<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cecil:
"One of the key manipulations an abuser will use is the need to be a "good boy" or "good girl" (and I use that last term as the abuser sees it, not as a sexist statement) to foster compliance in their victim."
Ok, could you please explain how that is a or could be construed to be a sexist statement? Can "good boy" be considered as sexist?
I am all for being PC, but I think your context makes it fairly clear how you mean the terms to be used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the support, Cecil. I was just making sure that there was no misunderstanding of my intent in using those somewhat loaded terms.
The printed medium is so easy to mess up when it comes to tone and subtle intent. I was just insuring that no one would misconstrue my meaning.
Thanks again!
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
Women as Rapists
Moderator: Available
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
Women as Rapists
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes, in abuse situations, an abuser goes too far and the victim will finally break down and counterattack. Most often this simply leads to a worse battering or death for the victim. On occasion, however, it leads to the abuser taking serious, sometimes fatal, damage. - Lee Darrow
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) When the abuser is attacked and injured or even killed, is the abused attacker justified in any way?
2) If there is any justification, how far is too far?
3) Is it reasonable to expect the abused attacker to control themselves?
4) Is there a pent-up self preservation instinct that can explode with little possibility of control?
My answers:
1) Yes.
2) Anything beyond what is necessary for the abused to get away from the abuser. I think getting away is different from ending the abuse. Getting away STOPS the abuse; ending the abuse is more complicated.
3) In our society, the requirement for self-control is completely subjective. I think the abused attacker is responsible for controling themselves.
4) Probably. But, is the loss of control justified? Depends on the lawyer (and the jury). Should the motivation to stop the abuse be acted upon prior to that point? Yes.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
Sometimes, in abuse situations, an abuser goes too far and the victim will finally break down and counterattack. Most often this simply leads to a worse battering or death for the victim. On occasion, however, it leads to the abuser taking serious, sometimes fatal, damage. - Lee Darrow
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) When the abuser is attacked and injured or even killed, is the abused attacker justified in any way?
2) If there is any justification, how far is too far?
3) Is it reasonable to expect the abused attacker to control themselves?
4) Is there a pent-up self preservation instinct that can explode with little possibility of control?
My answers:
1) Yes.
2) Anything beyond what is necessary for the abused to get away from the abuser. I think getting away is different from ending the abuse. Getting away STOPS the abuse; ending the abuse is more complicated.
3) In our society, the requirement for self-control is completely subjective. I think the abused attacker is responsible for controling themselves.
4) Probably. But, is the loss of control justified? Depends on the lawyer (and the jury). Should the motivation to stop the abuse be acted upon prior to that point? Yes.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
Women as Rapists
Ted-sama,
Great and very thought provoking post.
My comments interspersed and marked with ** to delineate them as mine.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted Dinwiddie:
1) When the abuser is attacked and injured or even killed, is the abused attacker justified in any way?
** This is a situational call and would relate directly to the type of abuse being done and the response of the victim. If the abuse is primarily psychological, then a physical response could be very dangerous, especially from a legal standpoint as juries don't often seem to get the idea that emotional abuse can be just as damaging, or moreso, than a physical strike. Maybe student or Allen can weigh in on this aspect.
2) If there is any justification, how far is too far?
**Again, this is situationally defined. In a self-defense situation, where the victim is actively defending against a physical attack, then appropriate use of force comes into play. One does not react with a fatal response to a swat from a flyswatter - usually.
3) Is it reasonable to expect the abused attacker to control themselves?
** Again, this would be primarily dependent on the type and level of abuse and whether it is a "right now" self defense scenario or not. Unfortunately, juries in many states still do not allow for much of a "temporary insanity" defense
4) Is there a pent-up self preservation instinct that can explode with little possibility of control?
** In my research, the answer to this is a qualified yes. In the rare case where the victim finally "explodes" the probability of their being able to control themselves is considerably lower than an "average" person. There is a much higher probability that their abuser will beat the living daylights out of the victim, as well. Remember the psychological dominance issues at hand here. The victim is conditioned to play the role of the victim. The moment the abuser asserts him or her self, the victim often crumbles, simply due to conditioned response.
My answers:
1) Yes.
2) Anything beyond what is necessary for the abused to get away from the abuser. I think getting away is different from ending the abuse. Getting away STOPS the abuse; ending the abuse is more complicated.
** Getting away stops the immediate incident. Getting away may well engender a worse "retribution" from the abuser at a later date. Just to clarify.
3) In our society, the requirement for self-control is completely subjective. I think the abused attacker is responsible for controling themselves.
** In some cases, yes, in others, the rsponsibility does not seem to be so clear.
4) Probably. But, is the loss of control justified? Depends on the lawyer (and the jury). Should the motivation to stop the abuse be acted upon prior to that point? Yes.
**The real problem is that even trying to act to stop the abuse can engender further and greater abuse. See my comments on that below.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many abusers have an uncanny ability to find their victims, even after they have left and "gone to ground." In a significant number of cases, the abuser seems to everyone else like a "nice guy," or someone that the rest of the victim's family and friends trust.
Often, the abuser is charming, well mannered, polite and well groomed. These traits are taken to an abnormal extreme in a relationship where any infraction of their "rules" becomes a violation punishable by violence, deprivation and sometimes other actions, like rape.
Again, the real problem is the enforced dependence on the abuser for every little and big thing in the victim's life. This includes shelter, food, financial control, intimate relations, clothing, social contact and even threats to other members of the victim's family (made to the victim), including children, parents, siblings and even pets.
Yes, the need to act before the victim "cracks" and retaliates in a possibly fatal fashion SHOULD occur before the break happens, but many times, this simply is not psychologically possible.
I thank every diety I can think of, on a daily basis, that I got out before that happened.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
Great and very thought provoking post.
My comments interspersed and marked with ** to delineate them as mine.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted Dinwiddie:
1) When the abuser is attacked and injured or even killed, is the abused attacker justified in any way?
** This is a situational call and would relate directly to the type of abuse being done and the response of the victim. If the abuse is primarily psychological, then a physical response could be very dangerous, especially from a legal standpoint as juries don't often seem to get the idea that emotional abuse can be just as damaging, or moreso, than a physical strike. Maybe student or Allen can weigh in on this aspect.
2) If there is any justification, how far is too far?
**Again, this is situationally defined. In a self-defense situation, where the victim is actively defending against a physical attack, then appropriate use of force comes into play. One does not react with a fatal response to a swat from a flyswatter - usually.
3) Is it reasonable to expect the abused attacker to control themselves?
** Again, this would be primarily dependent on the type and level of abuse and whether it is a "right now" self defense scenario or not. Unfortunately, juries in many states still do not allow for much of a "temporary insanity" defense
4) Is there a pent-up self preservation instinct that can explode with little possibility of control?
** In my research, the answer to this is a qualified yes. In the rare case where the victim finally "explodes" the probability of their being able to control themselves is considerably lower than an "average" person. There is a much higher probability that their abuser will beat the living daylights out of the victim, as well. Remember the psychological dominance issues at hand here. The victim is conditioned to play the role of the victim. The moment the abuser asserts him or her self, the victim often crumbles, simply due to conditioned response.
My answers:
1) Yes.
2) Anything beyond what is necessary for the abused to get away from the abuser. I think getting away is different from ending the abuse. Getting away STOPS the abuse; ending the abuse is more complicated.
** Getting away stops the immediate incident. Getting away may well engender a worse "retribution" from the abuser at a later date. Just to clarify.
3) In our society, the requirement for self-control is completely subjective. I think the abused attacker is responsible for controling themselves.
** In some cases, yes, in others, the rsponsibility does not seem to be so clear.
4) Probably. But, is the loss of control justified? Depends on the lawyer (and the jury). Should the motivation to stop the abuse be acted upon prior to that point? Yes.
**The real problem is that even trying to act to stop the abuse can engender further and greater abuse. See my comments on that below.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Many abusers have an uncanny ability to find their victims, even after they have left and "gone to ground." In a significant number of cases, the abuser seems to everyone else like a "nice guy," or someone that the rest of the victim's family and friends trust.
Often, the abuser is charming, well mannered, polite and well groomed. These traits are taken to an abnormal extreme in a relationship where any infraction of their "rules" becomes a violation punishable by violence, deprivation and sometimes other actions, like rape.
Again, the real problem is the enforced dependence on the abuser for every little and big thing in the victim's life. This includes shelter, food, financial control, intimate relations, clothing, social contact and even threats to other members of the victim's family (made to the victim), including children, parents, siblings and even pets.
Yes, the need to act before the victim "cracks" and retaliates in a possibly fatal fashion SHOULD occur before the break happens, but many times, this simply is not psychologically possible.
I thank every diety I can think of, on a daily basis, that I got out before that happened.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
Women as Rapists
Captbike, I don't understand your diary at all or what place it has here.
Others, are we suggesting giving stressed or upset people a "get out of jail free" card for their violence? When does that stop exactly? It seems that the wrong jury in the wrong context could let people off for doing horrible things. All that has to happen is that they sympathize with the attacker more than the assailant. Lemme give you an example of what I mean: the "homosexual panic" defense has been successfully been used by heterosexuals to escape responsibility for attacking or killing gays. Here's how it works--the attacker says he was threatened or terrified or disgusted by the advances or PERCEIVED advances of a gay person or person perceived to be gay, and claims a sort of temporary insanity. Helps a lot if you have a prejudiced judge. Used as recently as the Matt Shepard case--unsuccessfully. This may be an extreme but it shows that these kinds of things DO happen. It's a matter of degree for excusing violence. When do we say that someone was SOOO mad or upset they were too mad to control themselves? Isn't somone who kills when upset too upset to stop the action automatically?
I recognize that its possible a abused person can be tortured to the point they see no other way out, but, I also see the potential for badness. Presumably, we could write that the duress faced by the attacker should be judged fairly, but we've already seen that the duress is often judged by the degree of prejudice in the attacker and the jury.
