Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[RavenSky]

Again, this is a meaningless attempt at a distinction. When a woman is raped, any discussion by anyone about her skirt being "provocative" is victim-blaming because it is (at minimum) implying that the victim is partially responsible for being raped because of her choice of skirt.

We may be analyzing the mental state and the degree of bad behaviour of the accused. That's typical in sentencing. It is an analysis of his behaviour. It is not a judgment of anybody else's behaviour, and it is not a shifting of blame to a victim or anybody else.

If you are "analyzing the mental state and the degree of bad behaviour of the accused", what the victim was wearing/doing/saying does not factor in.

If a guy looks at at your bare breasts while you are walking around topless, that is less extreme than a guy manipulating you so he can look down your blouse, etc.

The first one is not a crime. The second one is. The behavior/attire of either woman in either example is immaterial

And a guy in a strip club that touches a dancers chest because he thinks that is allowed / normal is considerably different than a guy who walks up and touches a lady's chest at a bus stop.

No. Context does not matter when groping a woman without her permission. It does not matter where she is nor her state of dress. If he is guilty of groping, there is no mitigation because of the victim's job/dress. If there is, that is victim-blaming

 

[Axulus]

No. Context does not matter when groping a woman without her permission. It does not matter where she is nor her state of dress. If he is guilty of groping, there is no mitigation because of the victim's job/dress. If there is, that is victim-blaming

But there are different degrees of responsibility. Kind of like first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. The person is responsible for murder or killing another person, but context means everything in the degree of responsibility and subsequent punishment the perp receives.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If a guy looks at at your bare breasts while you are walking around topless, that is less extreme than a guy manipulating you so he can look down your blouse, etc.

The first one is not a crime. The second one is. The behavior/attire of either woman in either example is immaterial

And why is one a crime and the other not? Could it not have something to do with the behavior/attire of the woman and the resulting societal expectation of her privacy?

What if she happened to bend over in front of his line of sight and unbeknownst to her it gave him a perfect view down her blouse of her chest? He takes a good long look. Is that different from him doing so if she is topless? Why? Is it not because her attire signals she should expect more privacy while wearing the blouse?

 

[laughing dog]

If there is some scenario where the events that took place can be described as the child being a "willing participant", how does that make the child in any way blame worthy? How can it be blaming the victim where, even if the words being said are in some sense true, the child would still have 0% blame?

Think of it another way: I run up to you and demand your money or I'm going to mess up your face. I describe the event as you offering no resistance and you hand over the money. Am I blaming you, the victim, because I said you offered no resistance? Of course not, you are 0% to blame for the robbery.

What does that have to do with trying to shift the blame?

In this case, the pastor indicated the child was a willing participant because he claims the 4 yr old child initiated the sex. So, in your example, if the robber said the victim initiated the robbery, then yes, the robber is blaming the victim.

 

[laughing dog]

Still waiting for the "this is not blaming the victim" crowd to rationally explain how that claiming a rape victim of 4 years of age initiated the sex is not an attempt to shift some of the responsibility onto the victim (which is blaming the victim).

 

[bilby]

If a guy looks at at your bare breasts while you are walking around topless, that is less extreme than a guy manipulating you so he can look down your blouse, etc.

The first one is not a crime. The second one is. The behavior/attire of either woman in either example is immaterial

And why is one a crime and the other not? Could it not have something to do with the behavior/attire of the woman and the resulting societal expectation of her privacy?

What if she happened to bend over in front of his line of sight and unbeknownst to her it gave him a perfect view down her blouse of her chest? He takes a good long look. Is that different from him doing so if she is topless? Why? Is it not because her attire signals she should expect more privacy while wearing the blouse?

The two bolded descriptions are incompatible.

Manipulating someone to do something she would otherwise prefer not to do is the problem here. Whether that 'something' is exposing her breasts to you, or giving you a hundred dollars is irrelevant; Sex, arousal and titillation are irrelevant here - it's the absence of consent that makes the offence.

Forcing or cheating someone into doing what YOU want, rather than what SHE wants, is morally wrong.

This really isn't that difficult a concept.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't know...I still think his mind put her into a sex context and that was the initiation of sex. I mean, imagine a raccoon grabs your penis, do you say "Woohoo, time to whip out the peanut butter!" Or do you think, "wtf, raccoon?" I'm sure almost all males have had someone (maybe a kid or an adult) accidentally touch their penis--I know it's happened to me some 10 times--but it simply doesn't have to be sexualized.

 

[fast]

What I find deeply disappointing is the number of posters who argue that claiming the 4 year old "initiated the sec" is not an example of blaming the victim.

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

If it's brought up to mitigate responsibility, then boom, victim blaming, but if the fact is brought out through direct examination to establish the facts of the case, that seems to me a bit different.

 

[laughing dog]

What I find deeply disappointing is the number of posters who argue that claiming the 4 year old "initiated the sec" is not an example of blaming the victim.

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

Are you using "playing the feel good game" to mean "initiate sex". If so, why? If not, then your response does not address "How is claiming that a 4 year old initiated the sex not an attempt to mitigate the responsibility?"


I

 

[fast]

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

Are you using "playing the feel good game" to mean "initiate sex". If so, why? If not, then your response does not address "How is claiming that a 4 year old initiated the sex not an attempt to mitigate the responsibility?"


I

Such a fact does not alter the responsibility, yet there is a reason for bringing up the fact, but there can be multiple reasons, so making such a claim need not be any one particular reason.

She started it so it wasn't just me so I'm only partially responsible and not fully responsible. (Victim blaming)

She started it, mr. attorney, to answer your question, sir. (Espousing facts)

She started it (and liked it) and I don't blame her at all and take full responsibility, but I bring it up because I think it should garner some leniency when it comes to sentencing, for it's far more egregious and deserving of a greater sentence if she cried and fought back and irrepraredly scarred her emotionally. I might not be right, and I suspect as much, but I bring it up for a reason, and that reason should not be interpreted to blame the victim. (Alternate reason for making the claim)

 

[Arctish]

What I find deeply disappointing is the number of posters who argue that claiming the 4 year old "initiated the sec" is not an example of blaming the victim.

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

If it's brought up to mitigate responsibility, then boom, victim blaming, but if the fact is brought out through direct examination to establish the facts of the case, that seems to me a bit different.

Child molesters often groom their victims so that the children enjoy, or at least don't object to, playing the feel-good game.

We might take a guy like Jerry Sandusky at his word when he says boys liked getting soapy in the shower with him, but it's clear to me he's only saying that to deflect responsibility for the sex acts away from himself and onto his victims.

 

[fast]

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

If it's brought up to mitigate responsibility, then boom, victim blaming, but if the fact is brought out through direct examination to establish the facts of the case, that seems to me a bit different.

Child molesters often groom their victims so that the children enjoy, or at least don't object to, playing the feel-good game.

We might take a guy like Jerry Sandusky at his word when he says boys liked getting soapy in the shower with him, but it's clear to me he's only saying that to deflect responsibility for the sex acts away from himself and onto his victims.

We might, but we won't, for we know better. I'm just taking a detached position kinda like how a logician might leave room for possibility despite actuality. Put 10 cases in front of us & we'll likely find 10 cases with attempts at minimizing their ungliness.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you using "playing the feel good game" to mean "initiate sex". If so, why? If not, then your response does not address "How is claiming that a 4 year old initiated the sex not an attempt to mitigate the responsibility?"


I

Such a fact does not alter the responsibility, yet there is a reason for bringing up the fact, but there can be multiple reasons, so making such a claim need not be any one particular reason.

She started it so it wasn't just me so I'm only partially responsible and not fully responsible. (Victim blaming)

She started it, mr. attorney, to answer your question, sir. (Espousing facts)

She started it (and liked it) and I don't blame her at all and take full responsibility, but I bring it up because I think it should garner some leniency when it comes to sentencing, for it's far more egregious and deserving of a greater sentence if she cried and fought back and irrepraredly scarred her emotionally. I might not be right, and I suspect as much, but I bring it up for a reason, and that reason should not be interpreted to blame the victim. (Alternate reason for making the claim)

The "she" is 4 years old - someone who is not capable of sex. For some reason, the age of this victim seems to be irrelevant to people like you who feel the need to literally make up inept scenarios.

 

[fast]

Such a fact does not alter the responsibility, yet there is a reason for bringing up the fact, but there can be multiple reasons, so making such a claim need not be any one particular reason.

She started it so it wasn't just me so I'm only partially responsible and not fully responsible. (Victim blaming)

She started it, mr. attorney, to answer your question, sir. (Espousing facts)

She started it (and liked it) and I don't blame her at all and take full responsibility, but I bring it up because I think it should garner some leniency when it comes to sentencing, for it's far more egregious and deserving of a greater sentence if she cried and fought back and irrepraredly scarred her emotionally. I might not be right, and I suspect as much, but I bring it up for a reason, and that reason should not be interpreted to blame the victim. (Alternate reason for making the claim)

The "she" is 4 years old - someone who is not capable of sex. For some reason, the age of this victim seems to be irrelevant to people like you who feel the need to literally make up inept scenarios.

Oh. I see. I was wondering why you put that [her age] in red.

 

[laughing dog]

The "she" is 4 years old - someone who is not capable of sex. For some reason, the age of this victim seems to be irrelevant to people like you who feel the need to literally make up inept scenarios.

Oh. I see. I was wondering why you put that [her age] in red.

Relevant facts are important in promoting an argument about reality if one wishes to be taken seriously.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We might, but we won't, for we know better. I'm just taking a detached position kinda like how a logician might leave room for possibility despite actuality. Put 10 cases in front of us & we'll likely find 10 cases with attempts at minimizing their ungliness.

You are confusing blaming the victim and minimization; and you are not putting the molester's claim into full context or even analyzing deep enough how this situation arose.

Your word "minimizing" would be more like the molester saying he only raped her 10 times whereas other children get raped every day. Instead, the molester is saying he raped her because first she did X. That puts the onus on her. You are claiming you are an acting "logician" and it doesn't necessarily put the onus on her, but you are not thinking deeply enough to see it. He is saying X ==> Y, his next action. X =/=> Y, though. That only happens if also the guy is deranged (Z) and circumstances are open enough for it to happen such as parents aren't around (A). So, X and Z and A ==> Y. But is it real?

He raped her over a period of 2 to 3 years, multiple multiple times. Yes, I wrote the word "multiple" more than once.* So, this single time she is alleged to have done something accounts for some 8 rapes? Really? After the first time, where he just HAD to do it because of what a 4 year old did, he also HAD to rape her another 7 times? That's a rhetorical question as it ought to be obvious to a normal person (and a self-declared logician) that the only relevant factors are his motive and opportunity (i.e., Z and A ==> Y).

Finally, the molester's declarations do not minimize their ugliness in any way whatsoever. All they do is expose his irrational mind as does the fact that he wants to plead not guilty.

*

Keenan was later admitted to Trumbull Memorial Hospital’s psychiatric ward in Warren, Ohio. He said during group discussions there that he had been sexually abusing a child for two years, according to court records.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rticipant-records-say/?utm_term=.0201253ff741

 

[ronburgundy]

What I find deeply disappointing is the number of posters who argue that claiming the 4 year old "initiated the sec" is not an example of blaming the victim.

It depends on why it was brought up. You're not going to blame the child for being a victim if she admits to be the first wanting to play the feel good game. Of course you're not, but if the rapist testifies that she started it, why be so sure it's not merely a candid presentation of the facts?

