thing. Should a parent react to their child caught lying to them by labelling the child a bad person?
Yes, I agree. This is why I think the terms would ideally not exist in the language.

But since they do, I use them as they are used. How they are used is inconsistent--on the one hand, they are used to divide things up as though things were black and white. On the other hand, they are used to apply to people in a way that doesn't actually admit of black and white divisions. In my view, original sin is built in to the way we talk about good guys and bad guys, good people and bad dudes, etc. It's an implication we prefer to avoid, but it's there anyway, and we ignore the implication because it is useful to do so, in order to separate ourselves from the possibility of thinking we're fundamentally capable of doing things we fundamentally disapprove of.

Between you and me, DSeid, let's resolve not to use the terms at all. Forget I ever said "bad dude". I wasn't speaking my own language at the time anyway. I was trying to speak everyone else's beep boop.

Ansari's behavior shows he may have, and may in the future, genuinely harm people in sexual situations--no matter what we think of whether Grace herself was harmed--and so it's a good idea for someone to warn others about him.

I think what you disagree about is whether he shows he may have, and may in the future, genuinely harm people in sexual situations, by his behavior in the grace situation. Is that correct?


Quote:
First off - yes. Already said so: to me time does not alter the calculus given sexual assault having been committed.

Probably not worth further argument. I'll just register that your position here seems not just incorrect but ethically repugnant!

Do you think a poll would bear out the idea that women would prefer, 26 years later, to be told, sans invitation, by someone they are friends with that 26 years ago when they said "no I didn't put my finger in your vagina while you were drunk" they were lying, and they did, and they've since come to realize what they did was bad, and they're resolved to do better, and they are sorry they did it?

Do you not think a significant percentage of people would strongly prefer that guy just keep it to himself?

If you do think so, you're saying that's not relevant to the ethics of coming forward?

Or do you really think people would, practically one hundred percent of them, want him to come forward with this??
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com

Last edited by Frylock; 01-28-2018 at 01:57 PM.
  #666  
Old 01-28-2018, 04:34 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
... I think what you disagree about is whether he shows he may have, and may in the future, genuinely harm people in sexual situations, by his behavior in the grace situation. Is that correct? ....
I think every man and woman may in the future genuinely harm people in sexual situations. Feelings are sensitive things and people sometimes get hurt when in pursuit of their strongest desires especially when it often includes being vulnerable. If what you are trying to ask is whether or not I believe his behavior as reported by Grace identifies him as someone more likely to cause others such pain than pretty much anyone else is, at least given a hook-up circumstance, then indeed the answer is that I do not believe so. The sort of miscommunication that occurred there will often occur between virtual strangers having a sexual encounter unless both parties are far above average at broadcasting what they do and do not want and at reading what the other does and does not want. The bad outcome for Grace was the result of the process, not ill intent or particularly bad skill from Ansari. The bad outcome for Ansari, his public humiliation and the probable impact on his career, OTOH is the result of bad intent from Grace.


Quote:
Probably not worth further argument. I'll just register that your position here seems not just incorrect but ethically repugnant!

Do you think a poll would bear out the idea that women would prefer, 26 years later, to be told, sans invitation, by someone they are friends with that 26 years ago when they said "no I didn't put my finger in your vagina while you were drunk" they were lying, and they did, and they've since come to realize what they did was bad, and they're resolved to do better, and they are sorry they did it?

Do you not think a significant percentage of people would strongly prefer that guy just keep it to himself?

If you do think so, you're saying that's not relevant to the ethics of coming forward?

Or do you really think people would, practically one hundred percent of them, want him to come forward with this??
Well I've offered my answers already, as "ethically repugnant" as you may find them. Yes I believe that a victimized person would rather know the truth about having been victimized by "a friend" (or a priest, or a family member, or dentist while sedated ....) than have the facts hidden from them. I believe a victimizer who says that it is better for the victim for them to not come forward and confess to what they did with honest remorse (not in a request for forgiveness) is engaging in self-delusion of the worst and most pathetic kind.

I think nearly 100% of victims would, if given a choice, rather know that the person that they have been thinking of as a good friend had in fact both victimized them and been lying to them about it for decades (be that a lie of commission or omission), would rather know ugly truth than not know what their friend had and continues to do to them.

So now "I'll just register" that I've asked you to reply to a small series of scenarios several times now, and answered your various questions about my take on them, but that you've still not directly answered me.

I gather that you believe telling "a friend" that you had assaulted her (be that assault rape, molestation, or other) and lied to her about it 20 plus years ago and hidden it from her ever since is ethically repugnant and that continuing to allow her to think of you as her good friend is ethically superior. Is that correct?

