What is your opinion on the use of birth control in ANTICIPATION of being raped?

[Betterave]

I think underlying this is the idea that I somehow deserve what I got because I should have known the consequences. In other words, the consequences are so obvious that they can be treated as impersonal. But I don’t see how you can admit both:

1. I’m not responsible for the crime
2. I don’t deserve to be pick-pocketed

and then also say:

1. I am partially responsible

Will the thief get off partially in court because I was dumb? Would society, given the chance, just let the thief keep the some of the items just because I was dumb? If I both didn’t deserve it, and didn’t commit the act, I am not responsible in that sense of the word.

Maybe the difference is wide range of usage of the word “responsibility” which implies not only guilt but also in some circumstances implies a duty. You may think I’m responsible in the sense of the word that I have a duty to be smarter or else suffer the consequences. But like I said, that implies I deserve the consequences.

Absolutely, the issue is the semantic issue of how to link the concepts of “reponsibility” and “desert.” Certainly we could say that if you are responsible for something, it follows that you deserve it. I would prefer not to though. I think that “is responsible for” obviously has much broader connotations than “deserves.” We could say that St. Aloysius Gonzaga was responsible for contracting the plague since he chose to come in close physical contact with those who were sick (in order to care for them). We couldn’t say he deserved to contract the plague.

I also wouldn’t say that “responsible” implies guilt, although I am quite certain that you are guilty when you put near occasions of sin in the path of your fellow man. According to what some posters here have been saying it would logically follow that if a daycare hires a known pedophile and he commits crimes, then the pedophile rapist alone is responsible, and any attention we pay to the responsibility of anyone else is simply deflecting attention away from the true culprit. And that’s obviously absurd.

In the case of the pickpocket, I actually think you are not only responsible, but you also deserve it. These are nonetheless logically independent questions. (In the case of leaving your car door unlocked, the question of desert could go either way, depending on circumstances.)

 

[JaneGrey]

I never suggested that two wrongs make a right. It is astonishing how consistently irrational people can be in making silly false inferences like this when talking about rape.

I m irrational? Dont you think that getting frustrated because someone does not agree with or understand you and then calling them irrational, irrational in itself? I inferred from your post, which spent a good deal talking about the difference between a little girl and a woman being raped, and about prisons, to be hinting at the personalities of the victims. If that was not so, you could have just said so. Simple.

Actually, even if getting drunk and going to bed with Mike Tyson were crimes, it would still be the case that no one should use the victim (who in this case would also happen to be a criminal) to deflect attention away from the rapist’s wrongdoings.

This seems to contradict with some of the other things you were saying.

 

[centurionguard]

Not they “come from” prisons, they are in prison.

Is it??

I never claimed otherwise.

That’s idiotic. Can a man who never goes to prison be raped in prison? Obviously not.
When your site mentioned “emotional blackmail” as a possible way for women to rape men, I laughed and stopped reading. What idiotic nonsense. What an atrocious abuse of language. If that’s the model of reasoning you want to follow, have at it. Don’t pretend you’re being reasonable though.

That’s idiotic. Can a man who never goes to prison be raped in prison? Obviously not.

 

[Betterave]

I m irrational? Dont you think that getting frustrated because someone does not agree with or understand you and then calling them irrational, irrational in itself? I inferred from your post, which spent a good deal talking about the difference between a little girl and a woman being raped, and about prisons, to be hinting at the personalities of the victims. If that was not so, you could have just said so. Simple.

Yes, Jane, you are being irrational, and I have clearly indicated how you are being irrational. That you ignore this and go ad hominem again proves that you are indeed being irrational. As for what you took me to be ‘hinting at,’ you seem not to know what ‘personality’ means. Being in prison or being a little girl are not personality traits.

This seems to contradict with some of the other things you were saying.

Other things such as…? And contradicts how?

 

[Betterave]

Betterave;8025023:

Your contradicting yourself when you Quote:

Not sure what you’re referring to here.

Please explain Obviously not.

If you never go to prison, then you can NOT be raped in prison. That is OBVIOUS.

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting but the way your phrasing that a man who is never sent to prison Can’t Be Raped?

