Preach it from the hilltops

If you have a daughter- with 99.9% odds- she will face unwanted sexual advances or even assault. She will face sexism. If you teach her that it isn’t on her to ensure her own safety- what are you gonna tell her when someone violates that? “You stood on your principles”? That’s great. But-

I believe women (and men and etc.) should be able to dress and express themselves as is their way more or less. I do t think we should live in a world where a woman is turned down a job because her outfit wasn’t “conservative enough.” But we DO live in that world. So teaching young women they shouldn’t be judged, but also teaching them they WILL BE- is important to their ability to function.

I’ve been quite outspoken on the subject of police shootings- my father taught me at a young age concerning the police- but making sure I understood it applied to ANYONE- if they have the gun, or more guns- you be extra nice and do what they say. If you have an issue with a stop- think it’s unfair, abusive, illegal- you wait until after the thing is done and take it to court. You’ll probably lose anyway- might win. Better to lose and live than die and lose no?

But that doesn’t mean I think people who get shot by the cops deserve it, or made it happen. Whoever pulls the trigger makes that decision. Sometimes as some videos have shown- no reasonable person would shoot- we’ve seen people do everything they were supposed to and asked to- and get shot. But- if they got shot doing what they were supposed to, they’d probably have gotten shot if they didn’t anyway since it didn’t take anything to get them shot.

So in that case- either way they are shot- maybe dead. The difference is that after the fact when the tapes get watched and the families sue- you can see clearly that it wasn’t justified and no sane person can say it was.

But that doesn’t make it ok to shoot a person unless you have actual reasonable belief of imminent and serious danger to your life. Regardless of who’s “fault” it is- when such bad things happen, the consequences apply to you even if you’re innocent. So I think it’s important to do both. Call out the “bad uncles” and remove them from where they can most likely do harm- but also teach those likely to be targeted by such folks what to look out for, how to defend themselves, and YES- how to mitigate or help prevent the odds of it happening.

People steal things. It’s wrong. But do you leave your laptop and your jewelry or valuables out on the seat of your car with a note that says: “stealing is wrong- don’t take this stuff...” and just... hope that it doesn’t get stolen? Likely not. As sad as it is- that is the world we live in. It would e nice to someday live in a world where that isn’t a problem. But today, 2020- even if it is the thief who is in the wrong, you’re still not going to leave things in a position that common sense would tell you is a thieves dream are you?

I see what you mean guest but in cases of sexual assault, setting clear boundaries when you suspect someone to be shifty could be lifesaving. More so than to “make yourself a less appealing target.” If we look at cases of sexual assault, most of the time the victim wasn’t wearing anything really revealing and even if they were that shouldn’t take away the ability to express yourself from 50% of the population. Telling uncle creepster that he can’t come over anymore does not only minimize the chance of your daughter getting harassed by a pedophile but also, with proper explanation, teaches your daughter to not be too polite to these kinds of people, no matter if it’s family or a close friend. Taking away the danger is not making the world seem like a fairytale, distancing yourself from potential harm is in most cases the best option women have against creeps. And someone who can express themselves and stand tall is a much more risky target for rapists, since they might report it.

On the other hand, yes your guest might feel uncomfortable with your daughter greeting them in leather lingerie but that’s on another level than just wearing shorts. Or just wearing shorts and a crop top. A woman’s body shouldn’t always have to be scrutinized for being too sexy, or not sexy enough. So while I understand and totally agree with your point about stealing, the mechanism of sexual crime is often a bit different.

Bet you probably would ask a girl what she was wearing when she was raped too huh? You don't always have to sexualize a woman's body... Unless of course you're a perv. Bottom line is she shouldn't have to change bc her uncle is creepy.

Sure, but it's probably a good idea.

I'd hate to be the woman that ends up with you.

...I don't actually care about your opinion of the hypothetical idea of you dating me.

sexualizing kids isn't a matter of opinion tho

Exactly!

...I suppose, but what does that have to do with what I said?

Mate, Randy isn’t a specific person. He is the embodiment of an issue where children are taught to change their attire to not catch pedophiles eyes instead of creating a support system that lets the child express themselves while also minimizing the chance of sexual harassment by early on setting clear boundaries. There is no additional information to know, the concept is clearly there. This card is an argument, not an accusation.

Everyone here knows that, bro.

yet you still said you needed more context in a case of (potentially incest) pedophila

Yet you and others humored me.

The classic “I was just trolling the entire time”?

If that's what you want to call it, I suppose it worked well enough.
Not sure I was tricking anyone, though.

Not sure a convo about sexual abuse is the best venue for trolling, home-slice bread-slice.

I’m gonna pop in real quick and say- ironically a tad and not to troll- if need more context to judge wether it’s appropriate or not. Sexual abuse is obviously a very serious and important topic. It’s self evident that any decent person should be against sexual abuse- especially of children. BUT- like any issue- ANY issue- there does need to be challenges to thinking, it does need to have critical thinking applied and not just follow a mantra and be “above” any questions. It’s dangerous as a society to have something be too taboo to discuss that is this important. It’s also dangerous to stop thinking case by case and apply universal pre canned judgments.

So garlogs motivations would be most important here to me. If Garlog was challenging the reader to think, to analyze- I could see it being a legitimate exercise. It is nuanced- by if you showed us all a picture of a circle- I think we would all agree it was a circle. But there is a difference between examining the circle and confirming it is in fact a circle, and declaring it is a circle because that is the first thing that comes to mind, or is what someone else told you it is. If garlog knew we’d all come to the same conclusion, but wanted to walk through the process of getting there- I think there is value to that. A “sanity check” so to speak. Healthy. But it could also theoretically be inappropriate. It really depends on context and motivation on the part of garlog, and personally in their case I cannot he so quick to condemn.

@dovedee
I technically started the conversation so...
Also sensitive topics are often the best for trolling (although there's a "low-hanging fruit" argument to be had, I suppose).
@guest
My initial motivation was not being comfortable with throwing Uncle Randy under the bus before I know anything about the situation. The lines that get drawn around family in these situations are more interesting to me than the broad message in the picture.

@garlog- like I said- I’m not judging. But I thank you for clarifying your motivations. Personally, knowing your motivations, I would argue that there isn’t anything inappropriate about your train of thought (not that you need my approval, or asked- but since wether what you said was ok or not seems to have become the topic of things, I figure I’ll add my opinion.)

All in all I can completely understand finding an aspect or angle of a thing most interesting, especially on well treaded subjects or places where there’s only one obvious topic and few things to comment other than: “yeah. What they said...” I respect that you wanted to explore the angles, and think you chose an appropriate venue and weren’t insensitive or anything. It’s certainly a topic that can evoke powerful emotions in people- but I think there are, as you say, more facets to explore than the most obvious surface facet here.

I didn't think you were judging, I just decided to volunteer some information you said you didn't have.

I didn’t mean to imply you thought so, and thanked you for the information. I just wanted to be very clear that I was not judging you as sometimes people here react very negatively to perceptions of what they think I have said or implied. But I appreciate your clarification.

I’m gonna be completely honest and say that while adding something thought-provoking to a discussion in hopes of challenging perceptions is usually good, I didn’t really think garlogs original comment was very thought-out. Not that I mean anything bad about garlog but just as they have the freedom to make I statement me and other are free to criticize it. When it comes to these kinds of to;it’s however one must always keep in mind the position you and the person you are talking to is. It’s the same kind of deal when centrists invite a homophobe and a gay man to discuss gay marriage. For one this is just a discussion against a perceived danger and for the other it’s a matter of if you are ever going to be allowed to express love. One side has much higher stakes. The same thing applies if randy was a real person. One might lose the privilege of visiting a certain part of the family, maybe even a bit of their reputation. The other side might face years of abuse.

Of course I don’t believe in the mantra “believe (insert group)” because that’s never a very productive way of figuring out what happened but the positions and amount of power given to each side is going to play a big part.

"I didn’t really think garlogs original comment was very thought-out."
It was though out as well as I figure it should have been.
"one must always keep in mind the position you and the person you are talking to is."
Would you mind elaborating the function of this in the context of this comment string? Just curious, and it's not immediately clear to me.

Well thinking of what you have to gain and lose from this convo compared to your companion. You might say something that sound really offensive even if you don’t mean anything bad just because you and the other person have different experiences. Also wow you’re right my writing is wack as hell, it’s kinda hard to decipher. It’s good that you asked.
But yeah, that mainly why swish and Rosa reacted so strongly to your go comment (I think, I don’t know them and can’t read their minds). I’m sure you only meant that we shouldn’t just on a person from one accusation but the way you worded it it could have been interpreted as “randy might be sexualizing a minor but maybe the daughter is just being slutty.” Which seems like a stretch but victim blaming is a real threat to some women. This is why I thought you of comment wasn’t very thought out, the discussion about sexual abuse have made much more harmful points with the same words. Tell me if it’s still hard to understand.

I’m not always the best at expressing myself lol

@dovedee- I respect your opinion and feel you state your case in a respectful manner. I personally didn’t “get” garlogs comment- but I can’t weight its merits on my ability to parse it. But I do agree that such topics are very sensitive and often deeply personal to people’s core beliefs and there is a fine line to walk when challenging them. I cannot day another person has no right to be offended or no cause, but i can say that I was not offended, and I do not believe garlog meant offense- but I don’t want to put words in their mouth.

@dovedee
That's understandable. It's difficult to gauge who my "companion" is though, when it's kind of just anyone who happens to read the comments on this image.