Rape & Damaged Goods [Archive]

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 04:21 PM

As long as we agree that that is exactly what one should do, given the hypothetically rhetorical fact of a five year old's sodomy:

Tell them they are damaged goods, in no uncertain terms--

Cuz that's what they are, right? Right.

As I said:

I wasn't advocating pointing and laughing just stating a fact. It's possible to be an indirect victim, which some will want to consider and possibly avoid when seeking an SO.

I don't intend to berate them. Obviously, aggressive rhetorical flourish is pretty normal here, and I prefer directness either way as it saves on bullshit, accidental or intentional. My point was that they've likely issues a potential partner may lack the capacity or simply the desire to deal with. Some've said as much regarding merely being a virgin in this thread.

nowt

08-03-2010, 04:34 PM

I don't intend to berate them.

The use of "damaged goods" to describe "damaged goods" may further "damage goods"--

But if one doesn't care about that [made apparent by the use of such terminology itself], and since it's not intended to "berate" or "further damage the goods", it's acceptable, and the onus is upon the "damaged goods" themselves to take it... like a... well, they just have to take it--

Understood.

Disillusioned

08-03-2010, 04:54 PM

I don't intend to berate them. Obviously, aggressive rhetorical flourish is pretty normal here, and I prefer directness either way as it saves on bullshit, accidental or intentional. My point was that they've likely issues a potential partner may lack the capacity or simply the desire to deal with. Some've said as much regarding merely being a virgin in this thread.

@nowt what Autoptic is saying is that it doesn't make you a bad person to simply say something is what it is. I don't care how bad something might be, to try to ignore the fact of reality is not the right thing to do. So if someone got raped, it is important to be mindful of their feelings on the matter and be supportive and try to help them cope with it as best you can but to ignore the fact of what happened is completely irresponsible. This doesn't mean make fun of the person or constantly remind them of what happened to them but simply that you acknowledge that what happened actually did happen. Same with the original topic of virginity. If someone has not had sex then they are a virgin. It doesn't mean make fun of them and constantly remind them or humiliate them or make them feel uncomfortable about it. But that's different than simply stating that a virgin is a virgin. To deny it or try to come up with a silly 'new' definition of what a virgin is (one that makes you no longer part of that category such as 'kissing means losing your virginity') is to feign ignorance over what you actually are. So if someone got raped, ya it sucks and I feel bad for them but your not a virgin. Sorry, you just aren't.

Just felt I needed to clear this up or else your guys conversation would go on forever :undecided:

nowt

08-03-2010, 05:01 PM

@nowt what Autoptic is saying is that it doesn't make you a bad person to simply say something is what it is. I don't care how bad something might be, to try to ignore the fact of reality is not the right thing to do. So if someone got raped, it is important to be mindful of their feelings on the matter and be supportive and try to help them cope with it as best you can but to ignore the fact of what happened is completely irresponsible. This doesn't mean make fun of the person or constantly remind them of what happened to them but simply that you acknowledge that what happened actually did happen. Same with the original topic of virginity. If someone has not had sex then they are a virgin. It doesn't mean make fun of them and constantly remind them or humiliate them or make them feel uncomfortable about it. But that's different than simply stating that a virgin is a virgin. To deny it or try to come up with a silly 'new' definition of what a virgin is (one that makes you no longer part of that category such as 'kissing means losing your virginity') is to feign ignorance over what you actually are.

Just felt I needed to clear this up or else your guys conversation would go on forever.

The use of "damaged goods" to describe "damaged goods" is acceptable, and should be used as such to descript as such, to the "damaged goods" themselves.

Understood.

Would you like me to provide an analogous term, were the context race?

Disillusioned

08-03-2010, 05:15 PM

The use of "damaged goods" to describe "damaged goods" is acceptable, and should be used as such to descript as such, to the "damaged goods" themselves.

Well I don't know that "damaged goods" is an actual scientific condition. And I don't know that I would ever use those words to describe someone but if what Autoptic meant by damaged goods in the context of your conversation is:

Damaged goods - someone who is mentally and or emotionally unstable after an incident of being raped

I don't know that Autoptic was saying you need to tell the person directly that they are damaged goods. But basically, if a psychologist were to diagnose a rape patient for instance and then went out in the hallway and said "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry but your daughter is damaged goods." No, I don't think the Doctor is a bad person or did anything wrong.

nowt

08-03-2010, 05:20 PM

Well I don't know that I would even ever used the word "damaged goods"

If. If not.

According to both you and Autoptic, to use it, is to speak literal truth [or rhetorical fact, oi] so it's perfectly acceptable in -any- context, including directly to the victim, and in the most mundane of circumstance.

Understood.

Zombicide

08-03-2010, 05:23 PM

Would you like me to provide an analogous term, were the context race?

Actually, yes, I would love to see you manage to work that analogy into it.

nowt

08-03-2010, 05:27 PM

Actually, yes, I would love to see you manage to work that analogy into it.

Nigger; the damaged goods due to dark skin.

Love uglier.

Disillusioned

08-03-2010, 05:35 PM

If. If not.

According to both you and Autoptic, to use it, is to speak literal truth [or rhetorical fact, oi] so it's perfectly acceptable in -any- context, including directly to the victim, and in the most mundane of circumstance.

Just because something is the truth doesn't mean it is alright to bring it up in any situation. I have a close friend who's sister died at 17 due to cancer. That is the truth, so according to you it's acceptable to bring that up every time I see him? I'm sorry but your argument is very flawed.

Margot

08-03-2010, 06:00 PM

Well I don't know that "damaged goods" is an actual scientific condition. And I don't know that I would ever use those words to describe someone but if what Autoptic meant by damaged goods in the context of your conversation is:

Damaged goods - someone who is mentally and or emotionally unstable after an incident of being raped

I think most everyone in the discussion understood what the term means. The debate is re: whether or not the use of such terminology is appropriate. Even if those words were never said directly to a rape victim, the fact that their usage is condoned despite their obviously dehumanizing, hurtful connotation because "that's just what the rape victim is" speaks plenty about the people willing to use them.

I don't know that Autoptic was saying you need to tell the person directly that they are damaged goods. But basically, if a psychologist were to diagnose a rape patient for instance and then went out in the hallway and said "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry but your daughter is damaged goods." No, I don't think the Doctor is a bad person or did anything wrong.

But he'd be a pretty dumb doctor, and a poor businessman besides.

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 06:38 PM

Nigger; the damaged goods due to dark skin.

Love uglier.

For that comparison to make any sense, you're imply black means damaged.

I think most everyone in the discussion understood what the term means. The debate is re: whether or not the use of such terminology is appropriate. Even if those words were never said directly to a rape victim, the fact that their usage is condoned despite their obviously dehumanizing, hurtful connotation because "that's just what the rape victim is" speaks plenty about the people willing to use them.

As I've said before, if you want PC, go elsewhere. You've no sacred right to define other people's terms for them. Doing so in spite of admitting knowing better speaks plenty as well.

nowt

08-03-2010, 06:44 PM

For that comparison to make any sense, you're imply black means damaged.

I are imply, eh?

And that's what tends to be implied, when that term is used, making it truly analogous to the term "damaged goods".

There aren't enough spoons, to feed you. I'm out.

catzmeow

08-03-2010, 06:47 PM

Well I don't know that "damaged goods" is an actual scientific condition. And I don't know that I would ever use those words to describe someone but if what Autoptic meant by damaged goods in the context of your conversation is:

Damaged goods - someone who is mentally and or emotionally unstable after an incident of being raped

I don't know that Autoptic was saying you need to tell the person directly that they are damaged goods. But basically, if a psychologist were to diagnose a rape patient for instance and then went out in the hallway and said "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry but your daughter is damaged goods." No, I don't think the Doctor is a bad person or did anything wrong.

At least Autopic himself isn't damaged goods. Thus, he has a right to expect perfection in the people he dates.

Just an honest question: Is there anyone out there who isn't damaged in some way?

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 06:54 PM

I are imply, eh?

And that's what tends to be implied, when that term is used, making it truly analogous to the term "damaged goods".

There aren't enough spoons, to feed you. I'm out.

Either you're saying being black is damaging or being raped isn't.

At least Autopic himself isn't damaged goods. Thus, he has a right to expect perfection in the people he dates.

Just an honest question: Is there anyone out there who isn't damaged in some way?

Uhm...

In some ways, I'm damaged and otherwise quite weird too. Aren't you? How and to what extent are rational considerations when getting involved and not just intimately. Actually, I've occasionally been specifically attracted to damaged goods. Some odd protectiveness and a kind of masochism.

Margot

08-03-2010, 07:05 PM

As I've said before, if you want PC, go elsewhere. You've no sacred right to define other people's terms for them. Doing so in spite of admitting knowing better speaks plenty as well.

But I don't want PC, and I'd never want a sacred right to define other people's terms for them either. Yuck. If you really feel strongly that describing someone that way is not an issue, by all means, go for it. If you think you are even more justified to use those terms because you perceive yourself to be damaged in some way that's analogous to being raped, I'd still say go for it. I was only outlining why it should come as no surprise if people take on a less than flattering impression of someone's capacity for tact and awareness when those terms are used.

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 07:12 PM

If you think you are even more justified to use those terms because you perceive yourself to be damaged in some way that's analogous to being raped, I'd still say go for it. I was only outlining why it should come as no surprise if people take on a less than flattering impression of someone's capacity for tact and awareness when those terms are used.

I wasn't justifying anything. I was pointing out again a mischaracterization that ignored what I'd already stated. I don't need justification to use a word. There're just arbitrary collections of markings and sounds. They're just symbolic variables, which can be assigned any meaning as desired. People who don't get that seem to come with a lot of other mental malfunctions and quasi-religious zealotry, which can even get violent.

vampyroteuthis

08-03-2010, 07:26 PM

The use of "damaged goods" to describe "damaged goods" may further "damage goods"--

But if one doesn't care about that [made apparent by the use of such terminology itself], and since it's not intended to "berate" or "further damage the goods", it's acceptable, and the onus is upon the "damaged goods" themselves to take it... like a... well, they just have to take it--

Understood.

I think most everyone in the discussion understood what the term means. The debate is re: whether or not the use of such terminology is appropriate. Even if those words were never said directly to a rape victim, the fact that their usage is condoned despite their obviously dehumanizing, hurtful connotation because "that's just what the rape victim is" speaks plenty about the people willing to use them.

But he'd be a pretty dumb doctor, and a poor businessman besides.

I agree with the point you're both making. It's interesting to what extent the term "damaged goods" has been legitimised in popular discourse, so that people use it unthinkingly as a value-neutral descriptor. This is one of the bigger stigmas that people who work in rape crisis centres and awareness campaigns are attempting to dispel. There's a big leap from "traumatised" and "having issues they need to deal with" to "damaged"; an even bigger one from "person" to "goods".

I thought this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) described it pretty well, both in terms of the history of the meaning -- words being more than random concatenations in the dark, but, as Wittgenstein said, carrying the weight of their histories -- and its very real impact on survivors of rape, especially children:
Damaged goods are non-salvageable and thus unsalable. It's a commerce term alluding to loss of commercial value. "Damaged goods" has migrated from its original meaning and is now used to stigmatize rape survivors.

"Damaged goods" are the disposable and unclean girls and women who can supposedly never be restored to full humanity. Rape victims often experience this kind of stigma repeatedly: There is the stigma experienced in medical and legal communities upon examination and reporting. There is the stigma brought on by the cultural and political norms. And then there is the stigma one experiences at the hands of family.

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 07:30 PM

I thought this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) described it pretty well, both in terms of the history of the meaning -- words being more than random concatenations in the dark, but, as Wittgenstein said, carrying the weight of their histories -- and its very real impact on survivors of rape, especially children:

That's the etymological fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), a subtype of genetic fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

vampyroteuthis

08-03-2010, 07:32 PM

That's the etymological fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It would be an etymological fallacy if I were referring to a meaning that no longer had currency. As we can see in the article I linked, that is not the case.

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 07:37 PM

It would be an etymological fallacy if I were referring to a meaning that no longer had currency. As we can see in the article I linked, that is not the case.

They don't get to define my words for me. What's described in the article isn't even exactly what most people in the US would mean by it. Incidentally, your attempt to cover your illogic is called an appeal to emotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Zombicide

08-03-2010, 07:41 PM

Nigger; the damaged goods due to dark skin.

Love uglier.

Damage

Context: I don't intend to berate them. Obviously, aggressive rhetorical flourish is pretty normal here, and I prefer directness either way as it saves on bullshit, accidental or intentional. My point was that they've likely issues a potential partner may lack the capacity or simply the desire to deal with.

Sounds like a job for pragmatism but whatever.

Analogy: Nigger; the damaged goods due to dark skin.
I’m sorry, how the hell is dark skin damage or even the cause for damage? Even if it were, it’s not psychological baggage. Rape however, is damaging.

Definition: “loss or harm resulting from injury”

Had you at least, rather than saying the damaged goods due to dark skin, said that a black likely has issues a potential partner may lack the capacity or simply the desire to deal with due to them being of a ghetto culture, the problem with the analogy would then be that not all black people hail from the likes of ghettos while all rape victims are rape victims, so even that wouldn’t be analogous.

cannotseethe

08-03-2010, 07:43 PM

They don't get to define my words for me.

Why do you choose to use the phrase "damaged goods" instead of "traumatized" or "victim"?

vampyroteuthis

08-03-2010, 07:45 PM

They don't get to define my words for me. What's described in the article isn't even exactly what most people in the US would mean by it. Incidentally, you're also attempting to cover your illogic is called an appeal to emotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Calling it illogic don't make it so.
We are discussing rape. I am discussing an assessment of an empirical case of rape.
I am happy to provide other sources discussing the use of the term and its impact, but as they all involve rape there is always the possibility that I will be appealing to yours or someone else's emotions. The fact that a topic has emotional content does not render it devoid of reason, but makes it incumbent upon us to treat lightly and with nuance.
The rape discussed in the article took place in the US, as it happens, though I am not aware of any factors in this discussion that make other countries irrelevant.
As Margot did, I am not defining your words for you, but pointing out a factual case of the consequences of using the term. Your freedom to use a word as you choose does not affect my freedom to point out its real world impact.

--------
@ Zombicide: being dark-skinned in and of itself is not damage. Racism, including the historical and current use of terms like "nigger" to insult and denigrate people on the basis of being dark-skinned, is.

katrin

08-03-2010, 07:56 PM

On rape: rape is not sex any more than a slap across the face is a caress or a punch in the mouth is a kiss.

It is an act of violence in which one person uses his or her body to violate another. The body of the rapist is simply another sort of weapon.

Rape survivors are not "damaged goods". They are rape survivors.

Having survived the trauma of rape, many of them go through a long, arduous process of physical and mental recovery. The survivor comes out of the process a different person than she or he was before the rape but not "damaged." Changed.

Zombicide

08-03-2010, 08:14 PM

@ Zombicide: being dark-skinned in and of itself is not damage. Racism, including the historical and current use of terms like "nigger" to insult and denigrate people on the basis of being dark-skinned, is.

Damaged goods isn't suppose to be a pejorative, it's a literal un-PC description for the natural effect or effected (that some simply prefer to call psychological trauma or traumatized, myself included) stemming from the cause, rape. Racists calling someone a nigger is a cause of damage, not dark skin, dark skin is not the infliction like e.g. rape. As you seem to be aware, being a nigger doesn't stem from the cause of being darked skin, though it can be a synonym, not a cause and effect scenario.

vampyroteuthis

08-03-2010, 08:20 PM

Damaged goods isn't suppose to be a pejorative, it's a literal un-PC description for the natural effect or effected (that some simply prefer to call psychological trauma or traumatized, myself included) stemming from the cause, rape. Racists calling someone a nigger is a cause of damage, not dark skin, dark skin is not the infliction like e.g. rape. As you seem to be aware, being a nigger doesn't stem from the cause of being darked skin, though it can be a synonym, not a cause and effect scenario.

It's not that it's not politically correct, it is that it's, in fact, factually incorrect.

Racism -> being called a "nigger" -> psychological harm.
Rape -> being called "damaged goods" -> psychological harm.

Autoptic

08-03-2010, 08:26 PM

Why do you choose to use the phrase "damaged goods" instead of "traumatized" or "victim"?

That's what I say in my head. Simple and to the point. Consider, in reference to my family situation, I've been privately calling myself a bastard since I was kid and never a love child, unless I was in the mood for a laugh. This is not a justification or situational equivocation. I'd just realized the symbolic nature of words and the warped mentality most people had regarding them.

It also happened to fit the thread. The argument was over "impurity", and katrin wanted to redefine sex so as to keep rape victims "pure", which is actually quite ironic. I actually pointed out that fallacy would result if she tried using two contrary definitions simultaneously, much less in attempt to alter the reality being referenced.

In damaged goods, I actually use goods to imply something of potential value. Damaged doesn't only refer to being a rape victim. Since some notable damage has occurred for whatever reason there's uncertainty of present value though not necessarily definite worthlessness or future irreparableness. Here value would be as an SO, which necessarily does include consideration of both ends. I've used the term in reference to myself when considering likely my value to someone else though weirdness is usually more the issue.

katrin

08-03-2010, 08:37 PM

One's purity--if one believes in purity at all--can only be surrendered voluntarily. It cannot be taken by force.

One of the ideas I learned during my years of being religio-spiritual was that sin is in the mind, not just the body. So, if I'm lying awake desiring someone I desire and thinking naughty impure thoughts, I'm sinning.

The whole idea of sin is that it is willful. Eve willfully ate of the apple. She made the choice to listen to the serpent.

A person who is raped is unwilling and therefore has neither sinned nor lost internal purity. If the rape survivor is a virgin, perhaps one day she will find a man (unless she's a lesbian) that she desires, one with whom she wants to engage in sex for pleasure and/or love. The experience she will have with that man, on that occasion of losing her virginity, is categorically different than the experience she had when she was raped.

EDIT:
sex = pleasure and/or love while rape = terror and pain
These things are not similar.

Rho1334

08-03-2010, 10:05 PM

I say if you love her, who cares if she is "damaged goods". Being raped doesnt take away from your inner beauty. It was something that was done to you against your will, thats why its called rape and not sex.

Zsych

08-03-2010, 10:54 PM

I've always thought that the effect of rape varied from person to person, and yes, the main problem with rape is the psychological harm it often causes (although the social view of rape is probably to blame for that in part). Minus the psychological effect, I just consider it a type of assault... which I honestly don't consider that significant if no long term physical harm is done.

As for punishment - punishment exists to deter others from repeating the action. I can't say with surety what punishment is suitable for this crime, but I'd say harsh punishment is fair.

Muse

08-04-2010, 01:46 AM

One's purity--if one believes in purity at all--can only be surrendered voluntarily. It cannot be taken by force.

I respectfully disagree here. The entire world, the people in it, and their minds can be changed with force. Purity can be taken by force as well. and theoretically, it can be restored with a similar use of force.

A good example of this, though literary, is George Orwell's 1984, along with pretty much any situation where force was used for its most obvious utility, being forceful (its in the name).

As for the damaged goods bit; iv read the posts here and can say the only things i agree with are the logical statements, not so much the opinionated ones. I don't see a point in lessening the sentences for rape, the utility of a punishment directly correlate's to its ability to deter people from breaking a law, or repeating a unlawful action after experiencing the punishment. (i would guess it depends on if your aim is motivation for prevention, or motivation for correction) This is my strategic understanding of the legal system.

Personaly, i would be ok with increasing the punishment for rape, since i value prevention over correction.

Edit-- a friend of mine pointed out to me after posting, the one thing potentially not able to be taken by force is Chuck Norris.

katrin

08-04-2010, 06:51 AM

My .05 cents...

Well, words are limited in their effectiveness and confuse with all their various denotations and connotations.

Here are a couple definitions from m-w.com:

Main Entry: in·no·cence
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness

Main Entry: pure
3... b : free from moral fault or guilt

Now, I can see what you, Muse, are getting at...that the rape survivor is, after going through that experience, now acquainted with evil, but since she's not to blame, one could argue that she herself still retains innocence. She is more aware of the depth of evil that exists but she herself has not perpetrated an evil act in regard to the rape. Rape victims are not ever "asking for it."

Also, she is free from moral fault or guilt, and therefore, still pure.

Sure, rape survivors may feel guilt, but they really shouldn't, since they did nothing wrong. I have never been raped, but I know a couple women who were. Letting go of feelings of guilt and shame, deceptive feelings brought about by the trauma, is a big part of recovery. I imagine it must be horribly difficult to let go of the negative feelings and get one's mind's scripts back to normal to rebuild self esteem after a rape.

Calling rape survivors "damaged goods" must perpetuate the psychic damage for them, instead of helping them heal. All I am saying is, as a community, we have a responsibility toward victims of violence to help them recover, rather than harming them further.

@Zsych, the effect of rape probably does vary somewhat from person to person and there are different situations of rape. I don't think all that's really relevant to the discussion though, since what we are talking about is a principle rather than specific cases.

catzmeow

08-04-2010, 07:41 AM

I think that people are resistant to the term "damaged goods" is that this represents a static, unchangeable condition. Human beings may be traumatized, but they can recover from that trauma. And, trauma comes in many forms, from the person whose dad cheats repeatedly on his mom to the woman who is beaten by her husband. Many of us have been exposed to trauma in one form or another.

Rape is no more permanently damaging than having your ass kicked in a fight. It's a damaging personal assault, but people recover from the trauma.

Implying that they are permanently damaged suggests one of the greatest fears of a rape victim: that he/she will never be the same.

I wondered about inflicting myself on another person after experiencing infidelity in my marriage. That damaged me in ways that I could barely speak about for a long time, but it is now a pretty distant memory. It hurt like a mo fo at the time, though.

However, with the right person, it's merely a minor blip on my radar screen. I almost never worry about my boyfriend cheating. That was a phobia I had for a while, but it passed because I worked at getting over my fear of being betrayed.

A woman may be raped, but that doesn't mean that she will be raped forever.

One book I highly recommend on the subject is Alice Sebold's autobiography, "Lucky."

One thing she mentions in Lucky, which chronicles her rape during college, and the aftermath, is that "'you save yourself or you remain unsaved." That's true for a lot of situations in life.

Damaged goods can't save or repair themselves. Humans can.

Zsych

08-04-2010, 07:42 AM

In terms of whether or not you should want a relationship with a rape victim - unless you're feeling like martyring yourself, it would depend on how she was affected by the experience, and whether she still has a positive attitude towards relationships.

Edit: And what I said isn't that different from what catzmeow said. What do you think catzmeow, should there be punishment (old religious style or not) for people who cheat and hurt other people that way and just can't be honest? Its a decent amount of harm to do to someone else, even if it doesn't leave physical marks.

catzmeow

08-04-2010, 07:44 AM

In terms of whether or not you should want a relationship with a rape victim - unless you're feeling like martyring yourself, it would depend on how she was affected by the experience, and whether she still has a positive attitude towards relationships.

It would also depend on where she's at in recovery, etc. Rape victims learn to separate their rape from loving consensual sex. We're talking about two very different acts here.

