Why do women like to be "victims"
Options
bossdon201
Members Posts: 900 ✭✭✭✭✭
I need to know the ic's take on this. So im at an orientation in school for this program im in and one of the workshops was run by a domestic violence group. Now from the rip u could tell that these ? all had an agenda and was on some pro woman ? . Anyway they show a video of a skit where one of the characters was ? . long story short she invited a stranger to party that only consisted of her, the stranger she invited, her roommate and her roommate's boyfriend. She was tired from drinking too much and she invited the stranger to her room to ly down. they was kissing and eventually dude got on top of her and wanted 2 smash but she was doing that dumb unsure ? ? and was acting like she was unsure. The dude stopped but they started kissing again nd this time he just went for it even tho she was saying "no slow down" So me being a real ? and proud participant of the HOH movement, im like she needs to take half the blame for being dumb as hell and allowing a stranger to her bedroom. All the women in the room damn near wanted to ? me talking about how could u say that and no one's deserved to be ? . I'm like ? please, aint tryna hear that ? be responsible for your actions. So wht yall think bout this situation?
Comments
-
Sounds like she was an accessory to her own "? ".
I place quotes around the word "? " because I'm not sure if this even qualifies. -
brave man, but u were right.
-
fiat_money wrote: »Sounds like she was an accessory to her own "? ".
I place quotes around the word "? " because I'm not sure if this even qualifies.
How do you figure this doesn't qualify? No matter how dumb the chick was to bring the guy to her bedroom, if she says she doesn't want to have sex and he forces it anyway, it's ? . What's wrong with you dudes? A chick has the right to draw a line anywhere she wants when it comes to how far things will proceed. A dude does not have a right for forcefully push her past that line.
You can think it's stupid for a chick to invite some dude she doesn't know to her bed and then try to enforce a restriction, and it is, but that doesn't change the fact that the dude ? her.
The problem with the what the TC said isn't that he's wrong. He's absolutely right. The chick in the scenario was stupid. However, stupidity doesn't excuse the bad actions of someone else. ? is defined as the act as forcing an unwilling participant into sex. The victim can't be complicit in that. If the chick told the dude "No" and he did it anyway, it doesn't matter how stupid her actions were beforehand. He still ? her and it's still 100% on him.
Yes, if the female was wiser about her actions she could have avoided the situation. Yes, that's something females have to learn to accept. However, saying that people should be more vigilant in avoiding situations where they can be preyed upon by criminals is completely different from saying that it's partially their fault when they get preyed upon because they weren't vigilant enough.
That said, I agree with the sentiment. A lot of females will never take responsibility for their actions and will also never accept that many of their actions open the way for the misfortune they experience. -
Call me the devil or a ? or whatever you want, but when im invited into a young ladies bedroom to lie down, and we start making out, i am expecting to smash.
-
Simply because according to the threadstarter, the female's protest was "no, slow down"; which makes it seem that she didn't want to not have sex, but she merely wanted to have slow sex.The Lonious Monk wrote: »How do you figure this doesn't qualify?... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Yes, if the female was wiser about her actions she could have avoided the situation. Yes, that's something females have to learn to accept. However, saying that people should be more vigilant in avoiding situations where they can be preyed upon by criminals is completely different from saying that it's partially their fault when they get preyed upon because they weren't vigilant enough.
this in a nut shell.
if a someone is ? . Its never there fault. Now the actions leading up to the ? are obviously areas where we can discuss... but that does not take away from the crime that was committed.
But, Alcohol consumption plays a large role in most ? scenarios, which is something thats needs to be discussed aswell. -
fiat_money wrote: »Simply because according to the threadstarter, the female's protest was "no, slow down"; which makes it seem that she didn't want to not have sex, but she merely wanted to have slow sex.
lol What? Clearly she meant slow down as in you're progressing too fast. Why would she be telling him to slow the sex down if they haven't even started having sex yet? I guess it is kinda unclear based on the way the story is told, but it seems most logical that the guy was trying to push for sex and the chick was telling him to chill. -
fiat_money wrote: »Simply because according to the threadstarter, the female's protest was "no, slow down"; which makes it seem that she didn't want to not have sex, but she merely wanted to have slow sex.
*dead* @ the bolded
I feel bad for laughing
-
fiat_money wrote: »Sounds like she was an accessory to her own "? ".
I place quotes around the word "? " because I'm not sure if this even qualifies.
lmao at being an accessory to your own ? ... but yea c/s -
Shuffington wrote: »this in a nut shell.
if a someone is ? . Its never there fault. Now the actions leading up to the ? are obviously areas where we can discuss... but that does not take away from the crime that was committed.
But, Alcohol consumption plays a large role in most ? scenarios, which is something thats needs to be discussed aswell.
Ok so lets go by your logic it never a persons fault if they ? . What if this same chick that i mentioned happened to catch herself in this same scenario with the same guy again, you mean to tell me its not her fault?? FOH, i'll take it a step further and say she deserves to be ? then -
Ok, now I'm confused.Shuffington wrote: »if a someone is ? . Its never there fault.
Are you telling me that if a woman makes incredibly stupid decisions that directly lead to her getting ? then she is not at fault? Not even partially at fault? If so, I have to disagree with you there.Shuffington wrote: »Now the actions leading up to the ? are obviously areas where we can discuss... but that does not take away from the crime that was committed.
I don't think that I'm seeing your logic here. But if you're saying what I think that your saying, then I would say that nobody is arguing about the crime itself. We know ? is bad and inexcusable. What we are arguing is about responsibility/fault. A woman who makes poor decisions that lead to her ? is partially at fault simply because she is partially (or indirectly) responsible for said crime, right? If said woman refuses to acknowledge her responsibility and its potentially severe repercussions, what's keeping her from making the same poor decisions and ending up as a victim again? I think that we need to be brutally real and cut out this pc ? . Unfortunately for a lot of people, some domestic groups don't agree.Shuffington wrote: »But, Alcohol consumption plays a large role in most ? scenarios, which is something thats needs to be discussed aswell.
Very true. College is easily a prime example and I've personally seen and heard about it countless times. Though it can get extremely complicated with these "on the fence" hoes.
As for the thread question. Women have always played the victim card. Some of it's justified, some of it's not. What do they get out of it? Comfort. Even if that comfort is completely fabricated. -
Ok, now I'm confused.
I don't think that I'm seeing your logic here. But if you're saying what I think that your saying, then I would say that nobody is arguing about the crime itself. We know ? is bad and inexcusable. What we are arguing is about responsibility/fault. A woman who makes poor decisions that lead to her ? is partially at fault simply because she is partially (or indirectly) responsible for said crime, right? If said woman refuses to acknowledge her responsibility and its potentially severe repercussions, what's keeping her from making the same poor decisions and ending up as a victim again? I think that we need to be brutally real and cut out this pc ? . Unfortunately for a lot of people, some domestic groups don't agree.
Couldnt have said it any better -
Even in that case, it would mean she wanted to progress slower, not that she didn't want to progress at all.The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol What? Clearly she meant slow down as in you're progressing too fast... -
Lots of men play the victim too.... see most threads in G&S or R&R for proof...
Also I'm having difficulty seeing the correlation between the women ? at you for speaking on a womans ? and women playing the victim... -
you are absolutely right.No one is saying that any woman deserves too be ? ,but they need to take accountability for there actions.Just like the hoe that went up to Mike's room.She knew what the deal was.
-
Lots of men play the victim too.... see most threads in G&S or R&R for proof...
Also I'm having difficulty seeing the correlation between the women ? at you for speaking on a womans ? and women playing the victim...
Nope,we own up to our actions,but women always place the blame on everybody else.Fact! -
Ok, now I'm confused.
Are you telling me that if a woman makes incredibly stupid decisions that directly lead to her getting ? then she is not at fault? Not even partially at fault? If so, I have to disagree with you there.
No, it's not even partially her fault. What's wrong with you people? It is never a female's fault that a dude takes it upon herself to force her to have sex. Can making wiser decisions prevent a chick from being in that position? Yes, being foolish is something that females need to be held accountable for. That said, a female being foolish doesn't make it ok for a guy to ? her not even partially. What you and others don't seem to understand is by taking some of the blame of the attacker and putting it on the victim, you're essentially condoning what the attacker does to some degree. You're saying that since the victim behaved foolishly in some way, it was ok that the attacker ? her. That's stupid. It doesn't matter how the victim behaves. If a person knowingly forces another person into unwilling sex, it's ? , and all the fault for that is on the one doing the forcing.I don't think that I'm seeing your logic here. But if you're saying what I think that your saying, then I would say that nobody is arguing about the crime itself. We know ? is bad and inexcusable. What we are arguing is about responsibility/fault. A woman who makes poor decisions that lead to her ? is partially at fault simply because she is partially (or indirectly) responsible for said crime, right? If said woman refuses to acknowledge her responsibility and its potentially severe repercussions, what's keeping her from making the same poor decisions and ending up as a victim again? I think that we need to be brutally real and cut out this pc ? . Unfortunately for a lot of people, some domestic groups don't agree.
I can understand what people are trying to say, but what you're actually saying is wrong. If you make responsible and wise decisions, you can avoid a lot of the misfortune that may come your way. So yes, women do need to take responsibility for making poor choices. However, the poor choice was putting herself in a bad situation. They way you guys are talking implies that her poor choice was being ? . That's not true. Her fault is in putting herself in a bad position. She bears no fault in the actual ? .fiat_money wrote: »Even in that case, it would mean she wanted to progress slower, not that she didn't want to progress at all.
Yes, and if it's progressing slower, dude may have never made it to sex. Damn, don't act like people never make out or ? or do ? like that and leave it there. Your mentality is the same reason why it wasn't her fault. Just because a dude thinks he's gonna get the ? doesn't mean he his. Some cats just lack self control. They let themselves get all turned up and then push for it whether they have permission to or not. That is ? and it's not the victim's fault.
All that said, there are instances where dudes have gotten charged with ? , and I honestly don't think it's ? . Off the top of my head, the cases I can think of are:
Both parties are ? - You can't legally consent to sex when you're intoxicated. This is where the double standard works for wowmen. Men are always seen as the aggressor so even when both parties were ? in a situation, men have still wound up being charged with ? .
The "No" comes in the middle of sex - There was a story a while back of a guy who got charged with ? . Basically, he and the chick were having consentual sex and she decided to stop. Now he did stop but not as quickly as she believed he should have so she called ? . I understand that a woman has the right at anytime to say "No" but at the same time a chick should understand that when you're in the full scale act, a dude isn't going to be able to stop he microsecond she says something. Hell, he might not even hear or understand exactly what she's saying.
The "No" is implied - This happens a lot with silly chicks in college. They will go to some frat party and wind up getting a train run on them. It starts off with them ? the guy that they actually liked, and his boys taking turns after. The problem is in many cases the chicks never say "No" despite the fact that they don't want to continue. They are scared or embarrassed or whatever. I can understand that, but at the same time, if the chick doesn't say "No" then how is the guy supposed to know that she's not willing. Some would argue that she never gave verbal consent so he should have known better. That's a pretty silly statement because I would say that the vast majority of sex doesn't start with verbal consent. -
I'm not saying she should be ? but im just saying if you dont take any type of accountability for your actions then you will never learn from them. The guy is wrong no matter how you look at it, but she should be woman enough to admit that she was being a bird and caught herself in a bad situation and HER actions led up to her being ? . That way she will do thing differently next time
-
bossdon201 wrote: »I'm not saying she should be ? but im just saying if you dont take any type of accountability for your actions then you will never learn from them. The guy is wrong no matter how you look at it, but she should be woman enough to admit that she was being a bird and caught herself in a bad situation and HER actions led up to her being ? . That way she will do thing differently next time
I agree in principle. Females do need to understand there are consequences to actions. They also need to understand that right or wrong certain decisions can put you in a bad position.
That said, I still think that there is a minor problem with the way you phrase the situation. Her action led her to a situation where such a ? was possible. Her actions did not lead to her being ? . That's like saying that anytime a chick goes off alone somewhere with a guy, ? is a likely consequence. What does that say about us males if a chick being alone with one of us automatically means she's in danger of being ? . Yes, she put herself in a questionable position. No, she did not in anyway make herself complicit to being ? . I know it seems like a fairly minor difference, but I think it's an important one. -
it's like if you left the keys in your car and someone stole it. You obviously should make sure you take the keys out of your car when leave it, but the person who stole your car is not any less of a criminal.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I Her action led her to a situation where such a ? was possible. Her actions did not lead to her being ? .
exactly. I think we all make questionable choices , but thats apart of life..
The problem with some of you guys point of view is that your absolving the ? from any responsibility in the matter that led up to the crime. You say... " why did this women put herself in such a horrible position?" I say... "Why is a ? deciding to ? people?" "Why didnt he just leave?"
its pretty simple. You need to focus more on those criminal ? to figure out why they feel so entitled and compelled to the ? that they deliberately force themselves onto someone... not all the arbitrary elements like " why she dress that way?, or why did she invite him over? ect" -
it's like if you left the keys in your car and someone stole it. You obviously should make sure you take the keys out of your car when leave it, but the person who stole your car is not any less of a criminal.
I think the arguement here is ... the one who left the keys in the car should take some responsiblity for leaving the keys in the car ... even though the criminal took the car, common sense tells you not to leave your keys in your car.
I know a similar situation where a someone I know was "? " but refused to tell me the story behind it.
But basically what I got from it was that some dude at a party drove her car to her place because she was too ? to drive home .... mind u she could have called me ... we have that level of trust ....
Dude gets up to her room and then rapes her and leaves .... now ... she made sure not to tell me any other details and fought me whenever I asked .....
to this day I don't know what really happened. But she never mentioned it again, even tho police got involved and I suspect the case got dropped !!! cause if it went to trial I would have known about it. -
Shuffington wrote: »exactly. I think we all make questionable choices , but thats apart of life..
The problem with some of you guys point of view is that your absolving the ? from any responsibility in the matter that led up to the crime. You say... " why did this women put herself in such a horrible position?" I say... "Why is a ? out their deliberating ? people?" "Why didnt he just leave?"
its pretty simple. You need to focus more on those criminal ? to figure out why they feel so entitled to the ? that they decide to force themselves on someone... not all the arbitrary elements like " why she dress that way?, or why did she invite him over? ect"
I agree, a man in his right mind should have just left .... if she seems like she is playin ... I dont waste time, if she wanna go then its on, if she actin iffy ? aint happening even if she changes her mind .... but when alcohol is in play, peoples sense of judgement gets all clouded and crazy things can happen. The issue is, the ? ? or not is still accountable for his actions. The victim ? or not is still accountable for her or at least should hold herself accountable, because she allowed herself to get that ? . -
Lou Cypher wrote: »Call me the devil or a ? or whatever you want, but when im invited into a young ladies bedroom to lie down, and we start making out, i am expecting to smash.
I know right? Why else would I be in her room. Shes inviting that ? isnt even ? . Thats her flip flopping around... -
Woman walk through life without taking any responsibilities for their actions. They will hit a man and purposley will ? a man off to the point he beats her. Some woman become pazy house moms expecting me to carry the family then divorce me and take half. Woman are lazy victims that dont have to work to do ? . They never approach men and dress like a hoe and make me pay for their drink.
