roachboy

there's a sub-discipline in philosophy called action theory that addresses questions of agency and where it stops and starts.

i expect that folk in law would have some exposure to it (though maybe indirectly) in that it addresses a central problem in arguments about responsibility and/or intention. so some of it is linked to ethics, while other aspects address cognitive questions--and most of it is rooted in a very old-school (and outmoded) notion of the philosophical subject (the "i")--but no matter in this context.

the idea in general is trying to work out the distinction between an act and a reflex--both of which are actions--so which are distinguished by notions of intent. the usual question is something like whether blinking is or is not an act. the usual conclusion is that it isn't because it is a reflex. it can be in certain situations, but for the most part, you are not acting when you blink. it is an action, not an act.

in the story abaya outlines, everything is a problem---the blackout itself and (especially) the functionality that she apparently maintained across the blackout create all kinds of havoc around questions of consent.
this in turn creates real problems for establishing anything about the guy--whose side of the narrative not here, whose state of mind is not known--and what is more (as if this were not enough), what information abaya might have provided him in the course of the blackout is not known.

the rather curious result of all this, from within action theory, would be to conclude that there were actions but no acts (based on the information abaya provides).
this lay behind what i posted earlier about the story arising out of ambiguity and remaining locked within it.
it allows for no clear conclusions about anyone or anything.

except for the obvious fact that somewhere within this tangle of problems, she lost her virginity.
and that what happened is obviously problematic for abaya ex post facto.
that we (all of us) CAN know.

everything else is a tangle.
within this, smooth's points should make more sense (if they haven't to anyone)---and while i may agree with many of the judgments folk have arrived at about the guy, the fact is that there is no way--at all--to shift away from the fact that these judgments are motored primarily by sympathy with abaya and her story.

i have been sitting here thinking about this for a few minutes, after i typed the post you have just read. it sits strangely with me to conclude that there were actions but no acts in a situation that has resulted in pain for someone who is part of this community. but there seems no way around it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ratbastid

This has gotten really convoluted since I last stuck my head into this thread. abaya doesn't need my rescuing here, but I'm going to say my piece anyway.

Here's the bottom line: nobody gets to call "rape" but the victim. When the victim calls "rape", it's rape, and not until.

abaya isn't calling "rape". Any opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

abaya is causing for herself a transformative experience of this difficult event in her life. What is occasioning that is, she is sharing it openly with others, and she is taking responsibility for her agency in the matter. She isn't blaming herself or the guy. She understands and, to whatever degree is necessary, forgives him. Her next step will be to release herself from any lingering regret about it, and allowing it to be just another of the many experiences that contribute to who she is as a person--in other words, to grow from it rather than shrinking from it.

To those who seem to insist she view it some particular way, I respectfully say: knock it off. abaya is processing this on her own timeline, and when she comes fully out the other side of it, she'll be a bigger and stronger person for it. Please stop trying to turn her into the victim of something. She's much MUCH bigger than that.

Toaster126

That's ridiculous. Saying something is rape doesn't make it rape.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

ratbastid

Given a certain set of actions, what it gets called is the ONLY thing that determines what it is.

You've heard perhaps the story of the three umpires? A rookie umpire, a seasoned umpire, and a master umpire were each asked how they know whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. The rookie says, "I call it like I see it." The seasoned umpire says, "I call it like it is." The master umpire says, "It's not anything until I call it."

Toaster126

I guess we disagree. I think the law defines what rape is, not individuals. For example, I think sex with underage people of sound and mature mental faculties should be legal if both parties consent, but some states believe that if someone has sex with someone under 18, then it is rape. My belief that it isn't rape doesn't change the fact that if I did that in a state where it was illegal, it would in fact be rape.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

abaya

I've taken some time away from this thread, because I wasn't sure what it had become. Last night it became a very limited discussion that I was no longer interested in participating in, and I thought the thread would dwindle from there.

Tonight it's something else... a more philosophical discussion that opens the topic back up a bit, though I'm still not sure what direction it's all heading in. Eh, maybe it doesn't need a direction.

I don't know what everyone else is getting out of this thread, but for me it's been invaluable to slice open a badly-healed wound and expose it to the public air. I don't know why that's so therapeutic, but it is. It's helped me to advance much further along that "timeline" that ratbastid mentioned... wherever that puts me, I don't know. Not on the other side, but certainly better than I was before this thread began.

Roachboy, maybe as a nerdy PhD student I'm inclined to academic analysis in general , but your analysis is compelling. I like to situate most every human behavior/thought in some kind of theory (established or novel), and you have helped me by situating my story in some kind of greater, if "tangled" understanding. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks also, ratbastid, for your recent thoughts. No, I don't need your "rescuing," but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate your words and intent all the same. You are right about pretty much everything, there. The only question I had was, when you said this: ... why did you use the word "victim," if that's the very concept you're trying to avoid? It's just a bit confusing, that's all.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

ratbastid

Hm. Poor choice of words, you're right. Perhaps I meant "victim", in quotes... Just like with rape, one is a "victim" if one says one is a victim.

I'm not talking about the law here. The law is a hammer, and from the legalistic point of view, everything looks like a nail. I'm talking about how individuals deal with their lives. Whether or not the law says you "are" a victim, BEING a victim about it is a choice that leaves you with no freedom or ability to be powerful in the face of it. It's bigger than you, you have no control over it, etc, etc, etc. On the plus side, you don't have to be responsible for the situation, or anything else in your life. You can always justify ANYTHING in terms of the victim that you are. It's a perfectly valid choice, and there are plenty of people who might agree with you or even try to talk you into it. But it completely robs your power.

abaya

Thanks for the clarification, rb. And I wholly agree with what you've said here... Even if a person is assaulted in cold blood and presses charges, getting their attacker in jail, that person does not have to become a "victim" to the crime (in the personal sense, not the legal sense). One can see justice done without surrendering one's own power over the situation, if that makes sense. Anyway, makes sense to me.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran