![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Intent, actions, reception
Feb. 5th, 2013 07:30 pmTrigger warning: rape
There are a lot of legal terms and theories related to the concepts I am going to cover here. I know a few of them, but don't know most of them, and would probably not correctly use the ones I do know, so I'm going to try to stick to plain English with some occasional explanation of my meaning.
It has come up recently in conversations about dealing with sexual assault in my local communities that some people want to strongly prioritize the impact on the victim when deciding how to deal with a person or incident. I am strongly opposed to this plan, and want to thoroughly explain why. I'm going to apologize in advance for sticking to male-aggressor rape; it's arguably more common and keeps my use of pronouns simpler. Everything I say can, of course, be applied in reverse. And I am not going to cover malicious rape here. It happens. A lot. It deserves a lot of discussion and consideration. It doesn't get as much as it deserves. That doesn't mean it's unacceptable for us to discuss OTHER things, and THIS post mostly isn't about that.
First and foremost, I will readily admit that preventing future rapes is higher on my list of priorities than avoiding mental distress for past victims. If given the choice between the two, I will choose the former. I will encourage rape victims to testify against their rapists even when I know it will cause them mental distress, because I have strong interest in that rapist being convicted and removed from society. I am aware that there are people, particularly rape victims and/or trained/professional rape counselors, who do not agree with this prioritization. If you disagree with that choice then we have fundamentally different value systems, and you should not bother replying to any of the things I say below because they are all predicated on those values.
( Read more... )
Now, we come to the goal of preventing future rapes, and my earlier mention of priorities. Our community is going to take some steps to try to accomplish this goal. Those steps will be more effective the less random their basis. If we choose to ostracize everyone whose victim felt raped, we will appease the victims more often, but we will be doing away with some people who are not dangers to our community, and not addressing problems with people who are a danger but who are luckier or better at picking their victims. If, instead, we choose to ostracize people whose ACTIONS are unacceptable, and/or whose intent becomes apparent and unacceptable, then we will have a community in which those actions take place less often, and those intents are held less often. I choose the latter. To the consternation of many, this will require us to actually discuss and decide what those unacceptable actions are, to talk about the unacceptable behavior of others, and to enforce our rules consistently. I am willing to do this. Are you?
There are a lot of legal terms and theories related to the concepts I am going to cover here. I know a few of them, but don't know most of them, and would probably not correctly use the ones I do know, so I'm going to try to stick to plain English with some occasional explanation of my meaning.
It has come up recently in conversations about dealing with sexual assault in my local communities that some people want to strongly prioritize the impact on the victim when deciding how to deal with a person or incident. I am strongly opposed to this plan, and want to thoroughly explain why. I'm going to apologize in advance for sticking to male-aggressor rape; it's arguably more common and keeps my use of pronouns simpler. Everything I say can, of course, be applied in reverse. And I am not going to cover malicious rape here. It happens. A lot. It deserves a lot of discussion and consideration. It doesn't get as much as it deserves. That doesn't mean it's unacceptable for us to discuss OTHER things, and THIS post mostly isn't about that.
First and foremost, I will readily admit that preventing future rapes is higher on my list of priorities than avoiding mental distress for past victims. If given the choice between the two, I will choose the former. I will encourage rape victims to testify against their rapists even when I know it will cause them mental distress, because I have strong interest in that rapist being convicted and removed from society. I am aware that there are people, particularly rape victims and/or trained/professional rape counselors, who do not agree with this prioritization. If you disagree with that choice then we have fundamentally different value systems, and you should not bother replying to any of the things I say below because they are all predicated on those values.
( Read more... )Now, we come to the goal of preventing future rapes, and my earlier mention of priorities. Our community is going to take some steps to try to accomplish this goal. Those steps will be more effective the less random their basis. If we choose to ostracize everyone whose victim felt raped, we will appease the victims more often, but we will be doing away with some people who are not dangers to our community, and not addressing problems with people who are a danger but who are luckier or better at picking their victims. If, instead, we choose to ostracize people whose ACTIONS are unacceptable, and/or whose intent becomes apparent and unacceptable, then we will have a community in which those actions take place less often, and those intents are held less often. I choose the latter. To the consternation of many, this will require us to actually discuss and decide what those unacceptable actions are, to talk about the unacceptable behavior of others, and to enforce our rules consistently. I am willing to do this. Are you?