But, if you're going to exclude rape victims, make sure you also exclude anyone else who has any baggage at all:

Anyone who was abused/neglected as a child.
Anyone who was ever a victim of domestic violence.
Anyone who has ever been a victim of a violent crime.
Anyone who has ever had a failed relationship.
Anyone who has ever been divorced.
Anyone whose parents have ever been divorced.

After all, any of those things can be just as traumatic as rape, if not more traumatic.

---------- Post added 08-04-2010 at 10:46 AM ----------

What do you think catzmeow, should there be punishment (old religious style or not) for people who cheat and hurt other people that way and just can't be honest? Its a decent amount of harm to do to someone else, even if it doesn't leave physical marks.

I would like to see us do away with the no-fault divorce, for starters. A person who cheats should not be entitled to half of the marital assets.

Zsych

08-04-2010, 07:47 AM

It really depends on what their self image tends to be and how they're handling it.

catzmeow

08-04-2010, 07:50 AM

It really depends on what their self image tends to be and how they're handling it.

I would go so far as to say that it isn't an issue, unless it's an issue. I'd say that far more people recover from this than don't.

Zsych

08-04-2010, 08:25 AM

catzmeow

08-04-2010, 09:03 AM

Oh I'd say people do recover. I know one girl who primarily seems to have a lot of casual meaningless sex, which to me feels like an overcompensation to having been raped and now telling herself that she just doesn't care that it happened, and that its a small thing. She doesn't seem to look for close relationships though - I don't consider this a good recovery.

This same behavior can be observed with a girl who has difficulties in her relationship with her father, as well, though. That's why singling out rape as something that makes a woman damaged goods is so bizarre to me.

I tend to think that it comes more from a very patriarchal, and frankly, archaic, view on women and their sexuality, and is probably held moreso by men who are strict believers in being only with women who are virgins. The fact that a woman has been raped is a distinct decrease in her market value to these folks because they see female sexuality as a commodity that belongs solely to them. Any female sexuality, whether consensual or not, is threatening to such people.

Perhaps we should just say that the woman's attitude towards intimacy and relationships affects whether she's relationship material or not. Where it came from is irrelevant unless you plan to fix her :)

I don't think you can fix someone else. Each of us has to save ourselves. That's the only way it works. I have to see what is broken and repair it. No one else can do it for me. They can support me, love me, etc., but it has been my experience that I have to do the hard work.

larkin

08-04-2010, 09:36 AM

As I've said before, if you want PC, go elsewhere. You've no sacred right to define other people's terms for them. Doing so in spite of admitting knowing better speaks plenty as well.

Ugh. The term damaged goods implies rape victims are less than human whether you intended to or not. Unless that's what you meant to imply, it was the wrong usage. That's not being PC; it's just about meaning what you write.

But it's unsurprising that you would think actual meaning is unimportant, given this particularly ridiculous statement:

I don't need justification to use a word. There're just arbitrary collections of markings and sounds. They're just symbolic variables, which can be assigned any meaning as desired.

Just because meaning of words can be subjective doesn't mean words are meaningless. You understand that sentence, right? So obviously there is some common understanding. In this case, three pages of common understanding that the term damaged goods is dehumanizing and thus inappropriate, unless you intended to be dehumanizing.

Distance

08-04-2010, 10:53 AM

Rape is as much an indication of damaged goods on women, as hair loss, small penis size or shortness, is on men.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 11:30 AM

Ugh. The term damaged goods implies rape victims are less than human whether you intended to or not. Unless that's what you meant to imply, it was the wrong usage. That's not being PC; it's just about meaning what you write.

You're admitting you know what I meant then claiming I meant something else.

Just because meaning of words can be subjective doesn't mean words are meaningless. You understand that sentence, right? So obviously there is some common understanding. In this case, three pages of common understanding that the term damaged goods is dehumanizing and thus inappropriate, unless you intended to be dehumanizing.

They are intrinsically meaningless. That's how symbols work. As I just said, in other words, you're actually objecting to potential straw men after admitting to knowing them false. You're also claiming that such cognitive malfunctions are my responsibility.

larkin

08-04-2010, 11:46 AM

You're admitting you know what I meant then claiming I meant something else.

Please. I don't know what you meant! How could I, except by reading what you wrote? (Which you even go on to claim is "intrinsically meaningless!") I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt based on subsequent posts and assuming you did not mean to dehumanize - and then "claiming" that if that's the case (for you to clarify either way), the words you used were the wrong usage. Not something I expect you to admit at this point, but something that the previous three pages alone should make clear.

Anhedonic Lake

08-04-2010, 11:50 AM

It is to be expected that a person who has been subjected to rape will suffer psychological trauma for some time. The term damaged goods implies all rape victims will forever be psychologically damaged, this is inaccurate. Many overcome the trauma and lead healthy lives and regain psychogical normalcy.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 11:54 AM

Please. I don't know what you meant! How could I, except by reading what you wrote? (Which you even go on to claim is "intrinsically meaningless!") I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt based on subsequent posts and assuming you did not mean to dehumanize - and then "claiming" that if that's the case (for you to clarify either way), the words you used were the wrong usage. Not something I expect you to admit at this point, but something that the previous three pages alone should make clear.

You're conflating a contextual description of some property of a person for the person and presuming to dictate to me what I may speak of, and you missed people over the previous three pages taking a number of words and phrases to mean many different things.

Obs3ss3d

08-04-2010, 12:05 PM

Rape is as much an indication of damaged goods on women, as hair loss, small penis size or shortness, is on men.

I disagree, unless hairloss, and shortness were a violation of your rights as a human. And happened instantly and is traumatic as rape. You're using poor grounds for comparisons. This thread is disgustingly insensive.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 12:14 PM

They are intrinsically meaningless. That's how symbols work.

Symbols themselves are about as meaningless as this argument is disingenuous. It's quite a different matter with what they signify. I wish I could be as expansive towards the argument, but it makes damaged goods of rationality.

Distance

08-04-2010, 12:15 PM

I disagree, unless hairloss, and shortness were a violation of your rights as a human. And happened instantly and is traumatic as rape. You're using poor grounds for comparisons. This thread is disgustingly insensive.In all cases, the bearer of the categorization has no control over the purported issues. In the situation of hair loss, the man can get implants or change his perception. In the situation of shortness or small penis size, the man can change his inaccurate perceptions. In the situation of rape, the woman can address her trauma whether she does this herself or gets professional help.

It's all relative and logical. But categorization as a whole, isn't logical.

catzmeow

08-04-2010, 12:24 PM

Please. I don't know what you meant! How could I, except by reading what you wrote? (Which you even go on to claim is "intrinsically meaningless!") I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt based on subsequent posts and assuming you did not mean to dehumanize - and then "claiming" that if that's the case (for you to clarify either way), the words you used were the wrong usage. Not something I expect you to admit at this point, but something that the previous three pages alone should make clear.

I think this is as much about Autopic as anything else. I believe that Autopic sees most women primarily as objects to meet his needs, rather than as human beings in our own right. Thus, women are goods, and raped women are damaged goods.

Distance

08-04-2010, 12:27 PM

Since math is revered on INTJf and is an indication of intelligence, the following is my analysis of this thread:

w = individual who was traumatized
x = trauma
y = variable actions or non-actions the traumatized individual chooses to take, to repair trauma.
z = damaged goods

Equation:

w + x + y = z

As you can see, this equation is unbalanced since y is a variable which will impact on z.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 12:40 PM

I think this is as much about Autopic as anything else. I believe that Autopic sees most women primarily as objects to meet his needs, rather than as human beings in our own right. Thus, women are goods, and raped women are damaged goods.

You're conflating a contextual description of some property of a person for the person and presuming to dictate to me what I may speak of...

It's called analysis. You use this things called properties. There's this whole thing called logic.

Hell, if you want some similar nonsense in return, you're clearly dehumanizing people by labeling them on the basis of their genitalia. We're all just people, damn it!

Distance

08-04-2010, 12:41 PM

It's called analysis. You use this things called properties. There's this whole thing called logic.

