CNN Reports on the "Promising Future" of the Steubenville Rapists

[consortium11]

I'm glad you realized how ludicrous it came off instead of assuming my bad wording was what I actually meant. ::)

I've been guilty more than once of typing things that made sense to me but came out completely differently when run through the filter of other people's perception...

My apologies. I might be able to clarify by specifying:

How does drunk == not able to consent on the part of the victim if drunk =!= a change of desires or intentions on the part of the attacker?

I'm afraid we may have to go from translating from simpleton to translating to dunce. Perhaps the "==" and "=!=" are confusing me; my translation:

How does drunk equal not able to consent on the part of the victim if drunk doesn't equal a change of desires or intentions on the part of the attacker?

I think my issue here is what I outlined in the above post (and will go into a little more detail below). I believe consent when drunk is the same as consent when sober (as long as there is consent) and therefore an intention to rape when drunk is no different to an intention to rape when sober.

I can see however why it's a more powerful question for someone who views anything that "inhibits" (for lack of a better word) complete and utter agency as invalidating consent. If we argue that someone only consenting because they're drunk is rape (as the consent is invalid due to only occurring because of the intoxication) then shouldn't we likewise apply the converse and say that a rapist that only raped because he was drunk shouldn't be blamed (as the rape only occurred because of the intoxication)?

Personally I utterly disagree, as I view drunken consent a very different way.

The rule of thumb I am familiar with is that if you wouldn't trust someone to drive, then you should not assume they are able to consent. Impaired is impaired. That is not necessarily coded into law (nor am I sure it should be) but the law doesn't cover everything, as we know.

I wouldn't trust anyone who had more than two drinks to drive which, if applied to activities that without consent would be sexual assault, rather limits the people I can do anything with and the circumstances I can do anything with them...

If drunken intent is still intent... and I think most would agree that being drunk doesn't give someone a "pass" (or other trite language) for doing something they intended to do, even if that intent only came about by being drunk... then drunken consent still has to be consent in the same circumstances.

That's not to say there aren't moral issues that do arise. But I struggle to see someone being drunk... even fairly heavily drunk... as being unable to consent or their consent being invalidated in some way. The moral issue is taking advantage, not sexual acts without consent.

Moreover, if impaired = impaired then why would we limit it to intoxication? There are lots of things that can affect ones decision making... adrenaline, peer pressure, emotions (and more general mindset).

[meikle]

=!= a change of desires or intentions

Who said that?  A person who is sober might want to commit a crime, but not intend to do it.  They might not intend to do it because of social pressures, legal ramifications, and so on -- the considerations that inhibit their action.  When alcohol removes those inhibitions, they may choose to act on it.  This is not a change in desire, and it isn't necessarily a change in intention, either (haven't we all heard someone say, "I didn't mean to do [whatever]," the morning after?)  What it is is a change in action that results in a crime, and being drunk does not relieve a person of responsibility for their actions*.

*Keep in mind that in the consent issue, the crime is not getting drunk and then giving consent, it's taking advantage of someone who we have deemed, as a society through our legal system, to be unable to give valid consent.

[Shjade]

A person who is sober might want to commit a crime, but not intend to do it.  They might not intend to do it because of social pressures, legal ramifications, and so on -- the considerations that inhibit their action.  When alcohol removes those inhibitions, they may choose to act on it.  This is not a change in desire, and it isn't necessarily a change in intention, either (haven't we all heard someone say, "I didn't mean to do [whatever]," the morning after?)  What it is is a change in action that results in a crime, and being drunk does not relieve a person of responsibility for their actions.

I got the impression that this is all Healergirl was saying in the first place: that alcohol may influence rapists with regard to giving them that extra impetus to actually do what they might have been thinking/fantasizing about already but not acting on. I don't think I saw her saying that excused their actions anywhere, and I know I damn sure didn't say it does, regardless of how xiaomei might want to paint that picture.

[meikle]

I'm just addressing Trieste's comparison, mostly because I think "unable to consent on the part of the victim" isn't the right way to look at it.  It's not that they can't consent, it's that we say that acting on their consent is a crime, the same way that if I tell you to shoot me, and then you shoot me, you still go to jail.  The act remains in the hands of the actor; what the impaired person (or the self-destructive person asking to get shot) says or doesn't say doesn't matter.

[gaggedLouise]

I got the impression that this is all Healergirl was saying in the first place: that alcohol may influence rapists with regard to giving them that extra impetus to actually do what they might have been thinking/fantasizing about already but not acting on. I don't think I saw her saying that excused their actions anywhere, and I know I damn sure didn't say it does, regardless of how xiaomei might want to paint that picture.

And for the sake of clarity, and to keep us out of that particular trench, no one's been saying that *all* rapists, all in general, are triggered by alcohol, or that alcohol would be the only such "lower-the-bar" motivator.

And no, Xiaomei.  It does not.  Rapists do not act like flipping a switch - unless they are already primed by alcohol or other drugs or psychological disorders of a rather severe magnitude..  There are warning signs that can be acted on.  The victim has many reasons - wishful thinking is a big factor- for not responding to the warning signs, but the warnings are there.

1) Not all rapists need a 'stimulator* to help take down their everyday,proper and risk-averse behaviour, to help them do what they deep down want (not consciously intend, beforehand) to do. Some will jump the gun without any intoxication, but many won't.

2) Alcohol, drugs or mental disturbances are no valid excuses (in the eyes of anyone else). Not morally and not, mostly, in the eyes of the law.

3) Intoxication still doesn't make most people, or most rapists-to-be, act in a Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde fashion, a nice ordinary Joe one moment and a green-eyed monster groping your breasts and grabbing you by the throat the next.


(edited only for a few typos)

[Healergirl]

Xiaomei,

You are attacking a claim I never made - that words in the mouth thing you see in others.  To repeat (not verbatim): 

No rapists do not rape simply because they drink alcohol, but alcohol reduces inhibitions, makes people more likely to engage in dangerous behavior - dangerous to others as well as themselves.  I never said alcohol was the cause of rape -now it is you putting words in my mouth  - I said it was  a contributing factor.  And it very much is.  Acting and writing otherwise is bizarre.

i do think that to gain the degree of change you want on a societal level, decades will be required because the rapists we have today will, I very much fear, be fairly impervious to reeducation.  The up and coming crop of potential rapists, they will will be the most fertile ground for reeducation.

Reeducation is not impossible.  but on a society-wide level, it is indeed gargantuan becuse the size, the sheer numerical size of the population of the USA is gargantuan.  And Xiaomei, what makes you think I have not done Anti-rapework?  My experience in such work is one of the reasons I don't think reeducation is a panacea. 

I am well aware that Situational Awareness as a defense has a gaping weakness:  SA can, not will, but can help protect a potential victim even from people she knows.  But what if the attacker is someone the victim trusts?  SA does not come into play, because the attacker is already inside the targets defenses.

My support of SA is nowhere near as total as your opposition.  I am not an absolutist.  I am well aware that solving this problem will require a wide variety of  approaches to achieve the goal of rape reduction - I do not think rape elimination is possible, unfortunately.  Different people will  interpret raw data in different ways, they will have slightly different approaches to the problem (even reeducation programs will differ in some degree from each other), and each approach will have some success - rape, as we both agree, is a very complex thing both on the individual an social level, there are many approaches to the problem, and they will all be taken.  Whether you like it or not.  I accept this better than you, I think, because I am well aware that the approach I have chosen for engaging this problem is not the One True Way.  I don't believe such a thing exists, frankly. Reeducation is indeed the best long terms solution, but it doesn't have as  much impact on what is happening now as I want it to have.  You disagree with what I am doing.  Well, in practical terms, so what?

I never said Situational Awareness the only thing people can do at the grassroots level - you yourself putting words in my mouth again.  But it is a  thing we can do and it has many benefits that go way beyond the narrow focus on the vital task of rape prevention.  And a disservice to all anti rape people?  Then I'm doing a disservice to myself.  I have been active in grassroots level work since I was 16, in 1985.  How long have you been doing this?  I am reluctant to play this  time-in-game card, but really, your accusation that I disrespect work I do myself has got to be the most moronic accusation you ever level at somebody you do not know.


This is a specific reply to Xiaomei's post of 11:35:33 PM last night, there has been a lot of activity, it will take me time to catch up.

[Healergirl]

Well, work did not intrude on leisure as I feared.  So far, anyway.  I've caught up.

Just gonna go ahead and reiterate that putting signs that said, "sex with someone unable to consent = rape" in bathrooms in one city reduced sexual assault occurrences in that city by ten percent in one year.  S

Meikle,

From the tenor of your post, it will probably surprise you to learn that I have been pushing that very same thing.  But rural Virginia, is, alas, very set in its' ways

Schooling at k-12 level? Because even that will sadly be a fight especially for school districts in conservative areas with conservative curriculum. So no, even that would not be free.

I find myself in full agreement with Xiaomei.  Rural Virginia is very hidebound.  I shudder to think of the difficulty this will face deeper in the Bible Belt.


And Oniya, yes, I realize you are leaving sex out of this at this level, but still, there will be a very regrettable degree of resistance to a very common-sense approach.  The resistance will not insurmountable, but it will be very real.

Xiaomei and I are in strong opposition to each other in this thread perhaps bitter opposition on her part, but I'm enjoying the argument. 


This thread has gotten huge.  Xiaomei is an Absolutist, I think, and reads absolute intent into statements I do not intend to be taken as Categorical Uuniversal Truth. Context is everything, but if anyone reading the current posts does not feel the pressing need to go waaay back and catch up on what Xiaomei and I have been not quite yelling at each other, I certainly understand.

And for the record:  I have no problem at all with Xiaomei or anybody else posting responses to my posts while I sleep.  Different timezones and schedules are a fact of internet life

Which is not to say that GaggedLouise is not a sweetie, she very much is. *mwah*

[Oniya]

The thing is, respect covers a lot of bases.  If you respect yourself and your body, you don't do stupid shit - whether that's drink to excess, commit crimes, or fire off bottle rockets at your crotch.  If you respect your friends, you don't try to convince them to do stupid shit.  If you respect other people in general, you don't try to do stupid shit to them.  If you respect the teacher, and you listen in class and actually learn something, giving you more opportunities than if you sat around doing stupid shit.  If you in turn try to be worthy of others' respect, there's still more stupid shit off the table, with the net result of less stupid shit being done.

True, it'll make things harder for the producers of 'World's Dumbest', but I think we could live with that.

[Ephiral]

Trieste, it should be noted that I have no real issue with a double-standard here. One spreads pain, the other does not. These are not moral equivalents, and I don't think they should be judged equivalently. That said, I see two major differences:

1. Amount. I might be off-base here; I have no solid data to go on, but I'm under the impression that drunk victims tend to have been given far more than the attacker, as a rule. This makes a pretty large difference.
2. As mentioned above, intent may change even if the basic underlying mindset does not. It's a restraint-reducer, basically. I see a huge moral difference between taking advantage of someone's reduced inhibitions to do something they would never allow while sober, and lowering your own inhibitions to the point where that "don't hurt people" voice in your head shuts up.

[Healergirl]

Oniya,

+1

Ephiral,

This is  personal observation based on my experience as a bartender:

1. Victims do indeed tend to drink more than attackers. For one thing, alcohol is physically debilitating as well as self-restraint reducing.  An aggressive person who drinks as much as a typical victim isn't very formidable if the opponent is mentally ready to do violence in self defense.   In addition, trying a serious close combat move when you re intoxicated past the point where your "Don't Hurt People" voice (lovely turn of phrase, lovely)  shuts down is a very good way to hurt yourself badly.

2.  Full agreement.  I learned to recognized who was likely to cause trouble later, even before they started drinking.  Again, nothing scientific I could point to, just gut-level analysis based on experience.  "I know a troublemaker when I see one."  And of course, there were times I was wrong, for good or bad.

[Ephiral]

2.  Full agreement.  I learned to recognized who was likely to cause trouble later, even before they started drinking.  Again, nothing scientific I could point to, just gut-level analysis based on experience.  "I know a troublemaker when I see one."  And of course, there were times I was wrong, for good or bad.

Here I have to disagree somewhat, because it's treading dangerously close to the "Well, you should've seen it coming." line. (I am not saying that's what you're saying, just that it's uncomfortably in the same direction.) And... well, I've seen people, not necessarily rapists, who keep buttoned up tightly enough that it's hard to get a read on them when sober. Hell, when dealing with people I don't know, I'm one of those people. (It's a security thing for me.) Acting like it's generally possible to get a good read on someone's mindset before they take action toward it runs the very real risk of making invisible or blaming those who were victimized by someone like that.

[gaggedLouise]

Trieste, it should be noted that I have no real issue with a double-standard here. One spreads pain, the other does not. These are not moral equivalents, and I don't think they should be judged equivalently. That said, I see two major differences:

1. Amount. I might be off-base here; I have no solid data to go on, but I'm under the impression that drunk victims tend to have been given far more than the attacker, as a rule. This makes a pretty large difference.
2. As mentioned above, intent may change even if the basic underlying mindset does not. It's a restraint-reducer, basically. I see a huge moral difference between taking advantage of someone's reduced inhibitions to do something they would never allow while sober, and lowering your own inhibitions to the point where that "don't hurt people" voice in your head shuts up.

I very much agree with this. Rapists who use booze to force down their own inhibitions tend to have consumed a lot less (at least set against body weight) than victims who were too drunk (or intoxicated with drugs laced into their drink) to do anything, or to recognize they were being taken advantage of.

Also, rapists are the ones who are strongly seen to DO something, to act, to push their own objectives - that's another reason why it's counted in on their intention if they are drunk. The woman showing consent, even if drunk consent, is not seen as actually doing something, as the one driving thge situation. That's partly to do with our inherited ideas about gender and desire, female desire and arousal are not seen as an independently active force, women are being entered, picked up, fucked - but not running the show. It's a cultural fact, then add to it that women are not seen as able to fight successfully, as Pumpkin Seeds pointed out before; our culture emphasises strength, toughness and fighter skills in men/boys and half discourages them in women and girls. That's plain both in real life and in fiction: how often, in a movie or a tv series, do you see a woman at the centre putting her life on the line and fighting, face to face and on her own, or leading a fight for freedom, to save somebody else from the thugs, for the truth? Not as a foil for the male hero, but fully in her own right all through the film? That kind of crusading roles,the kind that Kevin Costner or George Clooney would do, fighting to uphold what is just and right, are extremely rare for women and of course this is reinforcing a common perception of what women are able to do.

So women's desires as well as female resistance and open fighting to save oneself or somebody else often get to be perceived as mostly reactive, not guiding the show.

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

I was very often wrong!  One thing I also learned as a bartender is that people are sheeple is crap, we are far to individualistic for that.

The guy fiddling with the toothpicks might be on edge because he's up to no good or he might just have a lot of nervous energy.

Although people with genuine malicious intent can be amazingly calm before they strike.  Or maybe he really is just quietly enjoying a sandwich and glass of tea.

The guy in the corner staring at the blonde at my bar  might have malignant intent, or he might be trying to figure out whether or not he really does know her from somewhere else and maybe he does have a shot with her.

And the "Well, you should have seen it coming thing"?  For just about every crime, the victim, man or woman, can expect to hear some natter questioning their intelligence or good judgement.   This is human nature, believing that bad things only happen to people who have it coming is how we emotionally shield ourselves from the possibility that it can happen to us.


Rape is uniquely horrible in that it is the only crime I know of in which the burden of sin is attached to the victim.  Not poor just  poor judgement, true elemental sin.

[Ephiral]

So women's desires as well as female resistance and open fighting to save oneself or somebody else often get to be perceived as mostly reactive, not guiding the show.

In this case, I would argue that they are mostly reactive, because... well, people don't actively seek to get raped.

Ephiral,

I was very often wrong!  One thing I also learned as a bartender is that people are sheeple is crap, we are far to individualistic for that.

The guy fiddling with the toothpicks might be on edge because he's up to no good or he might just have a lot of nervous energy.

Although people with genuine malicious intent can be amazingly calm before they strike.  Or maybe he really is just quietly enjoying a sandwich and glass of tea.

The guy in the corner staring at the blonde at my bar  might have malignant intent, or he might be trying to figure out whether or not he really does know her from somewhere else and maybe he does have a shot with her.

And the "Well, you should have seen it coming thing"?  For just about every crime, the victim, man or woman, can expect to hear some natter questioning their intelligence or good judgement.   This is human nature, believing that bad things only happen to people who have it coming is how we emotionally shield ourselves from the possibility that it can happen to us.


Rape is uniquely horrible in that it is the only crime I know of in which the burden of sin is attached to the victim.  Not poor just  poor judgement, true elemental sin.

As I said, I'm not saying that you were drawing absolutist lines or laying blame on the victim. Just... well, I tend to shy away from any argument that can easily be used - whether it was intended that way or not! - to support victim-blaming. I've made this mistake myself before, and seen it turn ugly and hurt people. (In this very thread, in fact.) I'd rather not use a point, no matter how well-intentioned and valid it might be, than do one thing to help victim-blaming continue, no matter how indirectly and unintentionally.

[gaggedLouise]

In this case, I would argue that they are mostly reactive, because... well, people don't actively seek to get raped.

*smiles* It's true people don't actively go out of their way to get raped, but in referencing female desire and turn-on I was thinking more of how these are perceived in general, at a date, a night out, in bed or in a situation that's drifting towards rape but where the people nearby and/or the rapist do not recognize that if it goes a few steps further then it *is* rape. They will see it as the woman being languid, teasy or letting herself be talked up but not as the one who is deciding what will happen next. Well, she might not be either at a given time, but it's how this kind of lust game is perceived, overall, that interests me.

[Ephiral]

*smiles* It's true people don't actively go out of their way to get raped, but in referencing female desire and turn-on I was thinking more of how these are perceived in general, at a date, a night out, in bed or in a situation that's drifting towards rape but where the people nearby and/or the rapist do not recognize that if it goes a few steps further then it *is* rape. They will see it as the woman being languid, teasy or letting herslef be talked up but not as the one who is deciding what will happen next. Well, she might not be either at a given time, but it's how this kind of lust game is perceived, overall, that interests me.

All right, I see what you're driving at here. And yes, it's kind of interesting (and I think it needs to be shifted - I'd like to see a cultural-standard expectation that women are capable of acting and speaking for themselves and allowed to show some agency, thank you very much.)

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

I think I understand you completely.

There tend to be two ways people respond to victims of crimes or misfortune in general.

1.  "What did you do wrong?"

2.  "There but for the Grace of God go I."

I go with option 2  - but even I have to fight against Option 1 bubbling up in my brain at times - and not for rape, either.


Option number 1 is way far away the most typical human reaction, emotional shielding and all of that.  The prevalence of Option  1  crosses cultural bounds, It seems.    Are we hard-wired to think this way?   

This, I greatly fear, is the very heavy sea "blame the victim" reeducation will find itself sailing in.


I will state clearly once again, I think reeducation is our best long-term solution.  But just because it is our best solution, that does not mean it will be a effective as we want it to be.

[Trieste]

Also sexual desire, because women have libidos, too. ::)

Moreover, if impaired = impaired then why would we limit it to intoxication? There are lots of things that can affect ones decision making... adrenaline, peer pressure, emotions (and more general mindset).

This is an interesting question. Several months ago, I was at a munch where a practicing Dom talked about how important it is to work out boundaries before getting started and stick to them. Part of his reasoning is that once you get into a heavy scene, you are essentially drugging the sub with a flood of feel-good hormones. This person has entered an altered state where they will often consent to things in the heat of the moment that they would not have consented to before (and may regret later). I would hesitate to call this rape, obviously, but I think I would call it taking advantage of someone. (And I can't think of any situation in which a respectable Dominant wouldn't feel bad about it if they had even unintentionally put someone else in that position.) It puts forth an interesting view of consent and when it can be given. It should be noted that I am not at this point talking about legalities, just making a comment on the general philosophy (...?) of consent.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral,

I think I understand you completely.

There tend to be two ways people respond to victims of crimes or misfortune in general.

1.  "What did you do wrong?"

2.  "There but for the Grace of God go I."

I go with option 2  - but even I have to fight against Option 1 bubbling up in my brain at times - and not for rape, either.

I find it kind of odd; I've got a bit of a double-standard in my head. From what I understand, it's not terribly unusual, but it still strikes me as... silly. I have absolutely no problem with option 2 when it comes to other people, but am ridiculously harsh on myself when something happens to me.

Option number 1 is way far away the most typical human reaction, emotional shielding and all of that.  The prevalence of Option  1  crosses cultural bounds, It seems.    Are we hard-wired to think this way?

Nnnnot exactly, I'd say. It's not that we're hardwired to think this way so much as that we're hardwired to think very very poorly about risk and risk management in a modern context. It's less that we have an instinct to blame the victim, and more that we instinctually a) vastly underestimate common risks, and b) want to distance ourselves from them.

This, I greatly fear, is the very heavy sea "blame the victim" reeducation will find itself sailing in.


I will state clearly once again, I think reeducation is our best long-term solution.  But just because it is our best solution, that does not mean it will be a effective as we want it to be.

It's... well, it's bound to be a long and challenging battle, but I don't see it as necessarily a difficult one. All it needs is people willing to speak up every time they see victim-blaming rear its ugly head, and do nothing to support it. And no, it won't be as effective as we want it to. No security measure is 100% effective. (And this is a security measure, or at least close enough that equivalencies apply.) I'll be pretty reasonably happy if we can just make victim-blaming as taboo in the general culture as, say, racism. (Not that there aren't fairly large subcultures where racism thrives, but in the general culture, it's generally seen as a reason to dismiss or repudiate someone.)

[gaggedLouise]

Victim-blaming is a powerful way to distance oneself from the image, or the personal awareness, of a danger. Particularly when you come face to face with someone who was hit by that same danger. Unemployment, rape, illness, being a misfit on the terms of society - saying "well. it's kinda your own fault isn't it?" when you encounter someone who's been a victim of any of those is a potent mental shield, whether you actually meet them face to face, hear them speaking or just see them in the newspaper.

[Ephiral]

Victim-blaming is a powerful way to distance oneself from the image, or the personal awareness, of a danger. Particularly when you come face to face with someone who was hit by that same danger. Unemployment, rape, illness, being a misfit on the terms of society - saying "well. it's kinda your own fault isn't it?" when you encounter someone who's been a victim of any of those is a potent mental shield, whether you actually meet them face to face, hear them speaking or just see them in the newspaper.

...and now the white-hot rage is building, because I... well, I knew that blaming people for their economic or social position was wrong, but I never thought of it outright in terms of victim-blaming - and in particular, the aggressors launching multi-million dollar ad campaigns to blame the victim.

...I think I need to go light something on fire now.

EDIT: Just to clarify, the rage here is precisely because it's an apt comparison, not because it's conflating the issues. Poverty and similar issues are way too often discussed from a victim-blaming POV - and it's just as poisonous to any real solution to those problems as it is in the case of rape.

[Healergirl]

ephiral,

Being harder on yourself than on other people is indeed very common - I tend to feel that way myself.

And Options 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, there is often  a blend - but Option one does. seem to be stronger.

I think you are on to something about how humans weigh risk.  I hope our preference for option 1 is a reflection of that, and not a stand alone facet of humanity.  God I hope not.

mm.  Perhaps I am a pessimist by nature -   I know I'm something of a Cynic - but I don't really see the distinction between long and challenging, and difficult.

I think reeducation will be effective, greatly effective.  Eventually.  But there will not be a complete washing away of the old thinking.  And wow, putting "blame the victim" thinking in the same cesspit as racism... I'd call that a clear win!  And a doable goal.

gaggedLouise,

Very true, and it is a shock to people when they start seeing things that way.

Ephiral,

Relax, take a deep breath, focus you energy into something constructive and proactive.  i know how yu feel, i had that epihpany long ago.

[gaggedLouise]

...and now the white-hot rage is building, because I... well, I knew that blaming people for their economic or social position was wrong, but I never thought of it outright in terms of victim-blaming - and in particular, the aggressors launching multi-million dollar ad campaigns to blame the victim.

...I think I need to go light something on fire now.

Well, tv or youtube ad campaigns to push for strong positions on highly controversial or politicized issues (such as rape, criminal law, headline white-collar crime, celebrity scandals and so on) are very much rarer here than in the U.S. Even tv spots for elections is a fairly new thing here and they are mostly quite tame compared to what you see in America or even in southern Europe (I'm singling out tv and video ads becuase they are the most expensive kind, the ones that can really cost millions of bucks to launch and spread around, and sometimes felt to be the most inflaming ones, at least stateside). I was thinking more of editorializing or skewed reporting in newspapers, blogs and radio - those can really indulge in victim blaming when it's about people who are out of work, ill, living in squalid poverty and so on. And they are sometimes effectively paid for by political think-tanks, written by their people or follow the frames that those set up.

[Ephiral]

ephiral,

Being harder on yourself than on other people is indeed very common - I tend to feel that way myself.

And Options 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, there is often  a blend - but Option one does. seem to be stronger.

I think you are on to something about how humans weigh risk.  I hope our preference for option 1 is a reflection of that, and not a stand alone facet of humanity.  God I hope not.

Well. I approach this from a security perspective, and one of the most basic truisms of security is that people wildly overestimate rare but flashy risks - like, say, plane crashes - while vastly underestimating common ones - like car accidents, and this leads them to make stupid judgements and take stupid risks.

mm.  Perhaps I am a pessimist by nature -   I know I'm something of a Cynic - but I don't really see the distinction between long and challenging, and difficult.

Think of it like grunt labour vs, say, rocket science. One takes a hell of a long time and works you hard, but it's basically repetition. Easy to slide into a groove and just get it done. The other... not so much - it's difficult to make sure you're getting it right and not going to blow somebody up.

[Caehlim]

There tend to be two ways people respond to victims of crimes or misfortune in general.

1.  "What did you do wrong?"

Well I think this is a standard part of the human instinct toward pattern analysis. It's a good instinct and has led to our development of the sciences, but it tends to err on the side of seeing patterns even when none exist. This creates a lot of superstitious behaviours or magical thinking.

In some ways I think the rules people make about women obeying some sort of precise code of conduct to avoid rape, is the equivalent of attempting to work some spell of sympathetic magic. If you obey all these rules you will be safe... and of course it works about as well as all attempts at magic.