Maybe I missed something, but wasn't confusing for me.
He sexually assaulted her, then at some later point in time they had a consensual relationship.
There's not a contradiction there.
He sexually assaulted her, then at some later point in time they had a consensual relationship.
There's not a contradiction there.
I understand that the consensual relationship doesn't rule out the sexual assault. I do have, however, trouble digesting such relations. Is it normal that people get into relations with other people that they intend to take to court?
The guy checks all the boxes, and will have to be punished, but giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince something so wrong happened a decade ago.
But, no need to be perfect to he heard, and she'll have to have her chance.
> giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince
Given that we are certain both of those things can exist together, the case must at least be investigated. People should not have to be punished (or disbelieved) for being what they are: imperfect beings.
> "Is it normal?" just sounds like you saying "it isn't normal, she did something bad", almost putting the guilt on her.
You:
> I disagree.
Also you:
> she also should have had the moral fortitude not to ...
This seems to be a contradiction, unless you disagree on some metalevel, disagreeing with the course of events in general.
> she might have loved him or saw an interest in the relationship, but it does not matter for this
That's exactly the part I have trouble digesting. If I was sexually assaulted by person (that I want to take them to jail for it), how can I pursue a relation (later) with them? I don't think, also, that I'll be able to love such a person. But I guess that's just me?
[edit: added 'this' initially omitted]
And "mansplaining" is a concept that was created to justify having smaller seats in a train basically. And to target and ashame people that cames in different sizes and shapes. The solution to mansplaining whatever it means is simple: bigger seats.
This terms are based in the --false-- claim that [all] men are dominant and [all] women are passive and unable to defend themselves from the big-bad-male. They aim for a society uniform when people will have much less margin to be an individual, and people with long legs or that weight different will be ashamed for that. Both terms, mansplaining and manspreading evoke a very dystopian feeling.
But if this is the kind of society that you wish for, feel free to spread the sticky mess
Epistemic implication is saying, for example, "she is home, because her car is in the drive way". The car is not the reason, and the first clause is not a statement of fact. It is not too odd that "must" can be found in this middle voice, "She must be (a slut/a victim) because ..."
Saving grace is that the comment did not explain anything, so it can be chalked off as self-ironic take.
Mansplaining is the phenomenon of which an arrogant male-persons arrogance can be attributed to their sex/gender (as appropriate), usually with some reference to "patriarchy" and the undeserved confidence of those higher up in the power hierarchy when belittling or underestimating those lower on that same scale.
In practice, it is a gender-specific, weaponised term used in any situation where a man is perceived to be arrogant towards a women i.e. it is commonly abused beyond any positive philosophical aims.
Maybe it has a similar reasoning i.e. men sexist-ly assume women know less than them - but the fact is that it is rarely clear b/c arrogant, narcissistic people of both genders exist without the need for such a basis.
Yes, it's very normal. Abusive partners can be very skilled at breaking down their victims; "you're so worthless, no one but me will ever love you" sort of scenarios. It's a very common phenomenon.
Normal? He was the 7th most powerful person in the CCP, in a country of 1.4 Billion. He was then a 65 year old having a "relationship" with a then 25 year-old...
Humans are complicated. I can't explain their point of view or the context, but I'm sure there's a reason. Sometimes it can be financial even. Trauma is a hell of a thing.
Think about kids who've been abused by their parents. They typically still can't help but try and earn their love. Human brains are. . . fucky, to say the least.
Why does Stockholm syndrome exist?
Because it benefits survival in a violent world.
Not politically correct, and absolutely not condoning violence, but a lot of women have a deep primeval sexual response(they lubricate) to displays of physical strength, dominance, aggression and violence.
I'm not sure why people get triggered by anybody mentioning these facts. Do you think that I or others are saying women should have no agency because they lubricate or "worse" have orgasms during rape?
> My point is this is not gender specific
I think the only stuff that is firewalled into gender specificity could be stuff that's in the Y chromosome, and even that would be debatable.
It might not.
Does Stockholm syndrome exist?
No doubt in my mind that it exists from the Sabine Women to the Abduction at Shiloh and every ancient siege aftermath to the war brides of WW2, the evidence is overwhelming.
May be entirely mythical, and certainly doesn't leave us with any useful evidence to evaluate from a psychotherapy standpoint.
> Abduction at Shiloh
OK, second pre-Christ example on the list, with only the Bible as evidence of its occurrence. Not super promising.
> war brides of WW2
I'm reasonably certain that didn't involve kidnapping at all.
I know quite a bit about psychotherapy (Schema Therapy, CBT, DBT, Transactional Analysis) and I see very little use of such evolutionary explanations, even if correct to any form of therapy.
If Stockholm syndrome was real and if women were evolutionary inclined to physiologically respond to their captors sexual advances and later "infatuate" (so as not to suffer violence and that the children survive), how could that be useful in any way to psychotherapy or law or any other area of human life?
The three examples you cited as evidence of Stockholm Syndrome are made up of two unverifiable cases from over two thousand years ago, and a third that isn't Stockholm Syndrome.