Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is that you are utterly unwilling to consider the context in which something is said.

Because your tortured rapesplaining about "context" does not matter. I will repeat just for you - it does not matter where, when or to whom this rapist made his claims that the four-year-old victim "initiated it" and "wanted it" - he was victim-blaming when he said it.

It most definitely matters. In a context in which he is expected to give a detailed description of the situation you are asking him to lie.

It sounds like he structured it as a game they play. She might very well have wanted to play the game but that doesn't shift any of the blame!

The real problem here, Loren, is that you are regularly guilty of victim-blaming yourself, so you either can't recognize it when someone else is doing it or you don't dare admit you understand else you might be called to task when you do it.

No. The other thread got out of hand and locked so I never pointed out your error--you are treating anything that implies the victim could have in any way changed their actions with an eye to preventing the incident as victim blaming. You model crime as one perp hunting a specific victim when in practice the perp is very often hunting a suitable victim and doesn't have a specific one in mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup, which is the key point. If this had been in the courtroom I certainly would call it victim blaming. However, it was with the therapist. That simply makes it details of what happened, not an attempt to lay blame.

Even in the context of therapy, it might well be an attempt to excuse or mitigate the responsibility of one's behavior. 2nd, and most importantly, a 4 year old cannot possibly be a willing participant in sex because 4 year olds do not have the requisite maturity to make such a decision.

They certainly can be a willing participant. They just can't give legal consent to participate so the law doesn't consider that to be of any relevance.

 

[LordKiran]

Even in the context of therapy, it might well be an attempt to excuse or mitigate the responsibility of one's behavior. 2nd, and most importantly, a 4 year old cannot possibly be a willing participant in sex because 4 year olds do not have the requisite maturity to make such a decision.

They certainly can be a willing participant. They just can't give legal consent to participate so the law doesn't consider that to be of any relevance.

The law considers her a victim for this reason. So to point out how they were 'willing participants' as though that somehow makes it better is in fact 'victim blaming'.

 

[RavenSky]

Because your tortured rapesplaining about "context" does not matter. I will repeat just for you - it does not matter where, when or to whom this rapist made his claims that the four-year-old victim "initiated it" and "wanted it" - he was victim-blaming when he said it.

It most definitely matters. In a context in which he is expected to give a detailed description of the situation you are asking him to lie.

Your insane characterization of me "asking him to lie" is utter fucking bullshit. Moreover, he is not giving a "detailed description of the situation". He was accusing a four year old child of initiating a sex act. That is victim blaming.

It sounds like he structured it as a game they play. She might very well have wanted to play the game but that doesn't shift any of the blame!

It sounds like you are pulling shit out of your ass again!! Mr. Purple Drank.

The real problem here, Loren, is that you are regularly guilty of victim-blaming yourself, so you either can't recognize it when someone else is doing it or you don't dare admit you understand else you might be called to task when you do it.

No. The other thread got out of hand and locked so I never pointed out your error--you are treating anything that implies the victim could have in any way changed their actions with an eye to preventing the incident as victim blaming. You model crime as one perp hunting a specific victim when in practice the perp is very often hunting a suitable victim and doesn't have a specific one in mind.

Now you are just babbling

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because this is what happened with the therapist, not what happened in the courtroom.

Exactly what happened is something of importance in therapy.

Are you seriously attempting to claim that a very young child willing and deliberately initiated sex with a grown man on many multiple occasions for several years starting at the age of 4? Is this what you are trying to claim is "exactly what happened"?

We don't have all the details and probably never will.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking that she could see the big picture. Make it into a game she enjoys and she very well might willingly and deliberately initiate the game. That's why they try to teach good touch/bad touch--otherwise someone in a position of trust can easily manipulate kids into such games!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except some of us at least see no shifting of the blame happening here.

Yes, it is clear that you refuse to see reality

1) This arose in a therapy context, not a courtroom.

Immaterial, and you have been told this repeatedly by several people, which means that you are willfully ignoring anything that doesn't support your erroneous position

I have been told it by several people who aren't looking at it clearly. You're so fixated on blame-shifting that you don't see that that's not what's happening!

He had three possible courses of action at that point:

1) Describe the situation accurately, aka "Victim-blame"

2) Stay silent

3) Lie

Remember, this is in the context of therapy, #2 and #3 aren't good answers. He's basically left with #1.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you seriously attempting to claim that a very young child willing and deliberately initiated sex with a grown man on many multiple occasions for several years starting at the age of 4? Is this what you are trying to claim is "exactly what happened"?

We don't have all the details and probably never will.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking that she could see the big picture. Make it into a game she enjoys and she very well might willingly and deliberately initiate the game. That's why they try to teach good touch/bad touch--otherwise someone in a position of trust can easily manipulate kids into such games!

Where you are wrong is thinking any of your babbling changes the fact that this rapist was victim-blaming. There is no reality in which him claiming that a four year old child "initiated" a sex act is not victim-blaming. I really don't give a shit how many times you try to deny that this (now convicted) rapist was victim-blaming, he was.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, it is clear that you refuse to see reality

1) This arose in a therapy context, not a courtroom.

Immaterial, and you have been told this repeatedly by several people, which means that you are willfully ignoring anything that doesn't support your erroneous position

I have been told it by several people who aren't looking at it clearly.

YOU are the one is refusing to look at it clearly. When multiple people are telling you to pull your head out of your ass and accept that when a rapist blames his four year old victim for "initiating" the sex act, he is victim blaming, maybe you should fucking listen for a change.

 

[fast]

They certainly can be a willing participant. They just can't give legal consent to participate so the law doesn't consider that to be of any relevance.

The law considers her a victim for this reason. So to point out how they were 'willing participants' as though that somehow makes it better is in fact 'victim blaming'.

If the victim is being blamed, then I'd think the victim is being blamed for something. What is the victim being blamed for?

By the way, and I ask because I'm not in the know, is there a necessary third ingredient for consent? From what I gather, for it to not be wrong, there needs to be willingness and capacity. Both are required, meaning you need 1/2 cup of willingness and 1/2 cup of capacity to make 1 batch of consent. A child or mentally handicapped adult can be willing, but with no capacity in the cubbard, we can bake no consent.

It's interesting how in the case of a normal adult (with capacity), the one thing that does make it better is willingness. All ingredients for consent need not be searched for when capacity is present--just willingness needs to be found.

In the case of the child where capacity is a missing ingredient and therefore the finished product of consent is not possible, one things for sure, there's no way that the lone ingredient of willingness can in any way make it right, for there is no case being right without both ingredients. As to whether willingness makes for a better situation is whether or not there can be varying degrees of wrong.

Stealing is stealing as they say, but some instances destroy lives whereas others are more benign. Rape is rape; what else could it be? All instances of rape is wrong, and even though an episode of willing yet nonconsensual sex may come to haunt someone for decades to come, there might be room to say something equivalent to murder is better than torture and murder. For instance, willing nonconsensual sex is better than (still wrong but better than) rape where both ingredients are absent.

How is it victim blaming again? If a rapist points out that his victim is willing, why assume he's conflating willingness with consent? Some might and think it makes it okay, but that's not an accusation of fault or causation. If he realizes it's wrong because the victim doesn't have the capacity to give consent, then bringing up the victim was willing may have nothing to do with blaming but with justifying leniency by espousing the view that it's wrong but not as bad as rape with neither element necessary for consent.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps you can work through the logic of how saying a 4 year old either initiated sex or was a willing participant with an adult male is not an attempt to mitigate the responsibility of the rapist?

Just curious, and this question is just for you, (no one else, just you) and I'll even give you the upper hand by intentionally conflating sex with coitus whereby sex includes only coitus, is a rapist even capable of raping a four year old given your past claim that a four year old can't have sex? What throws me is the idea that rape is nonconsensual sex. If a four year old can't have sex (what you're saying), then why use the term "rapist?"

Rape is also unwanted sexual intrusion. 4 year olds are unable to consent due to their age.

 

[laughing dog]

Even in the context of therapy, it might well be an attempt to excuse or mitigate the responsibility of one's behavior. 2nd, and most importantly, a 4 year old cannot possibly be a willing participant in sex because 4 year olds do not have the requisite maturity to make such a decision.

They certainly can be a willing participant.

I did not use the term consent, so your response is based on a straw man. Willingness implies some sort of agreement. At best, this 4 year old can be described as not resisting.

And, all of your responses ignore that this now convicted rapist also claimed this 4 year old initiated the sex. Not only is that a clear attempt to mitigate his responsibility to the 3rd parties, but it is an incredibly damning insight into this rapist's mind that he believes 4 year olds can initiate sex.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As to whether willingness makes for a better situation is whether or not there can be varying degrees of wrong.

Claiming a 4 year old is willing does not make it look better.

 

[laughing dog]

If a rapist points out that his victim is willing, why assume he's conflating willingness with consent?

Because there is no other reason to make such a statement. After all, willingly implies agreement or consent or an inclination towards.

 

[KeepTalking]

WTF? Why did you just ignore my entire post with rebuttals of your arguments to respond only to the bit about your dumbshit examples? Is it because you simply cannot support the words you typed, so you have to go off on a tangent to deflect my arguments?

I did not feel that your example in the post to which I was responding was very pertinent, as the example did not include the commission of a crime.

Because the behaviours of the "victims" in both those examples fully excuse the actions of the would be accuseds. They certainly could have each been CHARGED with a crime. The behaviour of the other person being pointed out then shifts that blame off of them, but not onto the "victims" ("victims" in quotes because they are therefore not victims).

Are you referring to your example of a woman bending over with a loose blouse, and accidentally flashing a guy? There doesn't seem to be a crime or a victim in that example. It is not pertinent to our discussion, so I am ignoring it. If you are referring to something else, please restate your example.

But even short of fully excusing somebody of a crime they are accused of, there are degrees of blameworthiness, and again that can depend on context, which can include the actions of other people who themselves are not blameworthy for the actions they took to create the context. Is this what you need examples of?

If I rear end your car because you suddenly slam on your brakes, I am legally to blame because I was following too closely.

This is an example of an accident, in which both people involved are technically victims, and will be described as such in any injury reported. You will likely be assessed as at fault by the insurance companies involved, but it is not a legal matter, as no crime was committed.

But is that equally blameworhy as if I just decided to ram you from behind for fun? Is pointing out that you were suddenly stopping blaming the victim? Perhaps you stopped for a perfectly good reason I wasn't or couldn't be aware of.

Yes, if you intentionally ram someone from behind, attempting to shift the blame to your victim by saying that they stopped suddenly would be victim blaming.

If I find your wallet and don't know but think it may be yours, and I decide to just keep it instead of talking to you about it, is that as blameworthy as if I found your ID and a contact number in there and kept it anyway? And is that as blameworthy as if I pickpocketed you? Or does the changing context (of your creation) change my blameworthiness? And if it does, is pointing that out blaming the victim?

Finding a wallet with no ID is not a crime, I am not your victim in that case. If my ID and contact information is in that wallet, then it is a crime to keep that money, and your saying that I am to blame because I lost my wallet is victim blaming. If you pickpocket me, that is a crime, and if you say you only pickpocketed me because my wallet was hanging out of my pocket in easy reach, then you are victim blaming. Now, can you respond to the actual points I made in my previous response to you?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ravensky,

For all the cursing, ranting, and raving you have done in this thread, we have yet to see any logic or reason behind this broad claim that any mention of what a victim is wearing or doing always equates to blaming the victim for the crime.

Repeating something over and over again while cursing at people doesn't make it so.

Repeatedly saying people refuse to accept X, or repeatedly saying Y is wrong, with no analysis or explanation and refusing to consider examples (other than to say they are bad, without saying why), and refusing to respond to or to initiate thought experiments, and to instead resort to personal attacks and cursing, just shows a person to have nothing to offer but an emotional reaction.

I see keep talking actually engaging now (good to see) and will respond later.

 

[KeepTalking]

I see keep talking actually engaging now (good to see) and will respond later.

I have been engaging your arguments all along. You are the one who has been snipping my responses to your arguments, and going off on tangents. I will be glad to see you actually engage some of my arguments, but I don't hold out any hope that you will do so in any substantive manner. Please prove me wrong in this regard.

 

[KeepTalking]

The law considers her a victim for this reason. So to point out how they were 'willing participants' as though that somehow makes it better is in fact 'victim blaming'.

If the victim is being blamed, then I'd think the victim is being blamed for something. What is the victim being blamed for?

Initiating the sex act, which the rapist pedophile is bringing up in an attempt to shift part of the blame from himself to his victim.

 

[KeepTalking]

Because your tortured rapesplaining about "context" does not matter. I will repeat just for you - it does not matter where, when or to whom this rapist made his claims that the four-year-old victim "initiated it" and "wanted it" - he was victim-blaming when he said it.

It most definitely matters. In a context in which he is expected to give a detailed description of the situation you are asking him to lie.

No. The rapist pedophile can give an exacting description of what happened without ascribing motive to, or attempting to assess the state of mind of, his victim. Saying that the victim was willing is not a fact, it is his interpretation of her state of mind, and is mentioned solely to attempt to shift some blame to that victim. It doesn't matter if he is trying to do so to get out of a crime, or to elicit sympathy from his therapist, it is still victim blaming.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Initiating the sex act, which the rapist pedophile is bringing up in an attempt to shift part of the blame from himself to his victim.

Ya, that seems pretty straightforward.

Now, from a legal defense point of view, that's a perfectly justifiable argument to make. There are only a few viable defenses for rape and "It was consensual" is probably the main one. It is, of course, a legally invalid one when applied to a minor, but this particular pedophile sounds like he's also an idiot, so not much more can be expected of him.

 

[Malintent]

If a rapist points out that his victim is willing, why assume he's conflating willingness with consent?

Because there is no other reason to make such a statement. After all, willingly implies agreement or consent or an inclination towards.

.. Except if it is a minor... in which case the kid can be as willing as you want, but it still is not legally "consent", as a minor cannot legally consent.