Slut shaming, bullying, abuse, sexual assault. Typical teens.

[Belacqua]

As I understand it, anthropologists do distinguish shame from guilt. In my profoundly un-academic conception of this, guilt is the consciousness of having done (or thought) wrong, whereas shame is the concurrent feeling that we ourselves are wrong.

 

The difference between shame culture and guilt culture comes up in some analyses of Homer's Iliad. As products of guilt culture, we often perceive Achilles as being a whiny little jerk. To somebody in a shame culture, though, the affront to his glory and honor is far more significant than just depriving him of his girlfriend.

 

So as it relates to the matter at hand, I would suggest that shame -- that feeling of being personally unworthy -- is markedly different from feeling guilty or regretful about a situation. But not everybody uses the words in this sense, so I wouldn't want to assign too much significance to somebody's casually using one or the other.

 

ETA: Or, what Mrs. Mungo said, probably much more eloquently, while I was composing this.

[PeacefulChaos]

Ok, so the LEAST important thing in my post was what I said about shame. 

Can we move on?  Seriously.

 

 

I get it.  Shame isn't the same as guilt.  I'll go back and change it, for pity's sake. 

I'm a little frustrated that out of all the questions I asked, out of all I said, the only thing anyone has any response to is to tell me that I'm wrong in my first sentence. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Ok, so the LEAST important thing in my post was what I said about shame. 

Can we move on?  Seriously.

 

I think it's the crux of the misunderstandings in this thread. You certainly are not required to agree with me or read or answer my posts.

[Scarlett]

I left the most commonly accepted definitions. You don't see how these are different? I posted two articles above, which explain more.

 

 

Commonly accepted by whom?  Not by me or anyone I know. 

[PeacefulChaos]

I think it's the crux of the misunderstandings in this thread. You certainly are not required to agree with me or read or answer my posts.

 

I edited after you replied. 

I'm cool with everyone agreeing that, for the purposes of this discussion at least, shame is tied more to one's self worth, whereas guilt/regret/etc are tied to the action. 

In my first sentence or two, I was just trying to explain where *I* think people are coming from when they say shame.  I don't think they are of the belief that someone should feel that they, as a person, are less.  I think they, like me, were equating shame with regret or guilt. 

 

I just don't see why we can't all move past that one word, that's all.

[Mrs Mungo]

Commonly accepted by whom?  Not by me or anyone I know. 

 

Academics who talk about the issue on more than a personal level. A conversation where everyone shares their personal opinion is fine, but not as useful as a conversation where you look at the broader implications of those beliefs. JMO.

[Scarlett]

Ok, so the LEAST important thing in my post was what I said about shame. 

Can we move on?  Seriously.

 

 

I get it.  Shame isn't the same as guilt.  I'll go back and change it, for pity's sake. 

I'm a little frustrated that out of all the questions I asked, out of all I said, the only thing anyone has any response to is to tell me that I'm wrong in my first sentence. 

 

 

I don't agree that shame isn't the same as guilt.  It appears there is an effort underway to change the meaning of shame, but it is what it is. 

[Scarlett]

Academics who talk about the issue on more than a personal level. A conversation where everyone shares their personal opinion is fine, but not as useful as a conversation where you look at the broader implications of those beliefs. JMO.

 

 

Oh I see.  Academics. 

[Mrs Mungo]

 

I just don't see why we can't all move past that one word, that's all.

 

Did you read the Steven Pressfield article? Honestly, it's really good. He seems to argue in *favor* of shame, mind you. But, he admits that cultures of shame are not without drawbacks. You can't recover from shame as a person. I think it is *inherent* to the discussion since the girl in the article actually killed herself. That's what happens when people experience a great deal of SHAME versus GUILT. And I think saying *anything* like "this is what happens when girls get drunk at parties, they should expect to be humiliated, written on, sexually assaulted and pissed on" is shaming the victim of a crime. Any time you say, "sure she wasn't asking for it, BUT," you are heaping shame on the victim of a crime. I'm not going to change my opinion on that, no matter what anyone says. I was a LONG time coming to that conclusion. I've said it before, but the book Lolita was instrumental in me coming to realize the truth of it. You don't have to agree, but nobody is going to convince me otherwise, *especially* with nothing other than their personal opinion.

[unsinkable]

I edited after you replied.

I'm cool with everyone agreeing that, for the purposes of this discussion at least, shame is tied more to one's self worth, whereas guilt/regret/etc are tied to the action.

In my first sentence or two, I was just trying to explain where *I* think people are coming from when they say shame. I don't think they are of the belief that someone should feel that they, as a person, are less. I think they, like me, were equating shame with regret or guilt.

 

I just don't see why we can't all move past that one word, that's all.

Because the issue is wrapped up in that one word, shame and its variations ashamed, shameful, shameless.

 

People said that they don't want to live in a society where Audrie wasn't ashamed of her actions.

[PeacefulChaos]

Did you read the Steven Pressfield article? Honestly, it's really good. He seems to argue in *favor* of shame, mind you. But, he admits that cultures of shame are not without drawbacks. You can't recover from shame as a person. I think it is *inherent* to the discussion since the girl in the article actually killed herself. That's what happens when people experience a great deal of SHAME versus GUILT. 

Yes. I definitely see the difference when I read that. 

But again, I don't think people here are talking about shame in that context.  I think they are talking about guilt.  Or regret.  Which really just makes it feel like everyone is going around in circles about words that don't matter because everyone means the same thing anyway.

But I may be wrong, Idk. 

[PeacefulChaos]

Did you read the Steven Pressfield article? Honestly, it's really good. He seems to argue in *favor* of shame, mind you. But, he admits that cultures of shame are not without drawbacks. You can't recover from shame as a person. I think it is *inherent* to the discussion since the girl in the article actually killed herself. That's what happens when people experience a great deal of SHAME versus GUILT. And I think saying *anything* like "this is what happens when girls get drunk at parties, they should expect to be humiliated, written on, sexually assaulted and pissed on" is shaming the victim of a crime. Any time you say, "sure she wasn't asking for it, BUT," you are heaping shame on the victim of a crime. I'm not going to change my opinion on that, no matter what anyone says. I was a LONG time coming to that conclusion. I've said it before, but the book Lolita was instrumental in me coming to realize the truth of it. You don't have to agree, but nobody is going to convince me otherwise, *especially* with nothing other than their personal opinion.

And I certainly do not agree with anyone saying anything bolded. 

[Scarlett]

Yes. I definitely see the difference when I read that. 

But again, I don't think people here are talking about shame in that context.  I think they are talking about guilt.  Or regret.  Which really just makes it feel like everyone is going around in circles about words that don't matter because everyone means the same thing anyway.

But I may be wrong, Idk. 

 

Yeah, that is what happens when people---academics---decide to change the definitions of words.

[Scarlett]

. And I think saying *anything* like "this is what happens when girls get drunk at parties, they should expect to be humiliated, written on, sexually assaulted and pissed on" is shaming the victim of a crime. Any time you say, "sure she wasn't asking for it, BUT," you are heaping shame on the victim of a crime. I'm not going to change my opinion on that, no matter what anyone says. I was a LONG time coming to that conclusion. I've said it before, but the book Lolita was instrumental in me coming to realize the truth of it. You don't have to agree, but nobody is going to convince me otherwise, *especially* with nothing other than their personal opinion.

 

 

How about when someone says, 'she isn't responsible for being raped.  She is responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation.'?

 

Because that is what I have been saying. 

[Mrs Mungo]

And I certainly do not agree with anyone saying anything bolded. 

 

I think that is what a LOT of people in this thread have implied. 

 

I think saying, "this is why girls shouldn't go to parties and get drunk" is the equivalent of the statement that you put in bold. Now, if people said something more like, "this is why teens need more supervision" or "this is why teens shouldn't be getting drunk because of the problems that can occur," those statements are different because they are addressing the situation, not putting girls in the situation of being fully responsible for their own safety. Because girls get raped in all sorts of situations and it is never, ever okay. How many rapists have said "she was asking for it?" A lot. Why? Because a "good girl" wouldn't be in X, Y, Z situation, so those sentiments make it far too easy for them to rationalize their own actions. Again, I highly recommend reading Lolita to see how the rationalizations work. 

[PeacefulChaos]

Yeah, that is what happens when people---academics---decide to change the definitions of words.

 

On the whole, it doesn't matter, though, you know? 

In this conversation, why not just say, 'Ok, 'shame' has been redefined as ___.  That is not what *I* (or whomever) meant in their original use of the word.' and then the conversation can continue without having to battle about what the word means?

[Mrs Mungo]

How about when someone says, 'she isn't responsible for being raped.  She is responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation.'?

 

Because that is what I have been saying. 

 

She's not responsible for what happened, not on any level. Saying that she's "responsible" in any way, shape or form is victim shaming, IMO. Again, you don't have to agree, but there is ZERO chance of you changing my mind, especially with nothing but your opinion to back your thoughts up. 

[PeacefulChaos]

I think that is what a LOT of people in this thread have implied. 

 

I think saying, "this is why girls shouldn't go to parties and get drunk" is the equivalent of the statement that you put in bold. Now, if people said something more like, "this is why teens need more supervision" or "this is why teens shouldn't be getting drunk because of the problems that can occur," those statements are different because they are addressing the situation, not putting girls in the situation of being fully responsible for their own safety. Because girls get raped in all sorts of situations and it is never, ever okay. How many rapists have said "she was asking for it?" A lot. Why? Because a "good girl" wouldn't be in X, Y, Z situation, so those sentiments make it far too easy for them to rationalize their own actions. Again, I highly recommend reading Lolita to see how the rationalizations work. 

 

I have seen a lot of that in this thread, to be sure. 

It's unfortunate.  And I do not agree with it.  :(

[Scarlett]

On the whole, it doesn't matter, though, you know? 

In this conversation, why not just say, 'Ok, 'shame' has been redefined as ___.  That is not what *I* (or whomever) meant in their original use of the word.' and then the conversation can continue without having to battle about what the word means?

 

 

Sure.  I just wish someone would give me the definitions list before we begin a big long drawn out thread like this. 

[Corraleno]

Do you (in general - asking honestly and not trying to be snarky) not find a sense of personal guilt or regret to be useful at times? 

As parents, are we not allowed to sometimes express disappointment in an action or decision our child has made?  That we ourselves have made?   Are parents who say the words, 'I'm disappointed in your decision to not call me instead of staying at the party and drinking because you didn't have a ride' doing something wrong?

I'm really, really, confounded by this. 

 

I see a big difference between saying "I'm disappointed in your decision to..." and "You should be ashamed of yourself for..."

 

The first expresses disappointment in the child's actions, while the second suggests the there is something shameful about the child herself.

 

Guilt, regret, and disappointment do not carry the connotations of personal dishonor and disgrace that shame does. I don't think Audrie killed herself because she regretted getting drunk, I think she killed herself because she felt humiliated, ashamed, and disgraced. So when some people suggested that she should be "ashamed of herself," I think that's what triggered the response — that she somehow deserved to be disgraced because she made some bad choices.

 

Jackie

[Scarlett]

She's not responsible for what happened, not on any level. Saying that she's "responsible" in any way, shape or form is victim shaming, IMO. Again, you don't have to agree, but there is ZERO chance of you changing my mind, especially with nothing but your opinion to back your thoughts up. 

 

 

Interesting. She isn't responsible for drinking herself into oblivion?   I don't think being drunk and passed out gives anyone the right to rape her....but I think it was very foolish and I would encourage all girls to avoid that situation.

 

I am beginning to hate that word 'shaming'.  As if pointing out foolish behavior is the problem....not the foolish behavior. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Interesting. She isn't responsible for drinking herself into oblivion?   I don't think being drunk and passed out gives anyone the right to rape her....but I think it was very foolish and I would encourage all girls to avoid that situation.

 

I am beginning to hate that word 'shaming'.  As if pointing out foolish behavior is the problem....not the foolish behavior. 

 

Foolish behavior on HER part is what caused her to be raped? Is that your suggestion?

[PeacefulChaos]

I see a big differences between saying "I'm disappointed in your decision to..." and "You should be ashamed of yourself for..."

 

The first expresses disappointment in the child's actions, while the second suggests the there is something shameful about the child herself.

 

Guilt, regret, and disappointment do not carry the connotations of personal dishonor and disgrace that shame does. I don't think Audrie killed herself because she regretted getting drunk, I think she killed herself because she felt humiliated, ashamed, and disgraced. So when some people were suggested that she should be "ashamed of herself," I think that's what triggered the response — that she somehow deserved to be disgraced because she made some bad choices.

 

Jackie

I wonder why she felt that way?  Why she felt such intense shame about something that wasn't her fault?  :( 

What should people - parents, friends, whoever - be doing to try to keep that from happening?

[Mrs Mungo]

Is teen drinking a problem? Yes. Should it be addressed as a problem for GIRLS because of this case? No, the girl isn't the one who raped and peed on someone. 

[Scarlett]

Foolish behavior on HER part is what caused her to be raped? Is that your suggestion?

 

 

No.  Foolish behavior put her in harms way.  I wish she had not done that.  And I wish those boys had not raped her.  And I wish she had not killed herself.   But as I said, being drunk and passed out does not give anyone the right to rape her.

[Caroline]

Foolish behavior on HER part is what caused her to be raped? Is that your suggestion?

That's what I read, too.

 

 

This difference between guilt and shame--

Guilt--you did something wrong

 

Shame--you are dishonored because you did something wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

I wonder why she felt that way?  Why she felt such intense shame about something that wasn't her fault?  :(

You don't see all of the people in this thread saying she's responsible? That good/smart/well-parented girls wouldn't be in that situation? What is implied by that?

 

What should people - parents, friends, whoever - be doing to try to keep that from happening?

People should be looking at rape as primarily a problem of how BOYS are raised, treated in schools, etc.

 

There was the thread about rape education in college? I attended the University of Oklahoma in the early 90s. There were 3 football players who gang raped a girl in the athletic dorms. The vitriol I heard on a *daily basis* against her was *astounding*. Now? The school actually puts a lot more emphasis on *alcohol awareness* than rape education. I think that's a good move. Alcohol is almost *always* a factor in these cases.

[Scarlett]

I wonder why she felt that way?  Why she felt such intense shame about something that wasn't her fault?  :(

What should people - parents, friends, whoever - be doing to try to keep that from happening?

 

 

Exactly. 

[Mrs Mungo]

No.  Foolish behavior put her in harms way.  I wish she had not done that.  And I wish those boys had not raped her.  And I wish she had not killed herself.   But as I said, being drunk and passed out does not give anyone the right to rape her.

You just aren't getting what I'm saying. I don't know how to make you get it. As long as the focus is on the girl's actions, then we are getting it very wrong, IMO.

[swimmermom3]

From my post above I am sure you know my XH is a cause for worry to me in how he influences our son.  Oddly enough he defers to me in all things related to raising our son and ds spends very little time with him, so I am hoping for the best there.  He has of late hit reality as to some of his own choices in life, made some heartfelt apologies to me and our son....so again I am hopeful that he won't work against me as our son gets older.

 

We are working on proper respect for the opposite sex right now....by we I am working with my son...reminding him to not touch girls (not because I am legalistic or overly prudish but because at 13 he is very impulsive and doesn't seem to know when to stop.)  I hope by the time he is 18 (or before) he has learned to self monitor that sort of thing.  The other day my friend and I took her granddaughter13 and my ds13 down to a swimming hole.  They were goofing off in the water and jumping from a rope.  and there was contact in the water.  I watched this for a moment and then called ds to me....I quietly told him, 'hands to yourself. '   He nodded and went back to playing.  I am not so naive as to believe there aren't hormones at work there...and I want him to know i am not fooled by the clueless routine. 

 

As for helping other kids?  That 13 yo girl had lost her mom to breast cancer that very day.  She has been on my mind constantly as I worry what her future will be...thinking of ways I can be there for her. 

 

Oh Scarlett,  :grouphug:  I forgot to tell you that I am so sorry for the loss of your friend. I am glad to hear that you will be there for her daughter.

 

 

[Scarlett]

You just aren't getting what I'm saying. I don't know how to make you get it. As long as the focus is on the girl's actions, then we are getting it very wrong, IMO.

 

 

I hope the boys are severely punished.  I am disgusted by them.  And in the meantime I want to protect kids from being victimized by them and boys like them. 

 

I have a boy.  He is 13 1/2.  I promise you he is NOT being raised to believe that 'bad girls' are responsible for his actions.  I am probably much more strict on him and his behavior toward the opposite sex than most parents. 

 

So I, and others like me are NOT just focusing on the girl.  My intent is not to excuse the boys behavior but to help girls see how dangerous it is to put themselves in such a situation. 

[Corraleno]

How about when someone says, 'she isn't responsible for being raped.  She is responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation.'?