If so what if it was five years ago? Last year? Last week? Yesterday? Not looking for a bright line just a sense of when the time maintaining the lie is long enough that unasked for confession of the truth and honest remorse is more harm than good, unless confession with remorse is in your opinion never the less poor action. It is clear, to you, that 20 plus years is far enough that the harm offsets the good. What's the farthest away, even if that time is just one day, if it exists at all, that you are clear confession and remorse is the more ethical option? There can be a big grey area that depends on specifics and that is okay.

Will you answer this time?
  #667  
Old 01-28-2018, 04:59 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
IMHO poll to see what some women here would prefer. To some degree it is a Matrix choose the pill question. Except of course in the real world the (would be repentant) victimizer is the one choosing which pill for the victim.
  #668  
Old 01-28-2018, 05:06 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
You should have proposed a poll question for possible revision. :/

From my point of view, again, much more would need to be known about the situation before a clear yes or know could be given. The severity makes a difference. It makes a difference whether she thinks about it every day or never. Rtcetcetc

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #669  
Old 01-28-2018, 05:44 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
You should have proposed a poll question for possible revision. :/

From my point of view, again, much more would need to be known about the situation before a clear yes or know could be given. The severity makes a difference. It makes a difference whether she thinks about it every day or never. Rtcetcetc

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
It really matters what her reaction would have been.

If it were someone with whom you had a sexual relationship, and that happened, and they asked, "Did you stick your finger in my pussy last night?", and you reply, "Ummm, no?", then whatever, they wouldn't have been that upset about it then, they wouldn't be upset now.

If they would have been offended then, and if the friendship would have ended then over your actions, then not telling her means that your friendship has been based on a lie. The admission is less about what you did then, but how you continued to lie to her face every day for the last 20+ years.

If she doesn't think about it, because she doesn't think that anything happened, that doesn't get you off the hook. OTOH, if she does think about it, because she knows that *someone* stuck their fingers in her pussy that night, that just makes it far worse.
  #670  
Old 01-28-2018, 06:10 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
Of course the obvious - the victimizer does not know how much the victim thinks about it. But if the victim not thinking about it gets the victimizer off the hook then someone guilty of molesting patients while under anesthesia is doing the morally correct thing by continuing to cover his tracks carefully so he is never discovered, right?
  #671  
Old 01-28-2018, 06:17 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,661
And dude the body of the post is mostly your direct quote!
  #672  
Old 01-29-2018, 08:26 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And dude the body of the post is mostly your direct quote!
Concerning which I didn't give an indication that it was carefully, finally crafted for a poll--it was just a suggestion. It's okay, there are just a few changes I would have made ideally to make it more clear, and some background info from the thread I would have added in.

But NBD.

About the length of time: It's definitely relevant. Guy molests a woman on the table, and has a pang of conscience the very next day? He confesses immediately and goes to the cops. Has a pang of conscience twenty five years later? (And it was a one time thing?) He keeps it to himself.

Why? I actually am not sure. I am not sure there is a logic to it tbh. I think this is just how people are. They will find an immediate confession to be something they can significantly respond to, and will find a decades-later confession to be at best puzzling, at worst simply recasting their lives over the decades that have passed in a way that is unpleasant and they have no control over. It's almost like doing it to them again.

I was discussing this with my closest friend, who is a woman, and who often calls me on BS. Her line on cases like mine with my friend, and the clearly-sexual-assault case of fingering the friend while drunk, is that coming forward about it twenty six years later simply functions to, in her words, "transfer emotional agony" to the woman in questin. In her view (which, of course, is the same as mine in this case), the guy does better to keep it to himself and live with his guilt, rather than re-hashing the event with the woman and forcing her into difficult decisions and possible emotional trauma she didn't ask for.

(BTW she agrees with you guys that what I did as a kid was not sexual assault.)

Another thing she insisted on (I swear unprompted) was how complicated and case-by-case these things are. It really isn't black and white, and to treat it as such is... well, as I said, ethically repugnant. I'm sorry to sound so severe but I'm letting you know where I come from. I don't just kind of disagree with you, and I don't just want to believe what I do for some self-serving reason. I find your view (sorry) careless! In a way that, if you act out on this view with the wrong person at the wrong time, you're going to really hurt them unnecessarily! (And I don't mean just you confessing to something, I am sure you are innocent in that regard, but things like advising others to do so.)

As to whether Ansari showed himself to be more likely than many, or more likely than expected, to genuinely harm someone in a sexual situation (regardless of whether we think he genuinely harmed someone in the situation with Grace), I am not sure how it's possible you can, on an assumption that he account is true, not come away with an impression that at best the guy doesn't know how to act on care for consent. That's dangerous.
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017