What makes you think that? Men who live an upright peaceful everyday life in society can easily be overcome by rape assailants in the same manner women can.
Chris, I never said what you’re attributing to me here. Please read more carefully. As for men being overcome by rape assailants just as easily as women, I think that is obviously false, but if you think it is true, please provide an argument. I will be happy to consider it.

How is it you argue this with the statistical facts within the Male Rape Survivor site you’ve given?

I went to the site, but I didn’t read through the whole thing, nor am I interested in doing so. If you are serious about making your case here, please tell me specifically what you’re referring to.

**

NOBODY

** is immune to the possibility of becoming a victim.
Men are not Invincible although some like to boast they are.
Obviously.

You keep saying everybody else in this thread is irrational
How so?

No, certainly not *everybody *else. As for “how so?” I’ve already explained this, so if you want to know the answer just read what I’ve already written, but more carefully this time.

Peace
Chris

Peace.

 

[Betterave]

In the case of the pickpocket, I actually think you are not only responsible, but you also deserve it. These are nonetheless logically independent questions. (In the case of leaving your car door unlocked, the question of desert could go either way, depending on circumstances.)

I think we should also notice that when the police (or whoever) tell us what measures to take to avoid having our pockets picked, people do not respond with outrage and claim that the victim is being blamed and that we are deflecting attention away from the real problem.

The case should not be any different when we talk about taking measures to prevent rape. Unfortunately people are irrational and it is very different.

 

[copperblade]

I think we should also notice that when the police (or whoever) tell us what measures to take to avoid having our pockets picked, people do not respond with outrage and claim that the victim is being blamed and that we are deflecting attention away from the real problem.

The case should not be any different when we talk about taking measures to prevent rape. Unfortunately people are irrational and it is very different.

I thought about what you said, and I will submit an idea: that your feeling that I deserve the pick-pocket (for example) is based on or dependent upon your belief that I did know better and chose not to anyway. In other words, I had some intent in allowing it to happen. I do agree that intent does matter.

But going back to the prison scenario and my original point: a criminal in no way intends to go to prison to begin with, and in no way is thinking that they will be raped. And I still say the rape is not their responsibility or something they deserve. If it were, we’d just sentence them to prison and rape.

 

[JaneGrey]

Yes, Jane, you are being irrational, and I have clearly indicated how you are being irrational. That you ignore this and go ad hominem again proves that you are indeed being irrational. As for what you took me to be ‘hinting at,’ you seem not to know what ‘personality’ means. Being in prison or being a little girl are not personality traits.

Other things such as…? And contradicts how?

I am not the one resorting to name-calling instead of properly engaging in the argument. Lets try this again - I explained that I ‘inferred’ what I did by your statement because quite simply, you did not explain yourself. Do i seriously have to explain what I meant by ‘personality’? Obviously I was referring to behaviour and characteristics as a whole. And it was **yourself **who brought up the prison examples and age differences.

I was talking about victim blaming and I believe you questioned if the rape of a little girl and a woman in prison were equal or something to that effect. This brings me to the next point:

Other things such as…? And contradicts how?

On the one hand you seem to agree that the personality (oops ‘behaviour’) of the victim should not come into question then you bring in all the examples you did and were going on about prison rapes, which for a while there confused people about what your point was.

 

[samiam1611]

Im really curious to see how other catholic posters address this, if they even address it at all.

So Jane, my post got kind of pushed back with all the posts on male rape. I did get a few responses though. Do you have any thoughts regarding my post?

 

[JaneGrey]

So Jane, my post got kind of pushed back with all the posts on male rape. I did get a few responses though. Do you have any thoughts regarding my post?

About birth control in anticipation of being rape? I d hate to live in a place where rape was an ever present imminent danger but as such locations do exist, then yes absolutely.

 

[pnewton]

As two respectable Catholics we both know Birth Control used in any manner whatsoever is Morally Wrong.

No, as a Catholic** I **will accept the teaching of the bishops in this matter. I consider this to be far more “respectable”. Also, there is the exception for the possible law of double effect. The chemical compound itself is no more sinful than table salt. It is the effect it has and the intent that makes it a mortal sin.