Hell, if you want some similar nonsense in return, you're clearly dehumanizing people by labeling them on the basis of their genitalia. We're all just people, damn it!Go back to my mathematical analysis of this thread. Many members have debunked your fallacious conclusion.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 12:44 PM

Go back to my mathematical analysis of this thread. Many members have debunked your fallacious conclusion.

This nonsense says I couldn't call someone anything that could change. I can't say someone's sick because they could get better. Apparently, I should just be safe and say everyone's dead. It's true for most any time.

Since math is revered on INTJf and is an indication of intelligence, the following is my analysis of this thread:

w = individual who was traumatized
x = trauma
y = variable actions or non-actions the traumatized individual chooses to take, to repair trauma.
z = damaged goods

Equation:

w + x + y = z

As you can see, this equation is unbalanced since y is a variable which will impact on z.

Distance

08-04-2010, 12:46 PM

This nonsense says I couldn't call someone anything that could change. I can't say someone's sick because they could get better. Apparently, I should just be safe and say everyone's dead.If a person contracts the flu, does this mean they'll always be either dead or damaged goods due to illness?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 12:47 PM

If a person contracts the flu, does this mean they'll always be either dead or damaged goods due to illness?

Does it mean they're never dead or damaged?

Distance

08-04-2010, 12:49 PM

Does it mean they're not ever dead or damaged?Go back to my equation. If some are damaged and others aren't, it makes no sense to jump to fallacious conclusions until you've had the opportunity to get to know the individual.

Let's take the statement of hair loss in men means damaged goods, since some men are psychologically traumatised by hair loss. Does this mean that all men who experience hair loss are damaged goods?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 01:06 PM

Go back to my equation. If some are damaged and others aren't, it makes no sense to jump to fallacious conclusions until you've had the opportunity to get to know the individual.

Let's take the statement of hair loss in men means damaged goods, since some men are psychologically traumatised by hair loss. Does this mean that all men who experience hair loss are damaged goods?

I've referred to uncertainty already.

In damaged goods, I actually use goods to imply something of potential value. Damaged doesn't only refer to being a rape victim. Since some notable damage has occurred for whatever reason there's uncertainty of present value though not necessarily definite worthlessness or future irreparableness.

I'm not saying everyone will be damaged to the same degree. Rape is normally damaging. Clearly, even those you're siding with in here are generalizing that victims are damaged.

"Damaged goods" in shipping and related refers to apparent package damage or witnessed potentially damaging circumstances too, BTW. That usage refers to uncertainty as well.

Tangentially, when people refer to hair loss, the loss of hair is usually the damage indicated.

Distance

08-04-2010, 01:08 PM

I've referred to uncertainty already.Let's take the statement short men = napoleon complex. Are all short men damaged goods?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 01:13 PM

Let's take the statement short men = napoleon complex. Are all short men damaged goods?

IT. WAS. A. GENERALIZATION.

It's also a valid thing circumstance to note when potentially seeking a relationship with someone. If you know a car's been in an accident, you know to watch for problems. For the PC bleeding hearts, that was an analogy and logically valid as opposed to any appeals to emotion you might wish to ping off it.

Distance

08-04-2010, 01:15 PM

IT. WAS. A. GENERALIZATION.

It's also a valid thing circumstance to note when potentially seeking a relationship with someone. If you know a car's been in an accident, you know to watch for problems. For the PC bleeding hearts, that was an analogy and logically valid as opposed to any appeals to emotion you might wish to ping off it.How about the Internetz definition of nice guy? Nice guy = passive aggressive and lacking backbone. Does this mean that all nice guys are damaged goods?

I could go on and on about how each generalised statement is about as useful as the toilet paper it's printed on.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 01:29 PM

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 01:41 PM

BTW, anyone else notice the hypocrisy of presuming to protect a group of "poor damaged people"

I'm reading requests for intellectual honesty.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 01:49 PM

I'm reading requests for intellectual honesty.

What I'm saying is that some are defining a group or person on the basis of certain properties then claiming no one else can refer to a group or person based on those properties because it's dehumanizing to refer to a group or person based on those properties.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 01:54 PM

What I'm saying is that you're defining a group or person on the basis of certain properties then claiming no one else can refer to a group or person based on those properties because it's dehumanizing to refer to a group or person based on those properties.

But you're not referring to the group by those properties. You're referring to the group with a term that associates a person with an inanimate object via amplification of a past experience, at the expense of their humanity and everything that's happened since.

Distance

08-04-2010, 01:54 PM

What I'm saying is that some are defining a group or person on the basis of certain properties then claiming no one else can refer to a group or person based on those properties because it's dehumanizing to refer to a group or person based on those properties.Using this rationale, then men with hair loss, short men and small penis size men are damaged goods. Right?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 01:58 PM

But you're not referring to the group by those properties. You're referring to the group with a term that associates a person with an inanimate object via amplification of a past experience, at the expense of their humanity and everything that's happened since.

I've explained what I meant. I've even explained analogy.

Using this rationale, then men with hair loss, short men and small penis size men are damaged goods. Right?

That's wasn't a rationale but an observation. If damaged, refers to hairless, short, or small penised, and goods refers to men; then, yes, hairless, short or small penised men are logically damaged goods.

Distance

08-04-2010, 02:02 PM

If damaged, refers to hairless, short, or small penised, and goods refers to men; then, yes. Hairless, short or small penised men are logically damaged goods.There's proven psychological damage to all three of these physical issues on some men so if you agree that damaged goods is an acceptable categorisation and a valid precursor for rejection of significant other material, then the logic equates.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 02:08 PM

I've explained what I meant. I've even explained analogy.

I've understood what you're saying to mean: I'm going to use this loaded term and y'all can bite me if you don't like it, you bleeding heart PC hypocrites. Accurate?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 02:17 PM

There's proven psychological damage to all three of these physical issues on some men so if you agree that damaged goods is an acceptable categorisation and a valid precursor for rejection of significant other material, then the logic equates.

Sure, if that's your criteria, it's your potential relationship.

I've understood what you're saying to mean: I'm going to use this loaded term and y'all can bite me if you don't like it, you bleeding heart PC hypocrites. Accurate?

Funny, could've swore those arguments followed my usage of the term in the debate on virginity. It was being argued that virginity couldn't be taken. I was disagreeing, barring the poster's potential use of alternately defined terms sans an equivocation fallacy.

Distance

08-04-2010, 02:21 PM

Sure, if that's your criteria, it's your potential relationship.Oh so this thread is entirely about your personal dating habits? If so, you can think and do anything you want, including having a preference for nose pickers.

Carry on.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 02:25 PM

Oh so this thread is entirely about your personal dating habits? If so, you can think and do anything you want, including having a preference for nose pickers.

Carry on.

You just brought personal dating habits into this particular argument in that^ post. Others did the same in different arguments earlier. I didn't start this thread. It was split as a result of someone arguing over my use of a term, what he claimed I meant, and his attempts to straw man and shame me into complying with his demands.

Disillusioned

08-04-2010, 02:26 PM

I don't know that Autoptic was saying you need to tell the person directly that they are damaged goods. But basically, if a psychologist were to diagnose a rape patient for instance and then went out in the hallway and said "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry but your daughter is damaged goods." No, I don't think the Doctor is a bad person or did anything wrong.But he'd be a pretty dumb doctor, and a poor businessman besides.

Haha, I wasn't implying that a doctor would actually use the term "damaged goods". like I said:
I don't know that "damaged goods" is an actual scientific condition.
I was just making the point that if "damaged goods" were to mean 'someone who is mentally and or emotionally unstable after an incident of being raped' as was implied by the context in which Autoptic used it then "damaged goods" would be the equivalent of that by definition and so if a doctor were to determine that a rape patient were 'mentally and or emotionally unstable after an incident of being raped' then he would not be wrong in diagnosing that she is "damaged goods". Though a doctor would never actually say that, he would rather just say "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your daughter is mentally and emotionally unstable." I was just making a point.

