"That is not what I meant, at all": How to Connect Respectfully

[roseelvira]

Way back  if you remember  when you joined and the wall everyone sat on .  It was like a Greek  hall .  I have not see that avi in years but  she was very nice  told me not to go to certain areas ,,,, and it  would be a good ideal to go become  premium  because  the harassment   at that welcome  center ,,,,,  wow,,,,,  and they  did the occupation on  wall street   thing  there secondlife style.......  i guess since then they   hopefully changed  the  welcome area, 

            The reason i became premium was  to get  away from the harassments

[Scylla Rhiadra]

38 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

But as I once said before, the wedding day thing is hugely compelling. Wedding days are such a high point in RL, and being able to dress up here and do it here.....well, I don't know why they don't offer a sham wedding day package...……….haha! It would be such a thrill to spend a couple of hours with friends, all glammed up and taking loads of pics.

But it would cost a lot of money...…..well, just like RL then...….

 

17 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

Thats the beauty of SL, can do gorgeous wedding pics, and not get married!

Well, yeah. Weddings are HUGE here.

I've never been partnered in SL, but, weirdly, I became for a couple of years a sort of freelance . . . um, minister? Wedding Officiator? Whatever, the person who actually performs the ceremony. It started out as a joke, when I presided over an impromptu mock wedding, and a friend who was getting married decided I was pretty good at it. And so my glorious career as Person-Who-Makes-You-Be-Married began.

I think I ended up doing about 5 or so of them? They were actually hard work: I had to write a little sermon-thingy, and then actually deliver it. Some of these were just big fun parties, and those weren't too difficult, but two of them that I can remember were HUGE, with rented spaces, dozens of invitees, a reception, a gift table, formal pics afterwards, and . . . ugh . . . wedding rehearsals! Kinda nuts, but it did give me some insights into the whole big business of weddings in SL.

And then there's the pre-wedding thing. A male friend, nice guy but I think I've described him before here as kind of useless, insisted that I go with him shopping for engagement and wedding rings, because he was panicking about the whole thing so much.

Coincidentally, I was chatting with my second ex last night, and he told me that he was preparing a surprise wedding for me before I broke up with him. (Not entirely sure I believe him: I'll have to ask Maddy, whom he said had agreed to officiate.) I'm sort of glad that never happened: I don't do "marriage" as an institution in RL, much less in SL.

Belinda, just hold out for an invite to someone else's SL wedding. Seriously, you don't want to go there as a bride.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, roseelvira said:

Way back  if you remember  when you joined and the wall everyone sat on .  It was like a Greek  hall .  I have not see that avi in years but  she was very nice  told me not to go to certain areas ,,,, and it  would be a good ideal to go become  premium  because  the harassment   at that welcome  center ,,,,,  wow,,,,,  and they  did the occupation on  wall street   thing  there secondlife style.......  i guess since then they   hopefully changed  the  welcome area, 

            The reason i became premium was  to get  away from the harassments

Well, I got "picked up" at the Welcome area when I first joined, by someone who promised to show me his etchings record collection -- which, oddly enough, he kept in his bedroom . . .

Yeah, the harassment and attempted victimization of noobs is pretty awful.

[Paul Hexem]

7 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

What I expect is that ducks and swans be treated with the same amount of dignity and respect regardless of what season it is.

 

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ya know I love you, Gadget, but . . .

Beth kind of says it here:

Eventually, even ducks get tired of having to be the ones to accommodate themselves to the hunters. And, you know, there are things we can do about it.

 

Hey, I'm not advocating duck hunting.

I'm just saying a duck costume isn't a good idea during hunting season, is all.

Now the cockatoos, that's a costume that's good all year. 

[Beth Macbain]

7 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Hey, I'm not advocating duck hunting.

I'm just saying a duck costume isn't a good idea during hunting season, is all.

Now the cockatoos, that's a costume that's good all year. 

You may not be advocating duck hunting but you're blaming ducks (or swans wearing duck costumes??) for the hunters hunting them. 

#thatsvictimblaming

[Fionalein]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, I got "picked up" at the Welcome area when I first joined, by someone who promised to show me his etchings record collection -- which, oddly enough, he kept in his bedroom . . .

 Yeah, the harassment and attempted victimization of noobs is pretty awful.

And worse: there is nothing you technically can do - if you tell the welcome area crew about the incident you already are breaking LL TOS

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Fionalein said:

And worse: there is nothing you technically can do - if you tell the welcome area crew about the incident you already are breaking LL TOS

That would have been 2008. The last time I created a new account was 2013. Has the system changed much? Do older residents still lie in wait somewhere along the assembly line to pounce?