 

[Rence]

About birth control in anticipation of being rape? I d hate to live in a place where rape was an ever present imminent danger but as such locations do exist, then yes absolutely.

I think most women would if it were available in these places.

 

[Betterave]

But going back to the prison scenario and my original point: a criminal in no way intends to go to prison to begin with, and in no way is thinking that they will be raped.

But presumably you didn’t intend to have your cash stolen while you left it sitting on a bench unattended, but the point is about responsibility, and you are responsible in both cases (theft and going to prison).

And I still say the rape is not their responsibility or something they deserve. If it were, we’d just sentence them to prison and rape.

The rape is something they are indirectly responsible for, assuming they were not completely ignorant of the fact that crime leads to prison and prison includes a high risk of rape,* but again: this certainly doesn’t imply that they deserve it - or that those who are negligent in allowing it to happen are not far more responsible. Indeed, I think those who turn a blind eye to a systemic problem like this are more responsible than actual prison rapists, so again, I strongly disagree with the statement that it is only rapists who are responsible for rape. What do you think?

*Here’s an analogy: suppose you go to a rave where everyone is taking drugs and someone slips you something; you are not directly responsible for taking drugs, but you are certainly more responsible than would be someone who chose to avoid the risk and to not to go to the rave at all but was slipped something in some more innocent setting.

 

[Betterave]

I am not the one resorting to name-calling instead of properly engaging in the argument.

LOL! When you say something irrational and I point this out, that is not “name-calling” - that is “properly engaging in the argument.”

Lets try this again - I explained that I ‘inferred’ what I did by your statement because quite simply, you did not explain yourself. Do i seriously have to explain what I meant by ‘personality’? Obviously I was referring to behaviour and characteristics as a whole. And it was **yourself **who brought up the prison examples and age differences.

Other than attempting to excuse yourself for misusing a term and attacking me for pointing out that you did so, I’m not sure what your point is here.

I was talking about victim blaming and I believe you questioned if the rape of a little girl and a woman in prison were equal or something to that effect. This brings me to the next point:

On the one hand you seem to agree that the personality (oops ‘behaviour’) of the victim should not come into question then you bring in all the examples you did and were going on about prison rapes, which for a while there confused people about what your point was.

You’re still conflating personality and behaviour?? Clearly behaviour does come into question and I have been clear about this - where did I suggest otherwise? Personality might influence behaviour, but I’m not interested in discussing personality as if it were something for which we are responsible. You certainly seem confused about what my point has been, but again, I’ve already pointed this out and explained the source of your confusion: your irrational inferences. It’s a pity you choose to ignore this and instead to attack me for calling you names.

 

[centurionguard]

No, as a Catholic** I **will accept the teaching of the bishops in this matter. I consider this to be far more “respectable”. Also, there is the exception for the possible law of double effect. The chemical compound itself is no more sinful than table salt. It is the effect it has and the intent that makes it a mortal sin.

Perhaps I didn’t state it succinctly or put it in proper context as you have above, but if you actually believe I don’t know the teachings of the Church about condom use that’s your prerogative.

No disrespect intended.

 

[centurionguard]

Personally I find this thread to be Non sequitur and going no-where given the suggestion that any women should or even could anticipate rape at any moment anymore than a man could be raped at anytime without him being prepared for such happenstance.

Of course there are many biased people (especially men) who will continue to blame women for their own rape.

The rational fallacy of thinking condoms will stop rape OR incest for that matter is as nonsensical as is already evident in statistics globally.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps I didn’t state it succinctly or put it in proper context as you have above, but if you actually believe I don’t know the teachings of the Church about condom use that’s your prerogative.

No disrespect intended.

I was not referring to condom use, but rather an oral contraceptive used by one who was celibate. That is what this thread is about. The Church has said this application is not sinful.

 

[JaneGrey]

LOL! When you say something irrational and I point this out, that is not “name-calling” - that is “properly engaging in the argument.”