Though as I've said regarding "damaged goods":
I don't know that I would ever use those words to describe someone
but as has been shown throughout this discussion "damaged goods" is an ambiguous term, so different people can choose to define it differently and they are not wrong in doing so as long as it is within the common accepted upon broader definition of the term.

Though I agree with what others have said that rape victims should not be labeled as "damaged goods" or written off simply for the fact that they've been raped but rather consideration should be given to their own mental state in the aftermath of such an event. Like Zsych said:

Perhaps we should just say that the woman's attitude towards intimacy and relationships affects whether she's relationship material or not. Where it came from is irrelevant

If you choose to define a rape victim who has intimacy issues as "damaged goods" then you likewise should refer to anyone who has intimacy issues as "damaged goods" as to be fair to the definition itself.

BTW, rape is sex, duh. Desire's not a requirement for an act to be sexual

This is true. Why do you think they call it 'sexual assault'. I'm tired of everyone trying to appeal to pathos in their arguments instead of making valid points. Just because you feel sorry for a rape victim doesn't mean that you now have the right to redefine what sex is. I'm not defending 'rape' I'm just speaking rationally about what things actually are. Rape refers to a unilateral act of sex as opposed to reciprocal. But it is still an act of sex in which the victim is part of so a rape victim can simply not be a virgin. Though honestly, I don't know anyone who would see 'simply not being a virgin' as a reason not to date a girl (unless it is religious based but even under these circumstances, holding the condition that a girl must be a virgin is shallow and superficial and does not say anything about whther you are compatible with someone. It is just limiting your options in a mate for no reason... in my opinion) Only if she is emotionally damaged to a point that makes having a relationship difficult would I not consider her dating material. But this has nothing to do with "virgin or no virgin" "rape or no rape" simply a judgment based on compatibility like any other girl I consider dating.

Distance

08-04-2010, 02:33 PM

Sure, if that's your criteria, it's your potential relationship.

You just brought personal dating habits into this particular argument in that^ post.Wrong again. Refer to the above post preceding mine. Own it.

Others did the same in different arguments earlier. I didn't start this thread. It was split as a result of someone arguing over my use of a term, what he claimed I meant, and his attempts to straw man and shame me into complying with his demands.

BTW, rape is sex, duh. Desire's not a requirement for an act to be sexual, and switching between a private term with the common term while clearly equating them would be an equivocation fallacy. Purity would definitely be far gone too. The victim's not just sloppy seconds. They're clearly damaged goods.
And now, since you've distanced yourself from it being anything to do with personal preference, I can see why other members would want to refute your fallacious categorisation, if it's nothing to do with personal dating preferences.

Even tenuous logic like yours demands that you apply the same logic across the board. If you can't, then applying general categorisations using fallacious conclusions, is irrational and solely based on a form of discriminatory emotional bias.

Feral

08-04-2010, 02:34 PM

I wouldn't call them 'damaged' so much.
Used, sure, but not necessarily damaged.
Some may be permanently damaged, some may not.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 02:52 PM

The victim's not just sloppy seconds. They're clearly damaged goods.

How do you envision the damage becoming manifest? Imagine a woman has been raped, but does not tell you that or otherwise display her past experience. How would you know?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 03:04 PM

Sure, if that's your criteria, it's your potential relationship.

You just brought personal dating habits into this particular argument in that^ post.
Wrong again. Refer to the above post preceding mine. Own it.

You mentioned significant other material.

There's proven psychological damage to all three of these physical issues on some men so if you agree that damaged goods is an acceptable categorisation and a valid precursor for rejection of significant other material, then the logic equates.

I responded.

Sure, if that's your criteria, it's your potential relationship.

Then you mentioned my personal relationship habits.

Oh so this thread is entirely about your personal dating habits? If so, you can think and do anything you want, including having a preference for nose pickers.

Carry on.

QED

You just brought personal dating habits into this particular argument in that^ post.

And now, since you've distanced yourself from it being anything to do with personal preference, I can see why other members would want to refute your fallacious categorisation, if it's nothing to do with personal dating preferences.

Even tenuous logic like yours demands that you apply the same logic across the board. If you can't, then applying general categorisations using fallacious conclusions, is irrational and solely based on a form of discriminatory emotional bias.

Actually, they were using the same generalizations, which I've pointed out.

BTW, anyone else notice the hypocrisy of presuming to protect a group of "poor damaged people" while claiming those very properties that're defining this "special" group and their "special rights" are irrelevant to any other context, even where clearly relevant?

I wasn't assuming the generalization was anything but a generalization.

IT. WAS. A. GENERALIZATION.

It's also a valid thing circumstance to note when potentially seeking a relationship with someone. If you know a car's been in an accident, you know to watch for problems. For the PC bleeding hearts, that was an analogy and logically valid as opposed to any appeals to emotion you might wish to ping off it.

Odd, why was this entirely removed from the other thread?

BTW, rape is sex, duh. Desire's not a requirement for an act to be sexual, and switching between a private term with the common term while clearly equating them would be an equivocation fallacy. Purity would definitely be far gone too. The victim's not just sloppy seconds. They're clearly damaged goods.

^that was the last part of this and relevant to the other thread and a preceding post.

Pretty sure sodomy fits any religious or cultural notions of virginity I've ever heard of though that's mostly abrahamic. It's definitely sexually defiled and "touched". Mostly, intercourse was the big thing because the hymen could be checked, and any other sex acts might be considered unnatural thus well beyond mere coital defilement.

How do you envision the damage becoming manifest? Imagine a woman has been raped, but does not tell you that or otherwise display her past experience. How would you know?

They'd probably be touchier about closeness and touching and more likely to be paranoid and moreso, which people tend to be around me anyway. I didn't say I would know. I was saying it could be a concern if one did.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 03:13 PM

They'd probably be touchier about closeness and touching and more likely to be paranoid and moreso, which tend to get anyway. I didn't say I would know. I was saying it could be a concern if one did.

Say you had two women. One hadn't been raped, but was touchy about closeness and a bit paranoid, simply as a function of temperament. The other had been raped, but displayed no such touchiness at all. Are you saying you'd be more concerned about the second woman than the first entirely as a function of whether you knew about the rape?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 03:15 PM

Say you had two women. One hadn't been raped, but was touchy about closeness and a bit paranoid, simply as a function of temperament. The other had been raped, but displayed no such touchiness at all. Are you saying you'd be more concerned about the second woman than the first entirely as a function of whether you knew about the rape?

Not necessarily.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 03:17 PM

Not necessarily.

Naturally I'm asking whether the "damaged good" designation is at all useful in such a scenario. Or is it more to the point to be concerned about the touchiness independently of what caused it?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 03:25 PM

Naturally I'm asking whether the "damaged good" designation is at all useful in such a scenario. Or is it more to the point to be concerned about the touchiness independently of what caused it?

I actually addressed that when explaining my use of the term.

In damaged goods, I actually use goods to imply something of potential value. Damaged doesn't only refer to being a rape victim. Since some notable damage has occurred for whatever reason there's uncertainty of present value though not necessarily definite worthlessness or future irreparableness. Here value would be as an SO, which necessarily does include consideration of both ends. I've used the term in reference to myself when considering likely my value to someone else though weirdness is usually more the issue.

cannotseethe

08-04-2010, 03:38 PM

I actually addressed that when explaining my use of the term.

I understand, but it seems like your primary concern is whether the person would make a good partner for you (given your specific criteria), and having been raped is potentially irrelevant to that concern. Damaged goods is something else, in other words, than rape victim; there might be some overlap, but rape itself is not causal.

Which seems to go against the tone of:
BTW, rape is sex, duh. ... The victim's not just sloppy seconds. They're clearly damaged goods.

nowt

08-04-2010, 03:59 PM

BTW, anyone else notice the hypocrisy of presuming to protect a group of "poor damaged people" while claiming those very properties that're defining this "special" group and their "special rights" are irrelevant to any other context, even where clearly relevant?

Would you like to be continually psychologically raped, on-forum, post-to-post, so that everyone knows not only that you are damaged goods, but your own reasoning as to why, using any term that describes you in the most general of ways, no matter the specific unpleasantness of the terms in aggregation?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:15 PM

Would you like to be continually psychologically raped, on-forum, post-to-post, so that everyone knows not only that you are damaged goods, but your own reasoning as to why, using any term that describes you in the most general of ways, no matter the specific unpleasantness of the terms in aggregation?

Well, this apparent threat isn't getting deleted, so I'll point out that harassing me wouldn't absolve your hypocrisy, nor was I the perpetrator of this argument. You were. If you've a serious problem with it, stop.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:26 PM

Well, this apparent threat isn't getting deleted, so I'll point out that harassing me wouldn't absolve your hypocrisy, nor was I the perpetrator of this argument. You were. If you've a serious problem with it, stop.

It's a hypothetical.

So you wouldn't have a problem with it, since words can't ever cause harm, and only act as designators. Good to know you'll never cry foul.

Oh. Wait. What is that? You do have a problem with it? How surprisingly hypocritical*.

*in a damaged goods kinda way

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:28 PM

It's a hypothetical.

So you wouldn't have a problem with it, since words can't ever cause harm, and only act as designators. Good to know you'll never cry foul.

Oh. Wait. What is that? You do have a problem with it? How surprisingly hypocritical.

Just saying something someone happens not to like isn't harassment.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:31 PM

Just saying something someone happens not to like isn't harassment.

Tho you'd have to know something extremely personal about them to say it?

Right.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:33 PM

Tho you'd have to know something extremely personal about them to say it?

Right.

I think you're implying something that I don't think I'm allowed to say. If I'm correct, I had no knowledge of the matter.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:35 PM

I think you're implying something that I don't think I'm allowed to say. If I'm correct, I had no knowledge of the matter.

At least you're openly shooting the dark, now.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:36 PM

At least you're openly shooting the dark, now.

You started and pursued this shooting match for your own reasons, whatever they are.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:40 PM

You started and pursued this shooting match for your own reasons, whatever they are.

Using my own words, with their own meanings, whatever they are [nyuk, nyuk]-

And you shouldn't have taken offense at a one, since, you know, that is your argument--

There can be no threat of harassment, etc; not if you play by your own rules--

Do you?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:44 PM

Using my own words, with their own meanings, whatever they are [nyuk, nyuk]-

And you shouldn't have taken offense at a one, since, you know, that is your argument--

There can be no threat of harassment, etc; not if you play by your own rules--

Do you?

First.

Just saying something someone happens not to like isn't harassment.

Second, you're admitting your intention to harass, thus claiming to mean something else would be a lie. Using words with the same meanings while claiming to mean otherwise doesn't equate to actually using words with different meanings.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:48 PM

Hypothetically. Context escaping you?

Was that the sound of one hypocrite passing?

First. Second, you're admitting your intention to harass, thus claiming to mean something else would be a lie. Using words with the same meanings while claiming to mean otherwise doesn't equate to actually using words with different meanings.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:48 PM

Hypothetically. Context escaping you?

Was that the sound of one hypocrite passing?

I was referring to your hypothetical.

nowt

08-04-2010, 04:50 PM

I was referring to your hypothetical.

Then it is both fully meant, and unintended. That's why hypothetical exists, as a word, with a useful non-demeaning meaning.

No answer, eh?

My condolences to your mother.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 04:52 PM

Then it both fully meant, and unintended. That's why hypothetical exists, as a word, with a useful non-demeaning meaning.

No answer, eh?

My condolences to your mother.

Harassment involves intent. Accident and apathy aren't harassment if that's what you're claiming.

nowt

08-04-2010, 05:17 PM

Harassment involves intent. Accident and apathy aren't harassment if that's what you're claiming.

Any word spoken is intended.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 05:26 PM

Any word spoken is intended.

Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

katrin

08-04-2010, 06:07 PM

Yes, Autoptic. And now that you know that calling people "damaged goods" disturbs and upsets, why are you still doing it here in the public sphere?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 06:10 PM

Yes, Autoptic. And now that you know that calling people "damaged goods" disturbs and upsets, why are you still doing it here in the public sphere?

I haven't been pursuing anyone verbally berating them.

katrin

08-04-2010, 06:23 PM

Sure, but this thread has 1,227 views. How much do you want to bet that some people who have looked at this thread are rape survivors? Statistically, it's pretty likely.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 06:28 PM

Sure, but this thread has 1,227 views. How much do you want to bet that some people who have looked at this thread are rape survivors? Statistically, it's pretty likely.

They're freely choosing to read this. It's up to them, if they're offended, to stop. They're the pursuers of their own offense.

nowt

08-04-2010, 06:29 PM

They're the pursuers of their own offense.

Like the rape victims that they are.

Neat.

Morning Glory

08-04-2010, 06:39 PM

So they're perfectly fine physically and psychologically? We really need to lower the sentencing for such a minor inconvenience then don't we?

If I walk up to you with a gun and pull the trigger, the fact that I missed (truly an act of God) doesn't change the fact that I assaulted you with a deadly weapon.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 06:42 PM

Like the rape victims that they are.

Neat.

Pursuing someone with intent to be raped wouldn't actually be rape, and I never blamed victims for what happened to them.

"I said what I said. I did not say what I did not say." attributed to Korzybski

katrin

08-04-2010, 06:44 PM

BTW, anyone else notice the hypocrisy of presuming to protect a group of "poor damaged people" while claiming those very properties that're defining this "special" group and their "special rights" are irrelevant to any other context, even where clearly relevant?

Huh? No one is implying that rape survivors are fragile or pathetic or pitiable. We're just saying that they don't need or deserve to have toxic labels slapped on them.

nowt

08-04-2010, 06:45 PM

Pursuing someone with intent to be raped wouldn't actually be rape, and I never blamed victims for what happened to them.

Rapathetic.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 06:51 PM

I didn't read the quote before I responded.

If I walk up to you with a gun and pull the trigger, the fact that I missed (truly an act of God) doesn't change the fact that I assaulted you with a deadly weapon.

This thread was split from another, thus the first post here is mutilated and contextless.

So they're perfectly fine physically and psychologically? We really need to lower the sentencing for such a minor inconvenience then don't we?

In the original thread, nowt seemed to be implying that rape victims weren't damaged thus the above sarcasm.

Rapathetic.

What's that mean exactly?

Huh? No one is implying that rape survivors are fragile or pathetic or pitiable. We're just saying that they don't need or deserve to have toxic labels slapped on them.

You were saying I can't say they're damaged because they're too damaged to take it and that classifying them as damaged was dehumanizing, which you were clearly doing thus your entire argument.

katrin

08-04-2010, 06:57 PM

nowt

08-04-2010, 06:59 PM

In the original thread, nowt seemed to be implying that rape victims weren't damaged thus the above.

O, honesty, wherefore, etc.

What I explicitly stated, was that the damage of the goods [terms you can not fail to understand] can be minimized, and not inflamed. What is that called? I'm blanking. Recovery? Healing? No matter. Not your concern.

What's that mean exactly?

More than enough.

vampyroteuthis

08-04-2010, 07:03 PM

Autoptic, acknowledging your right to subjectively define your words in a vacuum and then attempt to use them to communicate with others, I have a serious and well-intended question: what exactly do you, personally, mean by 'damaged'?

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 07:04 PM

Autoptic said: So they're perfectly fine physically and psychologically? We really need to lower the sentencing for such a minor inconvenience then don't we?

Look at it this way. If I, katrin, a woman, am walking down the street and someone mugs me for my money and shoots me, but I recover and go on with my life, am I forever after to be known as "damaged goods"?

Edit: If not, then why should rape victims?

This is part of my explanation about my usage of the term. Temporarily was a factor.

In damaged goods, I actually use goods to imply something of potential value. Damaged doesn't only refer to being a rape victim. Since some notable damage has occurred for whatever reason there's uncertainty of present value though not necessarily definite worthlessness or future irreparableness. Here value would be as an SO, which necessarily does include consideration of both ends. I've used the term in reference to myself when considering likely my value to someone else though weirdness is usually more the issue.

O, honesty, wherefore, etc.

What I explicitly stated, was that the damage of the goods [terms you can not fail to understand] can be minimized, and not inflamed. What is that called? I'm blanking. Recovery? Healing? No matter. Not your concern.

Show me the actual quote then in this mess. I don't recall such.

Autoptic, acknowledging your right to subjectively define your words in a vacuum and then attempt to use them to communicate with others, I have a serious and well-intended question: what exactly do you, personally, mean by 'damaged'?

See the above, which I've quoted before.

No one's really paying attention. You people just want to argue till I shut up.

nowt

08-04-2010, 07:09 PM

Show me the actual quote then in this mess. I don't recall such.

First page. I won't hold my breath.

vampyroteuthis

08-04-2010, 07:10 PM

See the above, which I've quoted before.
I saw that quote, but it doesn't make clear what you mean by damage, exactly. Your focus there was on clarifying your use of the term 'goods'. You seem to be reading too much into a well-meant question directed towards bridging the gap between your communication style and those of most of the other posters here, myself included.

No one's really paying attention. You people just want to argue till I shut up.
Sound to me like you're pursuing your own offense.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 07:21 PM

First page. I won't hold my breath.

I think there're were other posts around it but, you seem to be implying that I was accusing them of wrongdoing. I was implying that I was just stating a fact and asking if you intended to refute that fact.

So truthfully stating that I never blamed the victim translates as...
Rapathetic.

...or was it truthfully stating that anyone being offended by this thread is freely continuing to read it?

katrin

08-04-2010, 07:23 PM

Autoptic said: "In damaged goods, I actually use goods to imply something of potential value. Damaged doesn't only refer to being a rape victim. Since some notable damage has occurred for whatever reason there's uncertainty of present value though not necessarily definite worthlessness or future irreparableness. Here value would be as an SO, which necessarily does include consideration of both ends. I've used the term in reference to myself when considering likely my value to someone else though weirdness is usually more the issue."

Women are someones, not somethings, just as you are someone, not something.

Words like:

damaged goods
value
worthlessness
irreparableness

...are metaphorical walls that stand between you and potential SOs. To be able to make meaningful connections with women, you will need to get past this thinking, whether the woman to whom you find yourself attracted is a rape survivor or not. Like catzmeow was saying earlier, all people by a certain age have been through some negative experiences.

If you meet an attractive young woman and discover she is a rape survivor, try to look at her and see qualities like strength and perseverance and will to live rather than looking at her as "damaged goods". To do so would be not only in her best interest, but yours as well.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 07:27 PM

Women are someones, not somethings, just as you are someone, not something.

It's called analogy.

Words like:

damaged goods
value
worthlessness
irreparableness

...are metaphorical walls that stand between you and potential SOs.

Those are descriptions of relevant properties. They're necessary for analysis. The last two were also stated as what I didn't mean, BTW.

nowt

08-04-2010, 07:28 PM

I think there're were other posts around it but, you seem to be implying that I was accusing them of wrongdoing. I was implying that I was just stating a fact and asking if you intended to refute that fact.

That's not what I'm implying, therefore--

You must be damaged goods; too damaged to be in this thread, perhaps--

And if this is getting difficult for you, these imaginings of having been flamed, etc--

Just change the meanings of the words I use--

Or quit pursuing your own offense--

Whichever is best for you.

katrin

08-04-2010, 07:34 PM

Those are descriptions of relevant properties. They're necessary for analysis.

I don't want to digress too far off thread, but love relationships are not about relevant properties to be analyzed.

The objectification of rape survivors, women, men, people, relationships...all this is ineffective practice at best, at worst, harmful to forming meaningful connections.

Autoptic

08-04-2010, 07:49 PM

I saw that quote, but it doesn't make clear what you mean by damage, exactly. Your focus there was on clarifying your use of the term 'goods'. You seem to be reading too much into a well-meant question directed towards bridging the gap between your communication style and those of most of the other posters here, myself included.

Mischaracterization's been constant throughout the thread. Forgive me if I'm suspicious. The original thread was about virginity. The typical implication of the supposed value of virginity was capacity for a long term relationship. Obviously being mostly religious, this was usually a marriage. In that context, I was using the word to refer to the likeliness of actual psychological issues that'd complicate or preclude such a relationship.

Likewise, in other contexts, I use it to refer to damage relevant to the context.

Sound to me like you're pursuing your own offense.

Are you admitting some agenda here?

That's not what I'm implying, therefore--

You must be damaged goods; too damaged to be in this thread, perhaps--

And if this is getting difficult for you, these imaginings of having been flamed, etc--

Just change the meanings of the words I use--

Or quit pursuing your own offense--

Whichever is best for you.

You're implying that I'm damaged goods, and that this "debate" will continue until you feel vindicated?

I don't want to digress too far off thread, but love relationships are not about relevant properties to be analyzed.

The objectification of rape survivors, women, men, people, relationships...all this is ineffective practice at best, at worst, harmful to forming meaningful connections.

Aside from that being irrelevant here, I analyze everything. It's the only way to know anything. Analogy is useful for analysis as I just said. Without analysis, stuff will just be made up at random.

nowt

08-04-2010, 07:58 PM

You're implying that I'm damaged goods, and that this "debate" will continue until you feel vindicated?

No, that part was stated pretty explicitly; if that offends you, quit reading the thread.

What's been implied and also stated explicitly [and sadly, is still being implied, and yet again, stated explicitly], but which you've admitted to being too confused or tired or whatever to comprehend, for alas, the thread is long, etc, most everyone else seems to grok:

If words carry meaning, meaning can cause harm. Apathy, like ignorance, is no excuse.

Speaking of argument by analogy and hypocrisy, oh, never mind.

vampyroteuthis

08-04-2010, 08:09 PM

Mischaracterization's been constant throughout the thread. Forgive me if I'm suspicious. The original thread was about virginity. The typical implication of the supposed value of virginity was capacity for a long term relationship. Obviously being mostly religious, this was usually a marriage. In that context, I was using the word to refer to the likeliness of actual psychological issues that'd complicate or preclude such a relationship.

Likewise, in other contexts, I use it to refer to damage relevant to the context.

This still doesn't clear it up, but I don't want to make you provide a definition or throw dictionary definitions at you in some puerile attempt to be pedantic, so I'll try to clarify with a bunch of questions if I may.

"Damaged' usually implies a loss of value and/or impaired ability to function, and is assessed in relation to a "normal" level of functioning or value. As your conversation with cannotseethe shows, it's impossible to pinpoint rape as being a clear and necessary cause of impaired ability to have a healthy relationship, as counterfactuals exist both in the form of:
1. similar relationship dysfunctions being manifest in rape survivors as well as those who haven't been raped, and
2. rape survivors who have healthy relationships.
The other possible implication of 'damage' is that it lessens value, which is arbitrarily defined social meaning. If that is what you mean by damage, then what is the value that has been diminished?

Are you admitting some agenda here?
No?

Aside from that being irrelevant here, I analyze everything. It's the only way to know anything. Analogy is useful for analysis as I just said. Without analysis, stuff will just be made up at random.
Analogy doesn't stand in for explanation, though, since it is always approximate and contains no elucidation of causal mechanisms. Analogies also only work if the situations or objects do, in fact, share enough common factor to render them comparable. Using 'damaged goods' as an analogy to describe rape survivors therefore suggests that you are setting up an equivalency between rape survivors and property. Again, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: is this what you are doing?