Others, are we suggesting giving stressed or upset people a "get out of jail free" card for their violence? When does that stop exactly? It seems that the wrong jury in the wrong context could let people off for doing horrible things. All that has to happen is that they sympathize with the attacker more than the assailant. Lemme give you an example of what I mean: the "homosexual panic" defense has been successfully been used by heterosexuals to escape responsibility for attacking or killing gays. Here's how it works--the attacker says he was threatened or terrified or disgusted by the advances or PERCEIVED advances of a gay person or person perceived to be gay, and claims a sort of temporary insanity. Helps a lot if you have a prejudiced judge. Used as recently as the Matt Shepard case--unsuccessfully. This may be an extreme but it shows that these kinds of things DO happen. It's a matter of degree for excusing violence. When do we say that someone was SOOO mad or upset they were too mad to control themselves? Isn't somone who kills when upset too upset to stop the action automatically?
I recognize that its possible a abused person can be tortured to the point they see no other way out, but, I also see the potential for badness. Presumably, we could write that the duress faced by the attacker should be judged fairly, but we've already seen that the duress is often judged by the degree of prejudice in the attacker and the jury.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Women as Rapists
Ian,
I blipped whatever it was that captbike posted. Very odd post. Didn't belong here.
Seemed a bit...trollish.
Captbike - if you have something reality-based you'd like to share, please introduce yourself and contribute to the discussions.
Thanks,
Dana
I blipped whatever it was that captbike posted. Very odd post. Didn't belong here.
Seemed a bit...trollish.
Captbike - if you have something reality-based you'd like to share, please introduce yourself and contribute to the discussions.
Thanks,
Dana
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
Women as Rapists
Ian writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
are we suggesting giving stressed or upset people a "get out of jail free" card for their violence?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I, for one, am not saying that at all. I am saying there needs to be more acknowledgement of other sources of abuse and their effects. I also believe there is a haste to vilify a physical response to emotional/psychological assault. The physical response should not be excused. The violent situation must be stopped; this probably means the physically dominant combatant gets locked up. Following that, establishing the context should be the next priority.
I think failure to exercise self-control, resulting in injury to another, should be punished. But, as the light has been aimed at the shadows that obscure the abuse of women and children, it must be aimed into ALL the shadows.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited March 21, 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
are we suggesting giving stressed or upset people a "get out of jail free" card for their violence?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I, for one, am not saying that at all. I am saying there needs to be more acknowledgement of other sources of abuse and their effects. I also believe there is a haste to vilify a physical response to emotional/psychological assault. The physical response should not be excused. The violent situation must be stopped; this probably means the physically dominant combatant gets locked up. Following that, establishing the context should be the next priority.
I think failure to exercise self-control, resulting in injury to another, should be punished. But, as the light has been aimed at the shadows that obscure the abuse of women and children, it must be aimed into ALL the shadows.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited March 21, 2002).]
-
Allen M.
Women as Rapists
I skimmed an article this morning about a woman raping a teenage boy which left with the following nagging question:
Should a female perpetrator be judged by the same rules and sentenced, if found guilty of course, in the same manner as is a male perpetrator? Or do we relax the rules because she is from the "fairer sex?" Whatever that term means any more.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
Should a female perpetrator be judged by the same rules and sentenced, if found guilty of course, in the same manner as is a male perpetrator? Or do we relax the rules because she is from the "fairer sex?" Whatever that term means any more.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
Women as Rapists
Of course she should be treated the same way as a male. Does the law anywhere for anything in the United States indicate that a woman should get a reduced sentance for a given crime that a man?
What *might* be different about this case is the nuances re: rape. Because a male usually has to participate in the sexual act (if I may presume the specific act in question) whereas a female does not, a woman is usually not raping, by force, a teen. What she's doing is abusing a position of authority and age (depending on the age, that is, many teens can consent to sex). In this she's like the school teacher who had children with the pre-teen student of hers. That was bad, as bad as a male doing it, but, not as bad, I would think, as a male forcibly raping someone of the same age.
The issue is that the youth who has sex willingly can *assent* but not *consent* because they lack legal ability to do so. Ethically consent is harder to pin down, ability to make one's own decisions only comes with a birthday in an artifical legal sense, and in the real world it's variable and graded.
The "raped" youth--by force--neither consented nor assented.
What *might* be different about this case is the nuances re: rape. Because a male usually has to participate in the sexual act (if I may presume the specific act in question) whereas a female does not, a woman is usually not raping, by force, a teen. What she's doing is abusing a position of authority and age (depending on the age, that is, many teens can consent to sex). In this she's like the school teacher who had children with the pre-teen student of hers. That was bad, as bad as a male doing it, but, not as bad, I would think, as a male forcibly raping someone of the same age.
The issue is that the youth who has sex willingly can *assent* but not *consent* because they lack legal ability to do so. Ethically consent is harder to pin down, ability to make one's own decisions only comes with a birthday in an artifical legal sense, and in the real world it's variable and graded.
The "raped" youth--by force--neither consented nor assented.