If it's brought up to mitigate responsibility, then boom, victim blaming, but if the fact is brought out through direct examination to establish the facts of the case, that seems to me a bit different.

"She started it" cannot be a "fact" in this situation. It is a inference of causality, implicitly claiming that whatever she did or said was the necessary anbd sufficient cause his own actions of raping her. No causal assertion is an observed "fact" of any event. Causality is always inferred, and the number of and likely error in the non-factual assumptions required for causal inference is never greater than when concluding the cause of human action. And in this particular situation, every fact we do know and every well established theory of causes of human action tell us that there is no possible way that anything a 4 year old could say or do would ever be close to either a neccessary or sufficient cause of an adult to touch them sexually.

What could be a "fact" is if he merely stated actual empirical facts like what exactly she did and said, without any non-factual interpretation of what that meant about what "started" (aka caused the sex) or anything about her desires or psychological states that are not directly observable and thus not "facts" And even then, they would have to be factual responses to questions he was asked by the prosecution, otherwise the only plausible motive for him or his defense bringing them up would be to imply causality and blame.

Of course, causal inferences need not be (and often are not) moral blaming. That is a logical fact that the OP and its supporters regularly deny and ignore, and is the whole basis for the OP which is nothing but an effort to equate this event with the judge's comments in the other thread and other observations about factors under victims' control that wind up increasing their odds of being victimized.
But when a perp defending themselves against charges that blame them for an act, claims innocence on the basis that his actions were set inherently into motion by someone else's actions (i.e., "she started it"), then that is an instance of using causal assertions to place moral and legal blame on someone else. In fact, it is these particular features of this situation that are not only absent but replaced with exact opposite features in the situations in other threads ( e.g., that the judge explicitly laid moral and legal blame on the perps) that make this case of zero relevance to any honest rational discussion of any of those other situations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Did he claim she started it here? I only gather than he claimed she was willing.

In either case, she'd have to have an appreciation of what was going on for any claim of she started it or she was willing to make any attachment to blaming her for it.

As I wrote above, she could have started it with no appreciation of the sexual nature of it. A more extreme case would be a toddler in a public shower walks up and pulls on a man's penis, out of mere curiousity and playfulness. If the man didn't see it coming so didn't move out of the way etc, he can certainly raise that point to defend himself against a charge of sexual abuse, right? So the behaviour of the purported victim does play a role, without necessarily being victim blaming. The toddler certainly wasn't looking for sex.

Similarly, a woman may bend over in front of a filing cabinet directly in the line of sight of a guy so he looks up from what he's doing and finds himself looking directly down her blouse. She isn't being blamed for him looking down her shirt, and he can certainly use her behaviour to push some if not all of the blame off himself. He was just sitting there and from his point of view she basically flashed him. Stating that isn't blaming her for anything, is it? She could be oblivious to doing it.

So no, bringing up what somebody is wearing or how somebody is behaving CAN be brought up and can even be done so to take blame off of the accused, without it being victim blaming.

 

[KeepTalking]

So no, bringing up what somebody is wearing or how somebody is behaving CAN be brought up and can even be done so to take blame off of the accused, without it being victim blaming.

Wrong. Discussing the behavior of a victim to take the blame off of the accused is necessarily shifting some of that blame to the victim. It is victim blaming, plain and simple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's pretend for a minute that this is what happened - he is the adult in this scenario. One assumes he knows right from wrong (and legal from illegal). That he had sex with her is 100% on him.

But did he say otherwise? I think that is where Loren is going. Did he say it wasn't his fault and was hers? Or did he just say she was willing?

The original article certainly made it look like a case of victim blaming. But the Washington Post article looks much more reasonable--and simply reports that he told the therapist that she was a willing participant. Someone of that age can't possibly give consent but it would be easy enough to structure things that she wouldn't have any reason to object.