Or is it just at the infohubs where they get dumped that this kind of predatory behaviour can still happen?

[Fionalein]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That would have been 2008. The last time I created a new account was 2013. Has the system changed much? Do older residents still lie in wait somewhere along the assembly line to pounce?

No, happened to me at the Firestorm Gateway several times - but it changed - they don't check wether you are a newb anymore.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Fionalein

[Paul Hexem]

9 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

#thatsvictimblaming

So is telling me I'm stupid if I don't lock my door when I leave the house.

Reality is like that, unfortunately.

[Beth Macbain]

51 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

So is telling me I'm stupid if I don't lock my door when I leave the house.

Reality is like that, unfortunately.

Lock your door or don't... it's still the person who steals your crap that is at fault. 

"She shouldn't have been carrying a purse if she didn't want me to steal it."

"He shouldn't have been talking on his phone in public if he didn't want me to snatch it."

"That store shouldn't have had cash in the cash register if they didn't want me to rob them."

And the old tried and true, "She shouldn't have worn that dress if she didn't want sex." 

None of those defenses would get very far. What you're saying is essentially the same thing. Nothing a woman is wearing excuses a man acting like a piece of sh*t. 

Period. Full stop. 

Why is that so hard for some people to understand? 

 

[AyelaNewLife]

1 hour ago, Gadget Portal said:

So is telling me I'm stupid if I don't lock my door when I leave the house.

Reality is like that, unfortunately.

This is the problem I have with the blanket statement of "the victim is never at fault". Because while it is usually true, it also covers acts of extreme stupidity. It's why I, personally, always throw in a common sense test of "were the actions of the victim reasonable?"

Is it reasonable to leave your front door and windows unlocked and wide open while you go on vacation for two weeks? Absolutely not, and no one sane would try and defend that.

Is it reasonable to leave your phone and purse at an empty cafe table while you nip to the loo? No, put it in your pocket if you're alone; but if you're with a friend/date/whatever then it would be reasonable, as they'd be able to watch your valuables. 

Is it reasonable to wear revealing/attractive clothing and go to a club or bar? Of course, 100%. Sure, you are essentially consenting to having the occasional pickup line thrown your way; but nothing more than that.

And if the actions of the victim were reasonable by any generous standard, then the victim is utterly blameless. 

(Hint: clothing choices are almost always reasonable. And the exceptions tend to involve bikinis and skiing.)

[Paul Hexem]

6 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

Lock your door or don't... it's still the person who steals your crap that is at fault. 

But I still lock my door.

6 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

What you're saying is essentially the same thing.

I'm not saying anything like those examples. I'm saying there are bad people in the world. It's 100% their fault when they do bad things. In a perfect world, they wouldn't. Until we have that perfect world, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even when we would rather not, and even when we shouldn't have to.

5 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

This is the problem I have with the blanket statement of "the victim is never at fault". Because while it is usually true, it also covers acts of extreme stupidity. It's why I, personally, always throw in a common sense test of "were the actions of the victim reasonable?"

Is it reasonable to leave your front door and windows unlocked and wide open while you go on vacation for two weeks? Absolutely not, and no one sane would try and defend that.

Is it reasonable to leave your phone and purse at an empty cafe table while you nip to the loo? No, put it in your pocket if you're alone; but if you're with a friend/date/whatever then it would be reasonable, as they'd be able to watch your valuables. 

Is it reasonable to wear revealing/attractive clothing and go to a club or bar? Of course, 100%. Sure, you are essentially consenting to having the occasional pickup line thrown your way; but nothing more than that.

And if the actions of the victim were reasonable by any generous standard, then the victim is utterly blameless. 

(Hint: clothing choices are almost always reasonable. And the exceptions tend to involve bikinis and skiing.)

I'm still not blaming the victim. I'm saying it's also reasonable for people to protect themselves.

You know what's unreasonable? A duck in a bikini.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Gadget Portal

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

So is telling me I'm stupid if I don't lock my door when I leave the house.

Reality is like that, unfortunately.

I think it's fascinating, and suggestive, that, nearly whenever this issue of assigning blame to a woman for what she chooses to wear arises, this is the analogy that is employed.

It is interesting because it implies, by analogy, that a woman's body is like the property of a house, and that to safeguard it, a woman must "lock it safely away" so that unauthorized people can't "steal" it.

And that's so interesting, of course, because it is how, for millennia, women's bodies have in fact been treated by Western culture. For example, it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that the notion of spousal rape has been added to the statute books in many places (and it's still not universally recognized), because the assumption has always been that a marriage contract transfers or at least shares "ownership" of a married woman's body: she can't withhold consent because, well, it's no longer only her body, and the man already has all the authority to access it whenever he wants.

