"Why I did not report my rapist"

TheChizler · 25-02-2017 07:49PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why do people in this thread keep saying triggered? Is this a new thing? I can't find an explanation of its meaning on the internet. How am I supposed to keep up with this internet speak?

Same here. I've seen it exclusively used as a way of parodying "liberals". Presumably someone somewhere has used it sincerely.

Dr Crayfish · 25-02-2017 07:54PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Same here. I've seen it exclusively used as a way of parodying "liberals". Presumably someone somewhere has used it sincerely.

Parodying how? What does it mean? I have no idea, apart from what it literally means.

25-02-2017 07:55PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Same here. I've seen it exclusively used as a way of parodying "liberals". Presumably someone somewhere has used it sincerely.

It's a very real issue for people like soldiers or victims of violence and war, some situations may set off an episode of flashbacks etc. and those are referred to as triggers.

Online it's just used to silence someone who disagrees with you by implying they're so precious that seeing or reading anything contrary to their opinion gives them PTSD or causes a traumatic response.

It's really childish, really stupid, and really ridiculous.

sunshine and showers · 25-02-2017 07:56PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Same here. I've seen it exclusively used as a way of parodying "liberals". Presumably someone somewhere has used it sincerely.

It's usually a warning when someone is posting on social media about issues that may have affected a potential reader of their post before they read it.

So you can skip reading if you've been affected by/feel vulnerable when reading about sexual assault/eating disorders/domestic violence.

It's kinda like the "if you've been affected byou the issues in this programme..." phone numbers at the end of TV shows. People take the píss out of it (in fairness, like with everything, some people go too far with it), but it can be helpful to some.

hatrickpatrick · 25-02-2017 07:58PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why do people in this thread keep saying triggered? Is this a new thing? I can't find an explanation of its meaning on the internet. How am I supposed to keep up with this internet speak?

TheChizler wrote: »

Same here. I've seen it exclusively used as a way of parodying "liberals". Presumably someone somewhere has used it sincerely.

Radical SJW feminists (the types who advocate the creation of a Cyber Police, and believe that the right not to have your feelings hurt trumps others' right to free speech online) tend to use "trigger warnings" - originally intended to alert those suffering from PTSD to content that they might find distressing - for incredibly trivial things. For instance, on a particularly anti-male forum called girl-mom, they used to use trigger warnings for everything from stories about a guy getting served first at the bar because he muscles his way past a woman in the usual club-bar fracas, to stories about somebody making a fat joke which set them off because they used to be fat and it reminded them of past bullying.

They basically want the entire world bubble wrapped because they can't deal. That's why in the South Park "Safe Space" episode which parodied the overuse and trivialisation of trigger warnings, the character who arrives to talk sense into those idiots is called "reality". They paint themselves as basically wanting everybody else's freedom curtailed for their specific requirements, hence the comparison to baby proofing etc - like that one overbearing parent who demands that the rules of rugby be changed because their kid can't hack the rough nature of it, but still demands to play the game and therefore that everybody else changes their behaviour to accomodate them.

They're a primary driver of the bitter culture war currently being raged online and elsewhere. A good example is the whole censorship in video games debacle - video game communities are traditionally very libertarian when it comes to speech and if you can't hack the insincere banter and abuse, your one option is to feck off and find another server. The feminist / SJW types demand that culture changes to accommodate them instead of being willing to become part of an existing culture themselves.

Dr Crayfish · 25-02-2017 07:58PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It's usually a warning when someone is posting on social media about issues that may have affected a potential reader of their post before they read it.

So you can skip reading if you've been affected by/feel vulnerable when reading about sexual assault/eating disorders/domestic violence.

It's kinda like the "if you've been affected byou the issues in this programme..." phone numbers at the end of TV shows. People take the píss out of it (in fairness, like with everything, some people go too far with it), but it can be helpful to some.

Still don't understand, at all. Can you give an example of this?
Like do you say TRIGGERED and then start talking about rape or another sensitive issue?

infogiver · 25-02-2017 07:58PM

anna080 wrote: »

Also, can I just pick up on something she said here. She said 97% of RAPISTS do not get convicted. So are you automatically a rapist before conviction now?! And are assumed a rapist even when acquitted. Surely she means 97% of people ACCUSED of rape. This girl has no clue.