I believe you attempted to call me irrational, not just my posts. But no matter, i m a big girl, i can take it.
Other than attempting to excuse yourself for misusing a term and attacking me for pointing out that you did so, I’m not sure what your point is here.
Calm down, i was not attacking. I know I misused a term but you got a bit carried away with pointing it out. I did feel a bit attacked myself, but i never once would accuse you of deliberately doing it, and im sorry you seem to think im doing it to you.

You’re still conflating personality and behaviour?? Clearly behaviour does come into question and I have been clear about this - where did I suggest otherwise? Personality might influence behaviour, but I’m not interested in discussing personality as if it were something for which we are responsible. You certainly seem confused about what my point has been, but again, I’ve already pointed this out and explained the source of your confusion: your irrational inferences. It’s a pity you choose to ignore this and instead to attack me for calling you names.

Do you honestly still not understand what I was getting at? Your subsequent posts after the ‘Mike Tyson’ one do indeed seem to confirm that you dont think the victim’s behaviour has anything to do with anything. However what I was addressing harks back to that post, as I was confused as to why you brought up the prison and Mike Tyson examples. Indeed you are right, I m still very confused as to what your point has been.

I’ve already pointed this out and explained the source of your confusion: your irrational inferences.

This is what I mean. You call them irrational, which is all well and good, if you would explain how they are irrational. I never said my thoughts were the gospel truth did I? However there was a reason I made the conclusions I did. Anyway this whole thing has become way too convoluted and I dont want to derail the thread too much. I am interested still in learning what your exact point was. I think its safe to say we have both misunderstood something greatly here.

 

[Betterave]

Do you honestly still not understand what I was getting at? Your subsequent posts after the ‘Mike Tyson’ one do indeed seem to confirm that you dont think the victim’s behaviour has anything to do with anything. However what I was addressing harks back to that post, as I was confused as to why you brought up the prison and Mike Tyson examples. Indeed you are right, I m still very confused as to what your point has been.

But I do think the victim’s behaviour is important. I have no idea what you are referring to in your second sentence above, about my “subsequent posts.” What you state is the opposite of what I have been arguing.

This is what I mean. You call them irrational, which is all well and good, if you would explain how they are irrational. I never said my thoughts were the gospel truth did I? However there was a reason I made the conclusions I did. Anyway this whole thing has become way too convoluted and I dont want to derail the thread too much. I am interested still in learning what your exact point was. I think its safe to say we have both misunderstood something greatly here.

Of course neither of us can simply claim to speak the gospel truth. But I very clearly indicated what was irrational about your reply to me. If you go back and see where I first used that term, you should be able to see this easily. If there is any further/future confusion about such a point, please just ask, “Why did you use the term “irrational” to describe my post in post #such-and-such?” and I will be glad to explain. Please don’t accuse me of insulting you.

 

[silentstar]

centurionguard;8026546:

Not sure what you’re referring to here.

If you never go to prison, then you can NOT be raped in prison. That is OBVIOUS.

Chris, I never said what you’re attributing to me here. Please read more carefully. As for men being overcome by rape assailants just as easily as women, I think that is obviously false, but if you think it is true, please provide an argument. I will be happy to consider it.

I went to the site, but I didn’t read through the whole thing, nor am I interested in doing so. If you are serious about making your case here, please tell me specifically what you’re referring to.

---

Obviously.

No, certainly not *everybody *else. As for “how so?” I’ve already explained this, so if you want to know the answer just read what I’ve already written, but more carefully this time.

Peace.

Unfortunately, boys/men can be raped as easily as girls/women. I don’t have full statistics but here is some information from the rape, abuse and incest national network:

rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

Many boys are sexually abused at young ages, when they can’t defend themselves, as young as under the age of 5. This does not make older boys responsible in any way, but very young boys are no more capable of fighting off an attacker than very young girls.

Grown men are no more able to defend against the use of a weapon and being taken by surprise than grown women or children, and no one has eyes in the back of their head. I don’t know what the statistics are about rape of grown men outside of prison but I would think it happens more often than people believe it does. Also a man will not be able to defend himself against a group of people. I think too many men don’t talk about it b/c they are afraid of being judged that they should have been able to defend themselves, which is not true.