 

The problem is that the only reason it was "a dangerous situation" is because boys who were there, who she thought she could trust, chose to sexually assault her and not one person tried to prevent it.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous about being at party in a friends house in a safe neighborhood, or even getting drunk (unless someone's driving). If those boys had chosen to be decent human beings, instead of rapists, they would have covered her with a blanket and let her sleep it off in the safety of an upstairs bedroom. I've been to many many college parties where people got drunk to the point of passing out, including scantily clad girls (I went to college in Florida), and no one got raped.

 

I was once assaulted while walking to my car late at night in a dark parking lot — was I "responsible for putting myself in a dangerous situation"? If a girl is drinking in a bar and a guy slips a drug into her drink, then assaults her, is she "responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation," because girls should never drink in bars?

 

There is nothing inherently "dangerous" about dressing provocatively, going to parties, or even getting drunk, unless there happen to be creeps there who think sexual assault is OK. It's NEVER the responsibility of the victim of sexual assault to make sure she's not assaulted. It's the responsibility of the perpetrators to not assault anyone. Period.

 

Jackie

 

 

 

[Scarlett]

Oh Scarlett,  :grouphug:  I forgot to tell you that I am so sorry for the loss of your friend. I am glad to hear that you will be there for her daughter.

 

 

 

Thank you.  I hope I can be.  They live over 4 hours from me.  My son and her are quite close though and I love her like a daughter.  So we will do what we can.

[Mrs Mungo]

I hope the boys are severely punished.  I am disgusted by them.  And in the meantime I want to protect kids from being victimized by them and boys like them. 

 

I have a boy.  He is 13 1/2.  I promise you he is NOT being raised to believe that 'bad girls' are responsible for his actions.  I am probably much more strict on him and his behavior toward the opposite sex than most parents. 

 

So I, and others like me are NOT just focusing on the girl.  My intent is not to excuse the boys behavior but to help girls see how dangerous it is to put themselves in such a situation.

Your focus is still on the girls. THAT is the problem. THAT is why the rapists can rationalize it. 

[Scarlett]

The problem is that the only reason it was "a dangerous situation" is because boys who were there, who she thought she could trust, chose to sexually assault her and not one person tried to prevent it.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous about being at party in a friends house in a safe neighborhood, or even getting drunk (unless someone's driving). If those boys had chosen to be decent human beings, instead of rapists, they would have covered her with a blanket and let her sleep it off in the safety of an upstairs bedroom. I've been to many many college parties where people got drunk to the point of passing out, including scantily clad girls (I went to college in Florida), and no one got raped.

 

I was once assaulted while walking to my car late at night in a dark parking lot — was I "responsible for putting myself in a dangerous situation"? If a girl is drinking in a bar and a guy slips a drug into her drink, then assaults her, is she "responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation," because girls should never drink in bars?

 

There is nothing inherently "dangerous" about dressing provocatively, going to parties, or even getting drunk, unless there happen to be creeps there who think sexual assault is OK. It's NEVER the responsibility of the victim of sexual assault to make sure she's not assaulted. It's the responsibility of the perpetrators to not assault anyone. Period.

 

Jackie

 

 

And yet, there are creeps everywhere who assault people everywhere.  What is so difficult about admitting that we live in a very bad world and we need to take precautions against creeps, rapists, thieves, murders and the like? 

[Scarlett]

Your focus is still on the girls. THAT is the problem. THAT is why the rapists can rationalize it. 

 

 

A rapist is going to rationalize it anyways.  I just want to stay out of his way. 

[Mrs Mungo]

And yet, there are creeps everywhere who assault people everywhere.  What is so difficult about admitting that we live in a very bad world and we need to take precautions against creeps, rapists, thieves, murders and the like? 

 

So, if someone with a fancy house got robbed, would you say they were "asking for it" because they "were flaunting it?" 

[Scarlett]

So, if someone with a fancy house got robbed, would you say they were "asking for it" because they "were flaunting it?" 

 

 

No I would not.  And I did not say Audrie was asking for it because she was flaunting it 

 

I would say a fancy house probably needs to lock their doors.  And I wish Audrie had not passed out from too much alcohol.

[BYE]

The problem is that the only reason it was "a dangerous situation" is because boys who were there, who she thought she could trust, chose to sexually assault her and not one person tried to prevent it.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous about being at party in a friends house in a safe neighborhood, or even getting drunk (unless someone's driving). If those boys had chosen to be decent human beings, instead of rapists, they would have covered her with a blanket and let her sleep it off in the safety of an upstairs bedroom. I've been to many many college parties where people got drunk to the point of passing out, including scantily clad girls (I went to college in Florida), and no one got raped.

 

I was once assaulted while walking to my car late at night in a dark parking lot — was I "responsible for putting myself in a dangerous situation"? If a girl is drinking in a bar and a guy slips a drug into her drink, then assaults her, is she "responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation," because girls should never drink in bars?

 

There is nothing inherently "dangerous" about dressing provocatively, going to parties, or even getting drunk, unless there happen to be creeps there who think sexual assault is OK. It's NEVER the responsibility of the victim of sexual assault to make sure she's not assaulted. It's the responsibility of the perpetrators to not assault anyone. Period.

 

Jackie

That's one of the best posts from this thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

No I would not.  And I did not say Audrie was asking for it because she was flaunting it 

 

I would say a fancy house probably needs to lock their doors.  And I wish Audrie had not passed out from too much alcohol.

 

If they don't lock their doors, would you say they are responsible for getting robbed? 

 

All the wishes in the world won't take back what's already happened. 

 

Will I talk to ALL of my kids about alcohol abuse and why it's a bad idea? Absolutely. Will I say alcohol and peer pressure make for a very bad mix and will sometimes cause people to make decisions that they might not make under normal circumstances? Yes. Yes, but I will say that to my SON as well as my daughters. I won't suggest that my daughters are in more danger than my son. Because they aren't.

[Scarlett]

If they don't lock their doors, would you say they are responsible for getting robbed? 

 

All the wishes in the world won't take back what's already happened. 

 

Will I talk to ALL of my kids about alcohol abuse and why it's a bad idea? Absolutely. Will I say alcohol and peer pressure make for a very bad mix and will sometimes cause people to make decisions that they might not make under normal circumstances? Yes. Yes, but I will say that to my SON as well as my daughters. I won't suggest that my daughters are in more danger than my son. Because they aren't.

 

 

No I would not say they are responsible for getting robbed.  I will say they are responsible for not locking their doors.

 

As for your last paragraph I agree with it 100%. 

[Corraleno]

Your focus is still on the girls. THAT is the problem. THAT is why the rapists can rationalize it. 

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

The belief that her "foolish behavior" somehow contributed to her getting raped not only helps the rapists rationalize it, it helps the other kids who knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it, to rationalize their lack of action. It sends the message that it was partly her own fault for getting drunk, therefore she and the boys who assaulted her "share" the blame, so it's OK that no one "chose sides" by intervening.

 

IMHO it's critical that we go beyond just teaching our kids not to get drunk, not to have drunk sex, or not to assault people. We need to teach our kids that if they EVER see anything like that happening, that they need to step up and do the right thing. If even ONE person at that party had said "hey, that is NOT cool, you need to leave her alone," and made sure that Audrie had a safe place to sleep it off, she would still be alive. People who bully and commit sexual assault are a small minority; the fact that so many other people stand by and say nothing is what allows it to continue. I hope that if my kids ever find themselves in a situation like that, that they will stand up and stop it.

 

Jackie

[Scarlett]

 

 

 

IMHO it's critical that we go beyond just teaching our kids not to get drunk, not to have drunk sex, or not to assault people. We need to teach our kids that if they EVER see anything like that happening, that they need to step up and do the right thing. If even ONE person at that party had said "hey, that is NOT cool, you need to leave her alone," and made sure that Audrie had a safe place to sleep it off, she would still be alive. People who bully and commit sexual assault are a small minority; the fact that so many other people stand by and say nothing is what allows it to continue. I hope that if my kids ever find themselves in a situation like that, that they will stand up and stop it.

 

Jackie

 

I also agree with this part of your post.

[swimmermom3]

Commonly accepted by whom?  Not by me or anyone I know. 

 

There were probably 3, maybe 4 people on this thread that equated shame with a little light guilt and maybe 15 or so that had some fairly emotional reactions when "shame" and "rape" were coupled together. Dishonor and disgrace are the oldest weapons in the book in abusing a victim, male or female, sexually or physically.  Shame is how we keep victims in line. Guilt may or may not keep a 15 yo girl in her house instead of at a party; shame will have her cutting gashes into her arms, thighs, and chest, stealing pills from her parents to numb the emotional pain, and finally, hanging from her shower head with a belt.