If you have consensual sex with a woman, and later on (even years later) she regrets having had sex with you, for any reason,then you are a rapist.
If you want to have sex with a particular woman then you must write to her giving her 2 weeks notice.
When she writes back confirming that she too would enjoy coitus with you then you may proceed, while being mindful that she may change her mind at any time including during penetration.
You should also be mindful that even though she's returning your kisses and assisting you with the removal of her garments that you must listen VERY VERY CAREFULLY for any protestations that she might make, and withdraw immediately, or else you may very well end up the subject of lurid rape allegations 15 years later.

25-02-2017 08:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This whole "saying yes with your actions" thing is very dodgy in my mind. Is a guy automatically consenting to sex just because he has a raging boner, even if he is clearly saying the word "no" at every stage?

She didn't just 'have a boner'. She kissed him back, she co operated in the undressing, she by her own admission DECIDED to have sex rather than an awkward situation.

If a guy says no but has a boner and otherwise reciprocates kissing and gets undressed and muddies the water by participating, and then DECIDES to have sex, then I don't think he can call his partner a rapist. Sleazy and badgering maybe, but not a rapist.

To be clear, I think he should have stopped when he heard no. To be extra clear, I think she should have stopped co operating and reciprocating if she wanted him to know she meant it.

One eyed Jack · 25-02-2017 08:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I honestly don't see how there's any confusion here - the word "no" (or an equivalent safe word) overrides any other form of communication when it comes to sexual consent.

Not alone that, but the whole "people aren't mind readers" stuff just doesn't wash either IMO. There are an infinite number of visible cues a person can tell whether someone wants to have sex with them, or not, as the case may be. Nobody actually has to be a mind reader, they only have to care as much about the other persons welfare as they care about their own.

Most people in society are actually capable of this and there's never any issue whatsoever, so I don't see any reason to blow things out of proportion by suggesting anything so mechanical (or so futile) as the idea of "consent classes for college students" that will only ever be able to take account of a very specific set of very generalised circumstances, and no account of all the individuals involved nuanced interactions in between.

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:03PM

Candie wrote: »

It's a very real issue for people like soldiers or victims of violence and war, some situations may set off an episode of flashbacks etc. and those are referred to as triggers.

Online it's just used to silence someone who disagrees with you by implying they're so precious that seeing or reading anything contrary to their opinion gives them PTSD or causes a traumatic response.

It's really childish, really stupid, and really ridiculous.

Wasn't there a web famous case of a lady who said tumbler was triggering her? Was my understanding that this was the focal point for the definition change as folks on the left adopted it.

I also thought that the whole safe space thing was to stop people getting triggered.

sunshine and showers · 25-02-2017 08:05PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Still don't understand, at all. Can you give an example of this?
Like do you say TRIGGERED and then start talking about rape or another sensitive issue?

If someone was to post something about their experience bring raped/having bulimia/suffering domestic abuse, they would preface their post with "trigger warning - rape/eating disorder/domestic violence". Then people can choose whether or not to read it.

Otherwise, someone who has had an experience with whatever is being discussed could be "triggered" by the content of the post into flashback of being raped/assaulted, or back into disordered thinking around food/eating.

Tbh, I can see a lot of posters laughing about the SJWs and their silly labels, but I've been raped. I don't always feel like hearing/reading about rape and sexual assault because it brings up shít memories. I'm sure a lot of other people feel similarly. If a "trigger warning" stops someone from having to experience those feelings on a day they're not up to it, then it's not really harming anyone else.

25-02-2017 08:08PM

sunshine and showers wrote:

If someone was to post something about their experience bring raped/having bulimia/suffering domestic abuse, they would preface their post with "trigger warning - rape/eating disorder/domestic violence". Then people can choose whether or not to read it.

If you are reading something and you start to feel uncomfortable, stop reading it. Once rape is mentioned, stop reading If you don't want to know details. Why the hell do you need a trigger warning?

sunshine and showers · 25-02-2017 08:11PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you are reading something and you start to feel uncomfortable, stop reading it. Once rape is mentioned, stop reading If you don't want to know details. Why the hell do you need a trigger warning?

Why are you so offended by it? Do you get offended by the helplines at the end of soaps for people to call if they've been affected by tough storylines too?

It's just a sentence. If you don't like it, just roll your eyes and sigh after you read it.

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are reading something and you start to feel uncomfortable, stop reading it. Once rape is mentioned, stop reading If you don't want to know details. Why the hell do you need a trigger warning?

Same reason we "need" safe spaces.

westernlass · 25-02-2017 08:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

sunshine and showers wrote:

If someone was to post something about their experience bring raped/having bulimia/suffering domestic abuse, they would preface their post with "trigger warning - rape/eating disorder/domestic violence". Then people can choose whether or not to read it.

If you are reading something and you start to feel uncomfortable, stop reading it. Once rape is mentioned, stop reading If you don't want to know details. Why the hell do you need a trigger warning?

Because you can be instantly back there and the mention of rape is all it takes for some people. The recovery process takes a long time and often never works. It's a helpful tool that I don't get the argument against.

25-02-2017 08:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are reading something and you start to feel uncomfortable, stop reading it. Once rape is mentioned, stop reading If you don't want to know details. Why the hell do you need a trigger warning?

A victim of violence has mentioned that something makes her life easier at times, and this is how you respond?

She didn't demand trigger warnings or special consideration, just mentioned she appreciates them at times. Understandable when you consider what she's been through.

Skin off your nose = zero.

Green Peter · 25-02-2017 08:21PM

Safest thing to do is to ask for permission in writing and enter some kind of contract before sex, the OP seems to have a difficulty in knowing the real meaning of "no" herself. Quite frankly I call bull**** on this, it's about getting her name and blog bumped into the public domain.

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:21PM

Candie wrote: »

A victim of violence has mentioned that something makes her life easier at times, and this is how you respond?

She didn't demand trigger warnings or special consideration, just mentioned she appreciates them at times. Understandable when you consider what she's been through.

Skin off your nose = zero.

Not really no if someone is still carrying the incident with them that the mere mention of a word takes them back maybe the need to continue sessions with a counselor until they can cope in society. We cannot wrap the world up in cotton wool, it is a hard place out there.

That may sound a little bit harsh but we can see across the pond how trigger warnings, safespaces ect have been used to attack freedom of expression and speech.

25-02-2017 08:25PM

Calhoun wrote: »

Not really no if someone is still carrying the incident with them that the mere mention of a word takes them back maybe the need to continue sessions with a counselor until they can cope in society. We cannot wrap the world up in cotton wool, it is a hard place out there.

That may sound a little bit harsh but we can see across the pond how trigger warnings, safespaces ect have been used to attack freedom of expression and speech.

And we should teach people to cope with doors being slammed in their faces so nobody is inconvenienced by holding it open. Because it really puts people out to extend that small kindness to others, right?

Common courtesy, costs nothing and helps people who might be feeling a little fragile. I don't think we need tell them to keep out of mainstream society until a mental health professional deems them capable of coping with triggers 24/7 for the rest of their lives, when we can just decide to be a little considerate instead.

Obviously you disagree. That's your prerogative.

neonsofa · 25-02-2017 08:25PM

Calhoun wrote: »

Not really no if someone is still carrying the incident with them that the mere mention of a word takes them back maybe the need to continue sessions with a counselor until they can cope in society. We cannot wrap the world up in cotton wool, it is a hard place out there.

That may sound a little bit harsh but we can see across the pond how trigger warnings, safespaces ect have been used to attack freedom of expression and speech.

Many people are in therapy and addressing the issue. Many people have been for years and will do so for their entire lives. Some are not yet ready to attend therapy. Yes it is a hard place out there and if people can make the place a little easier for the people finding it hard to cope right at this minute then I personally don't see the issue even if I personally find it a bit OTT at times.

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:33PM

Candie wrote: »

And we should teach people to cope with doors being slammed in their faces so nobody is inconvenienced by holding it open. Because it really puts people out to extend that small kindness to others, right?

Common courtesy, costs nothing and helps people who might be feeling a little fragile. I don't think we need tell them to keep out of mainstream society until a mental health professional deems them capable of coping with triggers 24/7 for the rest of their lives, when we can just decide to be a little considerate instead.

Obviously you disagree. That's your prerogative.

I don't disagree with it entirely with it but we have to walk to tight rope between common courtesy and stifling conversation. You would be disillusion if you think that these items havent been used as weapons by certain folks.