Analogies, metaphors, and other like rhetorical devices are complicated things, and they are founded upon both similarity and dissimilarity, so it would be incorrect to say that the use of this analogy literally means that a woman's body is "a thing," and a form of "property." That's not how analogies work. BUT at least some of that meaning adheres to the rhetoric here.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

I'm not saying anything like those examples. I'm saying there are bad people in the world. It's 100% their fault when they do bad things. In a perfect world, they wouldn't. Until we have that perfect world, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even when we would rather not, and even when we shouldn't have to

At the core, nothing that you, Ayela, and Beth are say are necessarily inconsistent with each other. The key you've added in this statement is this: "It's 100% their fault when they do bad things." Thank you for adding that really vital clarification.

Culpability is not a zero-sum game: there isn't only so much blame to mete out.

But . . . there is not merely a quantitative but qualitative difference in the kinds of blame involved here. The difference between the "guilt" of a criminal who violates someone, and the victim who was foolish enough to make themselves vulnerable to violation, isn't so much a measure of "how much," but rather of intent and effect. The criminal is hurting someone else. The victim's actions, or lack thereof, are victimless and not criminal: the only person they are hurting is themselves, and they had no intent of causing harm, which is very different from the case of the criminal.

So, when we talk about these two things together, as though one somehow mitigates the other, we are making an error of category. They are apples and oranges.

Gadget, you understand why women resist this line of reasoning? Because, despite what I've said above, it is almost invariably employed to somehow mitigate the culpability of the criminal, and find a way to blame the victim by "sharing out" the blame. We can all agree that it is foolish to leave one's doors unlocked, but it is simply not the same thing as actively and intentionally choosing to harm someone else.

[Selene Gregoire]

5 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Is it reasonable to wear revealing/attractive clothing and go to a club or bar? Of course, 100%. Sure, you are essentially consenting to having the occasional pickup line thrown your way; but nothing more than that.

And if the actions of the victim were reasonable by any generous standard, then the victim is utterly blameless. 

(Hint: clothing choices are almost always reasonable. And the exceptions tend to involve bikinis and skiing.)

That is a load of crap. What I wear is not implied consent. 

I'm so angry right now I see white hot. If you've never been a victim of rape you need to shut the ***** up and sit the ***** down. You do not know wtf you are talking about. If you have been a victim of rape you need to get professional help because you have not dealt with it.

That is all I'm going to say. None of you is worth getting banned over.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[AyelaNewLife]

1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

That is a load of crap. What I wear is not implied consent. 

I'm so angry right now I see white hot. If you've never been a victim of rape you need to shut the ***** up and sit the ***** down. You do not know wtf you are talking about. If you have been a victim of rape you need to get professional help because you have not dealt with it.

That is all I'm going to say. None of you is worth getting banned over.

This might be my fault for not making myself clear, but to clarify:

I only meant that if you're at a club or bar, it is not unreasonable to expect to have complete strangers introduce themselves to you, some of whom will try to use pickup lines on you. That's it.

Do not read anything else into my words.

[Lindal Kidd]

Hey, Selene...calm down!  Please notice that Ayela did NOT say your clothes constitute consent to sex, but only consent to "having the occasional pickup line thrown your way."  If someone gives you a pickup line, you still have the choice to say yes, or no!

In fact, if I wear an attractive outfit and go to a club, I WANT to get a few pickup lines (even if I have absolutely no intention of accepting any of those invitations).  If I don't get any, I feel like my outfit failed. *whimper*.

Rape?  Never.  Admiration?  Yep, I like that!

[Selene Gregoire]

Just now, AyelaNewLife said:

This might be my fault for not making myself clear, but to clarify:

I only meant that if you're at a club or bar, it is not unreasonable to expect to have complete strangers introduce themselves to you, some of whom will try to use pickup lines on you. That's it.

Do not read anything else into my words.

Clothing is NOT IMPLIED CONSENT. Full stop.

[AyelaNewLife]

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

Clothing is NOT IMPLIED CONSENT. Full stop.

Walk away from the PC, get a glass of water, and take a few minutes to let the adrenaline subside. Then come back.

I agree. I agree with what you've said. The only thing which we appear to disagree on is what you think that I've said - and that may be my fault, for using poor wording.

[Selene Gregoire]

1 minute ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Hey, Selene...calm down!  Please notice that Ayela did NOT say your clothes constitute consent to sex, but only consent to "having the occasional pickup line thrown your way."  If someone gives you a pickup line, you still have the choice to say yes, or no!

In fact, if I wear an attractive outfit and go to a club, I WANT to get a few pickup lines (even if I have absolutely no intention of accepting any of those invitations).  If I don't get any, I feel like my outfit failed. *whimper*.

Rape?  Never.  Admiration?  Yep, I like that!

You may want it but others do not. 

I'm walking away because I am so angry I am shaking. I'm not going to sit here and let some ...... tell me it's my goddamn fault I was raped multiple times.

***** OFF WITH THAT BULL*****

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I'm not going to sit here and let some ...... tell me it's my goddamn fault I was raped multiple times.

Selene, I'm emphatically not going to tell you to "simmer down." I've never been raped (thank god); I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like for you, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But your anger is completely understandable.

The issue is where you've directed it. No one here, not even Ayela, is stating or even implying that your rapes were your fault. And I am certain she is distressed that you should think that this is what she was implying. She is at worst guilty of not speaking carefully enough, something we're all occasionally guilty of.

Ayela is on the side of the angels here: we all agree that (to use Ayela's own words), "the victim is utterly blameless."

I can't tell you how to direct your anger: you have complete agency. But mine is solidly targeting those who are either perpetrating, or perpetuating, sexual violence. And that's not Ayela.

[Marianne Little]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think it's fascinating, and suggestive, that, nearly whenever this issue of assigning blame to a woman for what she chooses to wear arises, this is the analogy that is employed.

It is interesting because it implies, by analogy, that a woman's body is like the property of a house, and that to safeguard it, a woman must "lock it safely away" so that unauthorized people can't "steal" it.

And that's so interesting, of course, because it is how, for millennia, women's bodies have in fact been treated by Western culture. For example, it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that the notion of spousal rape has been added to the statute books in many places (and it's still not universally recognized), because the assumption has always been that a marriage contract transfers or at least shares "ownership" of a married woman's body: she can't withhold consent because, well, it's no longer only her body, and the man already has all the authority to access it whenever he wants.

Analogies, metaphors, and other like rhetorical devices are complicated things, and they are founded upon both similarity and dissimilarity, so it would be incorrect to say that the use of this analogy literally means that a woman's body is "a thing," and a form of "property." That's not how analogies work. BUT at least some of that meaning adheres to the rhetoric here.

This is probably going to sound wrong, so should I say it? Western culture has come a long way from where it was. You still find cultures with FGM, forced marriage, child marriage, marital rape can not exist because a wife is the man's property, a girl is the fathers property, a girl's virginity is the whole family's honor and must be guarded, a man can divorce a woman but not the other way around, in case of divorce the man get custody of the children...

I am cheering Western culture from my corner, I shall not say why, because I don't think it matter. I do as I do and think as I think for a reason. That is personal.

I am triggered every time i see "Western" singled out, because in the West, brave women fought for women's rights, and also their male allies. There were men of means and influence who worked for the suffrage cause.

This is going to be a single post. If I have offended you or others, I can not explain it better, not can I use English so perfect as you. So it is best that I don't say more.

[AyelaNewLife]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The issue is where you've directed it. No one here, not even Ayela, is stating or even implying that your rapes were your fault. And I am certain she is distressed that you should think that this is what she was implying. She is at worst guilty of not speaking carefully enough, something we're all occasionally guilty of.

I'm English. Being flippant when talking about serious issues is practically a national trait. For the avoidance of doubt:

6 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

(Hint: clothing choices are almost always reasonable. And the exceptions tend to involve bikinis and skiing.)

When I say this, what I actually mean is "clothing does not imply consent". And then I reinforced that with an absurd exception of skiing in a bikini; which arguably does imply consent to getting frostbite, but which implies nothing else. Nowhere do I (intentionally) imply anything to the contrary. If I've not made that sufficiently clear, then I can only apologise.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

34 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

This might be my fault for not making myself clear, but to clarify:

I only meant that if you're at a club or bar, it is not unreasonable to expect to have complete strangers introduce themselves to you, some of whom will try to use pickup lines on you. That's it.

Do not read anything else into my words.

Your meaning was clear, and you did not say anything wrong. Some people have extreme anger issues. 

[AyelaNewLife]

Just now, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Your meaning was clear, and you did not say anything wrong. Some people have extreme anger issues. 

Thank you; but in this particular case I wouldn't say "extreme anger issues" is necessarily fair. Trauma like this is horrific, and causes extreme long-term emotional damage, capable of turning the otherwise-reasonable into the utterly-unreasonable. I might not agree with her anger, but I sure as hell understand it.