 

I don't agree that shame isn't the same as guilt.  It appears there is an effort underway to change the meaning of shame, but it is what it is. 

 

It's fine to disagree, but that part in bold is just plain silly and does nothing to strengthen your argument.

[marbel]

We live in a world where girls are in danger of being raped.  That danger increases if they are drunk and out of control.  That's just a fact of the society we live in right now.  It is not good or acceptable but It is not going to change overnight. 

 

Until it changes, we should educate our girls not to put themselves in dangerous places - such as parties with no adult supervision, lots of alcohol, and predatory boys.  Of course we should be educating our boys as well not to be rapists.

 

A girl may and should have the right to get as drunk as she wants without fear of being raped.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  But that right does not matter if there are still people ready to rape and violate her.    A woman may have the right to accept a drink from an attractive man at a bar, or walk away from her drink on the table, leaving it unattended, without worrying that someone will put something in it.  But that right doesn't help her until all men stop putting things in women's drinks.

 

All of us here are talking about educating our kids so this stuff won't happen anymore.  That is great and as it should be.  But there are plenty of parents who are not educating their boys or their girls. So I'm not going to take it for granted that my kid will be safe at every party she goes to, or every social situation she is in.   I'm not going to risk my kids because they have the right to do something that is, at this time and in this culture, unsafe. 

 

 

[Corraleno]

Interesting. She isn't responsible for drinking herself into oblivion?   I don't think being drunk and passed out gives anyone the right to rape her....but I think it was very foolish and I would encourage all girls to avoid that situation.

 

I am beginning to hate that word 'shaming'.  As if pointing out foolish behavior is the problem....not the foolish behavior.

 

That's exactly what several of us are trying to say — "pointing out her foolish behavior" as if it's why she was raped is the problem. She was not raped because she was drunk, she was raped because three boys chose to rape her. Being drunk does not "lead" to being raped. Boys deciding to rape is what leads to rape. Whether she was drunk, how she was dressed, or who she kissed, are irrelevant to the fact that three boys sexually assaulted her.

 

Jackie

[Murphy101]

I think I already said I view this as no different than locking my house at night.

 

It's a reasonable precaution.

 

If at some point I should pass out on the sofa first and the door is left unlocked or even wide open - that does not mean I deserve to have my home raped and pillaged.

 

But you're dang straight I'm going to be telling people to make a much stronger effort to keep their doors locked.

 

Because every one of us should not even need doors, much less locked doors, to feel safer in our homes. But should isn't how it is.

[Scarlett]

There were probably 3, maybe 4 people on this thread that equated shame with a little light guilt and maybe 15 or so that had some fairly emotional reactions when "shame" and "rape" were coupled together. Dishonor and disgrace are the oldest weapons in the book in abusing a victim, male or female, sexually or physically.  Shame is how we keep victims in line. Guilt may or may not keep a 15 yo girl in her house instead of at a party; shame will have her cutting gashes into her arms, thighs, and chest, stealing pills from her parents to numb the emotional pain, and finally, hanging from her shower head with a belt.

 

 

It's fine to disagree, but that part in bold is just plain silly and does nothing to strengthen your argument.

 

 

LOL...well silly is the nicest thing I've been called all day...but *I* think it is silly to change the definition of shame to suit some academic writing a paper.

[Mrs Mungo]

LOL...well silly is the nicest thing I've been called all day...but *I* think it is silly to change the definition of shame to suit some academic writing a paper.

You are getting it backwards. The colloquial understanding of the word has changed. Just like half the people I know insist on saying "sherbert" or "irregardless" even though they aren't words.

[Carol in Cal.]

The real question is, when and how do we say Enough already!

There are parts of the world with no street crime.

We grow up with it, and accept it as a given that we have to be more careful than men all the time.

It costs us. 

Because of it, we exercise less, enjoy wild nature less, fear solitude more, and spend much more on cars and cabs than men need to.

We have more stress.

When we are assaulted, some of us flat out bail out of our own lives in embarrassment, shock, or fear.

 

When and how do we stop this?  When and how do we say, this just is not right and it is completely unacceptable?

Where is the MADD for women?