Raging_Ninja · 25-02-2017 08:35PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

If someone was to post something about their experience bring raped/having bulimia/suffering domestic abuse, they would preface their post with "trigger warning - rape/eating disorder/domestic violence". Then people can choose whether or not to read it.

Otherwise, someone who has had an experience with whatever is being discussed could be "triggered" by the content of the post into flashback of being raped/assaulted, or back into disordered thinking around food/eating.

Tbh, I can see a lot of posters laughing about the SJWs and their silly labels, but I've been raped. I don't always feel like hearing/reading about rape and sexual assault because it brings up shít memories. I'm sure a lot of other people feel similarly. If a "trigger warning" stops someone from having to experience those feelings on a day they're not up to it, then it's not really harming anyone else.

If somebody is set off by a few words or a topic of conversation then honestly they don't need "trigger warnings", they need help from a therapist.

Your problems are yours and trigger warnings are a reason to make them other peoples'.

sunshine and showers · 25-02-2017 08:37PM

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't disagree with it entirely with it but we have to walk to tight rope between common courtesy and stifling conversation. You would be disillusion if you think that these items havent been used as weapons by certain folks.

I don't disagree with you, but I was trying to give an explanation to another poster of what trigger warnings are for. Others gave their alternative (mis)uses. I decided to give the more utilitarian reason they were actually used in the first place.

25-02-2017 08:37PM

It's funny how so many people want a safe space from safe spaces

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:41PM

bluewolf wrote: »

It's funny how so many people want a safe space from safe spaces

As funny as the snowflakes who cannot deal with normal everyday life so need to build their own little echo chambers.

I am fine with them doing so just don't do it in public institutions.

25-02-2017 08:44PM

Calhoun wrote: »

As funny as the snowflakes who cannot deal with normal everyday life so need to build their own little echo chambers.

Are you talking about crime victims who'd prefer a chance to not revisit unpleasant memories?

What an extraordinarily dismissive and inconsiderate attitude to take when it literally costs you nothing to show a small kindness.

sunshine and showers · 25-02-2017 08:44PM

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

If somebody is set off by a few words or a topic of conversation then honestly they don't need "trigger warnings", they need help from a therapist.

Your problems are yours and trigger warnings are a reason to make them other peoples'.

I think that is an incredibly unfair thing to say.

A poster asked what "triggered" meant, so I gave them an explanation of what trigger warnings are actually intended to be used for online. They're a way to start a personal experience post from someone else who has been through something others have probably been through. It allows those people to skip reading something potentially upsetting if they need to.

They're not for mainstream media use, but to be honest we have used them there in some forms or another for quite a while. Do you think we should ditch warnings at the start of films saying "this film may contain violent scenes or scenes of a sexual nature"?

Not that it's your business, but I've been to therapy. I don't think about being raped much at all anymore. I don't see myself as a victim. There are still times, though, where I don't want to read a blog post about someone else who has been sexually assaulted. If they put a trigger warning on the content, I don't have to. Very simple.

Calhoun · 25-02-2017 08:49PM

Candie wrote: »

Are you talking about crime victims who'd prefer a chance to not revisit unpleasant memories?

What an extraordinarily dismissive and inconsiderate attitude to take when it literally costs you nothing to show a small kindness.

No i am talking about anyone who is attending a University which should be an institution that drives debate that looks to shut down debate.

TheChizler · 25-02-2017 08:52PM

Candie wrote: »

It's a very real issue for people like soldiers or victims of violence and war, some situations may set off an episode of flashbacks etc. and those are referred to as triggers.

Online it's just used to silence someone who disagrees with you by implying they're so precious that seeing or reading anything contrary to their opinion gives them PTSD or causes a traumatic response.

It's really childish, really stupid, and really ridiculous.

Cheers, I was aware of the PTSD use but I thought it must be a totally different meaning here, as it would be ridiculous to compare feeling uncomfortable to setting off a PTSD episode.

J Mysterio · 25-02-2017 09:10PM

LightlyGo wrote: »

I think Rosemary's story raised an important issue that I hope doesn't get lost here. I think she's brought to the fore the fact that consent and understanding the nature of it is just as pivotal for women as it is for men.

While I agree its an important discussion, she didnt bring this forward out of some altruistic desire. She wanted to push her 'feminist' agenda and elicit sympathy.

"Why I did not report my rapist"

Comments