BYE
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by BYE
-
-
<<<Ok, since I find myself unable to let this go, here is another article I found about shame.
http://psychcentral....on/000730?all=1
From the article:
Quote
Shame is not productive, Kipnis says. “Shame tends to direct individuals into destructive behaviors. When we focus on what we did wrong, we can correct it; but when we’re convinced that we are wrong as a result of shame, our whole sense of self is eroded.â€
Quote
Typically, females have dealt with shame through introversion and self-hate while males have been more likely to exhibit extreme anger and violence.>>>>>
I couldn't get the quote feature to capture the above comment so I pasted it in....
I am not understanding his definition of shame. He first says it is not productive and then says a person should focus on what they did wrong so as to correct it. That seems contradictory to me.
I was thinking that the difference was something along these lines...shame is a feeling about the worth of the person which is different than feeling guilty about a particular action. But I could be wrong.
-
We serve from the pots and pans on the stove. As another poster mentioned we have a small table so the serving bowls would just get in the way.
-
-
Wow! That's really neat. Your post is timely. My husband and I have been talking about a very slim possibility of looking into moving to Alaska several years from now (probably won't happen but you never know). I would love to hear more about your experiences!!
Me too! This is my dream!
-
Dd got her first at 3 but it wasn't available to her at will until she was almost 5. I'm wanting to get Kaya for dd this year. I love the dolls! I want to get one for myself!
-
Maybe we define penetrator differently. To me it means something that goes into something else. Men can be raped by men or women, not anally, but physically with hands, mouths and vaginas. The woman doesn't have to penetrate to rape.
Like I said to a previous poster, I don't pretend to know the answer to EVERY situation. However, the situation of a woman raping a man with her vagina is very rare. The most common is a penetration type situation, male or female. And more often than not, "boys will be boys" is the common answer. And even more common is "she shouldn't have dressed that way". Those attitudes are sending us backwards.
-
I'm not sure why it is laughable. I asked if you were speaking from a purely physical standpoint, a social one to better understand your position and further the discussion. Way to shut that down.
That's not what I meant to do. I was confused by the previous posters comments. I don't pretend to know the answer to every situation. But the most common situation is that a man violates a woman. And I don't believe that mutual drunkenness should even be considered. In those situation I believe the burden should fall to the penetrator.
-
That is what I am saying. It doesn't make sense to blame one or the other, just because one penetrated the other. A guy can be raped, by having something put around his penis. Since, he was the one 'penetrating' he should be more liable?
My original statement was penetrator. And I was careful to say it that way because I know that men can be victims too. That's why I said the penetrator has the burden to make sure they aren't committing a crime.
-
Yes. This is where I must diverge. Is this a social construct? If we thought in the inverse, of women doing the "enveloping" so to speak, would it change things?
If woman were the more common natural aggressors then we would be talking about protecting men. This is laughable. "vaginas enveloping penis'".
-
Huh? That makes not sense. You could also say that she shouldn't be taking off her pants, or spreading her legs before she makes sure she isn't committing a crime. She is after all the one wrapping her vagina around his penis. She has to 'let' him in.
Neither of those makes NO sense to me.
Sorry, I vote for Equal responsibility.
She had to let him in?! Ummmm.....no she doesn't. That's why this is an issue to begin with?
-
Well I do. I think it's been about long enough that we've had to teach our daughters to protect themselves. And it's about time we told our sons to keep their penis in their pants if alcohols involved. There should be a greater burden on men for a change.
-
But.. What?
Are you saying they are not on an equal level?
Because I think they are unless one is being criminal in some manner.
Yes I am suggesting that. In fact, I'm stating it. One person is being penetrated and another is doing the penetrating. The penetrator has a responsibility to make sure they aren't committing a crime.
-
-
Danestress, it is a good question or series of questions which, now that I look at them, may be what Martha was asking and I was too dense to get. I don't know.
When I was researching just how consent was defined legally, I found pretty much the same definitions across the board whether it was a state law or a university policy manual. As Joanne stated, someone that is inebriated cannot legally consent to intercourse, but nowhere does it talk about the usual, mutually drunk situation.
One of the articles I read talked about sex being a shared experience. If one partner can't really fully participate, then it's best left alone. I am not explaining it well, but it gave me a lot to think about in talking with my kids.
I am not sure you can state an exact degree of intoxication for determining consent. For some girls, it could be two drinks, for others, five. Functioning alcoholics can have a high BAC, but still be in control of their decision-making skills.
The reason I don't like talking about mutually drunk situations is because it implies both people are on an equal level. The person doing the penetrating should always be responsible for making sure a crime isn't being committed.
-
I was having this conversation with a friend. Our childhoods would be considered "free range". Not because our parents ascribed to that philosophy for our well being. We had "free range" freedoms because our parents didn't care enough to be bothered.
I believe that my freedoms as a child really shaped and helped me mature as an adult. I was in and out of neighbors houses. I ride my bike all day through town and I freely explored any and all woods. And I swam in nearby creeks occasionally.
Those experiences gave me a lot of knowledge and maturity. However, I don't and will not ascribe to that lifestyle. I have horrible and almost non-existent relationships with my parents. My running around freely wasn't for my benefit. It was a symptom of a dysfunctional family dynamic.
I haven't ever met a family who allowed this type of free play who also cultivated the types of relationships I desire to have with my children. They probably exist. I just haven't met them.
I also don't agree with the idea that the news media sensationalism is the reason parents are afraid. Yes the news media puts the stories out there, but they don't create child abductions, child rapists, and child pornographers. Have those statistics gone down?
So the question is...how do you allow "free play" in this society? I go outside with my kids and watch them play. We try to go outside everyday and they play a lot inside. But they will never have the experiences I had as a kid. The risk is too high.
-
I've been known to tell my kids I was disappointed in certain behaviors. And now I'm rethinking that as a proper teaching technique after being a part of this thread.
-
I think she has responsibility for putting herself in a bad situation, but I don't think that at all means she is responsible or in any way deserving of what happened to her.
Exactly. That poor girl had no friends in that house or school from what I read. Honestly that place sounds like a pool of sharks just looking for any scent of blood. Seriously. What an awful horrible place. If she thought everywhere was like that? That everyone everywhere would know and treat her that way? Of course it would make any sane person suicidal. :..(
On the flip side of the coin... I can sorta understand the desire to escape into crap faced can't remember anything drunkenness if I was living there too. :..(
No that's not a mature healthy response to living in a bad situation, but she was 15, so I wouldn't expect much maturity. Even if she did have big boobs that probably made people forget she was 15. For some reason people think physical development has something to do with mental and emotional maturity and many times it just doesn't.
No one. Not one person. Has said otherwise either.
And to note, I'm not sure it was classified legally as rape either.
You're questioning of whether it was actually classified as rape is why we're having this conversation at all. They penetrated her. A rape is a rape is a rape. They deserve the book thrown at them. These ideas that her choices "put her in this bad situation" are disgusting. "This bad situation" was a humiliating betrayal and criminal offense. Her actions before "this bad situation" have nothing to do with what those boys did to her that night and the following days.
-
-
I think a very good point to take away from this debate is that slut/victim shaming is still alive and well. Until it isn't, boys like this will never be made to take full responsibility for their crimes. There will always be those who blame the victim.
-
But it is a good question, and if you have teenagers to talk to, it isn't irrelevant at all. How drunk is "too drunk" to consent to sex? Just a drink or two impairs judgment. Does two drinks render woman unable to consent? Or is it a BAC that matters? Often ra
I would say if you aren't married to someone or you haven't been in a long term relationship with someone you better not have sex them if there's alcohol involved.
-
Just to clarify? I can't say anything about these being moral issues in regards to people believing she should be ashamed and not criminal issues as in what the boys did?
-
So what happens if a girl consents, while drunk but not unconscious, to a boy who is equally drunk but not unconscious? The next day the girl claims rape, due to her inability to give consent, no pictures were taken or circulated. Does the boy still bear full responsibility? I realize this was not the case with Audrie, her assaulters were horrible people who deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, but is it ever just a draw, no one at fault?
This is irrelevant. This isn't the issue at hand.
-
So what happens if a girl consents, while drunk but not unconscious, to a boy who is equally drunk but not unconscious? The next day the girl claims rape, due to her inability to give consent, no pictures were taken or circulated. Does the boy still bear full responsibility? I realize this was not the case with Audrie, her assaulters were horrible people who deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, but is it ever just a draw, no one at fault?
-
Her choice to drink alcohol as a minor was illegal. You're correct. I'm not debating that. What her parents thought about her choice of attire or her choice of friends is to be determined. However, those issues have nothing to do with her rape.
Slut shaming, bullying, abuse, sexual assault. Typical teens.
in The Chat Board
Posted
I think the reason people get this opinion that "someone is blaming the victim" is because the idea of shame was brought up at all. The idea of her being ashamed was brought up. Which meanswe still live in a society that believes she was to blame.