Why shouldn’t that subject lead into the topic of rape?.
You're now making excuses for putting words in my mouth.
It goes along the same line of one person subjecting another to physical aggression.
The main point wasn't about aggression. It was about responsability. A rape victim who walks into town and gets raped had no understanding of the situation he or she was in and what would happen to him or her. The victim is not responsible for being raped, or the situation he or she is in. That is once again not equal to someone who willingly chooses to continue to be in an abusive relationship and enables abusive behavior. That person is in a codependency and a codependency takes two to happen, so she is also responsible. The abuser is and should always be responsible for being abusive, but the person who chooses to be in that abusive relationship is responsible for the outcome because codependent relationships take two to work, just as it takes buyers and drug sellers to make the transaction occur and both parties are responsible for the drug transaction.
Also, aggression can be used for many different things. It is a very board spectrum and to compare the aggression used for rape to that of competition in football games, for example, is just absurd. Therefore, no, it does not go along the same lines just because aggression is used.
But I totally disagree with your assertion that a victim is to blame for the other person’s abusive behavior.
Then by your same argument, a person is not responsible for running towards a wild bear when they know the bear will rip them to pieces. The victim chose to engage with the bear knowing the consequences just as the so-called victim chose to stay in the abusive relationship. They the bear responsability for being there and what happens to them through enablement, etc.
Your argument thus falls apart.
Of course there are variations of this and if the woman is engaging in physical abuse as well she isn’t off the hook.
Well, that is another story, but actually, in a majority of relationships where the woman is abused, she also is abusive back. But that would just further prove my argument.
Also, there have been cases of women raping men. And some people seem to justify or intentionally ignore abusive behavior when they actually could leave.
Thats not always the same thing. If the woman has never raped the guy and the relationship was okay, then the guy did not know. However, if he stays in a relationship after being raped and continues to be raped, then he bears a level of responsability for choosing to be there and what happens to him because he is then enabling the abusive behavior. Two different scenarios.
Also, in much of the West, women suffer far lessor punishments for the same sexual crimes men commit. This is one very good example of how many women today want to be treated as men and the same benefits men have via equality, yet they don't really want the laws to be applied equally to them like with men. And so, men suffer from that true inequality because women collectively (along with the state) and many men do not want to hold women accountable or make them have responsability.
However there is the other extreme of the manipulators who brainwash their victims into believing they have no way out. They are usually very adept at putting on a front for the public and then changing into a different person behind closed doors. This is an intentional act of maintaining control over another person and using abuse as a way to do so.
Okay, now you are just grasping at straws here. Half the time someone says they were 'brainwashed', it likely is just an excuse to absolve responsability for their bad choices of being in the relationship and enabling the bad behavior. In the cases that someone is truly preyed upon and groomed and truly brainwashed, then that is not the same thing because if you are truly groomed and brainwashed by someone and that person was a great person up until that point, then the victim had no real red flags that were obvious to them that the person was being abusive, etc. The victim doesn't have prior knowledge at least to a large degree, so it isn't like she is choosing to stay in a relationship and is not brainwashed after the fact that the person has been abusive time and time again.
The two scenarios are miles apart for those reasons and for someone to be very skilled at truly brainwashing someone is a very hard job, so such cases of finding someone who is truly brainwashed are not as common. When most people claim they're brainwashed, it's too subjective as well.
It’s all too easy and “intellectually dull/lazy” to assume all cases of abuse are black and white.
But they are black and white, for the most part. I just made clear distinctions and lines in the definitions for you, thus my argument was entirely coherent. You may not like my argument but it is consistent. Yours is not. I explained to you how you can know which cases would be black and which would be white and that is due to the responsability according to things like prior knowledge. If you have prior knowledge that a wild bear is in the woods and you understand bears are dangerous, there is nothing black and white about it. Clearly, you are responsible for engaging with the bear when you know it is very dangerous and will hurt you. You bear responsability just a much as the bear. However, if someone is raped by a stranger, the victim could have never known that as going to happen to avoid it. And there is never a right excuse for a man who knows it is wrong to rape her, so he is responsible for the act of rape. However, if a woman goes to a party, and she gets drunk, and passes out on a sofa with five guys and is raped, then she does bare some responsibility for the situation she put herself in. She isn't responsible for being raped because there is never a good excuse for why those five men had to rape her, but she does bare some responsability for putting herself in the situation that led to the rape due to poor decisions that any intelligent person should know is wrong (that passing out drunk with drunk strangers at night in someone's home puts you at higher risk of being raped). Likewise, someone who chooses to be in an abusive relationship and is enabling the abuser is responsible for the outcome of that relationship which ends in abuse, even though the abuser is responsible for his or her abuse to the victim.
I mean, if you’re only specifically talking about a woman who hits a man then sure, she’s being the aggressor and shouldn’t necessarily assume protection just because she’s a woman and men shouldn’t hit women. It seems like your trying to generalize that argument across all acts of abuse and trying to hold women accountable for sociopathic men because they put themselves in a bad situation. That’s called victim blaming, you should google it sometime!
But again, as I said earlier, statistically, MOST abusive relationships are reciprocal. So that would further validate my argument on that basis alone due to that overlap.
But even in cases where the aggressor is abusive and not the victim, if she continues to be there then she is responsible for the outcome because she has been abused before and knows it is an abusive relationship. She is choosing to be there. No one physically forcing her to be in the relationship. Thus, she is enabling the abusive relationship to take place. You learn about enablement in AA class as an recovering drug addict or alcoholic. They also teach and are aware of the fact that abusive relationships become enablement and codependency.
You have no argument to what I say because you have holes in your argument. And because you cannot develop a coherent argument you use shaming language like "victim blaming.'
Parents shame their kids for making bad choices. Why? Because parents know deep down, inherently, that even if something bad happens, their kids have the responsability to not do things they were taught not to do by the parents. For example, if they see their little boy talking to a stranger in front of the house (and the area is a dangerous area with kidnappings), the parent will shame the young boy within reason. They will say "didn't I tell you not to talk to strangers even if they offer you candy when I am not present?" Or if the kid is abducted because the person coaxed the kid with candy and is later found because the kid escaped without being hurt, when the parent gets the kid back, either immediately or at some point they will out of love shame the kid and say "I told you not to talk to strangers and go off with them if they offer you candy!"
Is the parent technically victim shaming according to your definition? YES. Good parents victim shame! It's wonderful! Thats what responsible parents do!
Lastly, not all victims are created equally. If you're a victim who runs up to a wild bear and almost gets killed after I warned you not to do it, and then I shame you for your silly decision, am I victim blaming or shaming you the victim for your bad decision? YES. Why? Because it was a stupid decision and you bear responsability for the outcome as well. And logic suggests they are to blame for their bad decision equally. So yes. Sometimes victims are to blame equally or to a good degree as well for the outcome. Being a victim doesn't in of itself necessarily absolve you of any responsibility. Yet you make 'victim' to be your sacred cow. It takes two people or more to form an outcome like an absuive relationship.
Don't like it? Too bad. Logic and truth doesn't care about your feelings.
Last edited: