Poll: Would you have sympathy for these guys?

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Society is generally more accepting of male promiscuity than female promiscuity, however, society is more concerned with the well-being of females than the well-being of males. If the intent of the OP (as the OP states) was to establish that society cares more about men than women in general then that's not even close to being true. We are always taught about saving the women and children first and so many films are about protecting women from abusive men. It's fully penetrated into the public conscious that women deserve to be considered and protected first and that men should put themselves in danger to do so. Even to the point where only males can be drafted when we know full well that only a very small percentage of the military is actually a combat role. It's a little sexist both ways but such is the nature of a sexually dimorphic species in which one sex is naturally stronger than the other sex.

Also, regarding the difference in acceptance of promiscuity, it isn't necessarily just social norms that dictate this perception. We are likely biologically evolved to accept male promiscuity in that males can reproduce successfully multiple times a day whereas women can only successfully reproduce once every nine months. Ergo, it has benefitted our species to have one sex (females) that handle quality control in being selective in their mating whereas the other sex (males) has to compete for selection. It would be erroneous to think that we don't have basic natural instincts and that said instincts don't reinforce social trends.

People forget that some elements of gender roles are actually elements that have made us fit as a species and have only recently become less necessary due to technology and scientific achievement.

To address the questions in particular:

People have a responsibility to behave appropriately and wisely. In some scenarios, the victim does have responsibility in the outcome when they're aware of the risks of the actions they're taking. This does not, however, absolve or trivialize the perpetrator of the crime of their actions. To wit, a criminal is 100% responsible for their crime, the victim is usually partially responsible for taking an unnecessary risk but not the crime itself. That can be unpopular and considered victim blaming, but people really do need to take responsibility for their choices and the potential ramifications of said choices. The statement that they "deserved it" however, is ridiculous. They don't deserve someone wrongfully harming them, it was just one possible outcome of the risk they may or may not have knowingly taken. We take risks all the time, every time we leave our home and even when we don't. Some are bigger than others.

I mean, for a personal example, there have been a couple nights in the early A.M. where I've walked down a bad street in Brooklyn to get back to the place I was staying at the time. I could have left earlier but we were behind in wrapping gifts and stuffing stockings for the neighborhood children a few days before Christmas and we needed to catch up on the numbers to have them ready in time. Now, had I been assaulted or mugged, it would only have happened because I took a risk (i.e. responsibility for knowing the risk and doing it anyways despite it being potentially devastating and unnecessary) but I would not have "deserved" such an action. No one that matters is going to say, "Oh well, poor children don't need gifts for Christmas, what was he thinking?" But that logic should extend to people performing other legal actions too who just happen to be out late. Yeah, they shouldn't have been out at that time in that neighborhood. Yes, that was a poor decision. But they didn't deserve to get shanked. That's on the criminal.

TL;DR

It doesn't matter which sex you use in the questions. If they took a risk knowingly then they are responsible for the risk they took even if not for the crime someone else committed against them. The risks people take include a full set of possibilities, most of which hopefully end up fine and those are the ones they're (hopefully) aiming for. It's just that they aren't responsible for the other peoples' actions too. In the most extreme example, a person (male or female) who gets so inebriated in a public place that they are the victims of a crime or perpetrators of a crime ARE responsible for creating the environment in which that was possible. If they committed a crime then we all accept their blame (for example, a drunk who rapes or kills under the influence is readily convicted and thrown in prison without remorse despite clearly impaired judgement) because they willingly gave up control of their bodies. A victim is also responsible for having willing given up said control. They just aren't responsible for someone having taken advantage of that control. So it is correct to say that the victim shouldn't have put themselves in that situation, but it isn't correct to say that they deserved what they got because of the risk they took. Had they known the outcome for certain then that would be a different story.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Of course I have sympathy for them.

If I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite for having sympathy for people being raped because "skirt too short", or for sympathizing with people who are bamboozled by the "windows security Service" scam.

Unless they knew 100% that they were going into trouble and did it anyway, I will have sympathy for someone who has tragedy strike them. That's the humane thing to do.
 

Creator002

New member
Aug 30, 2010
1,590
0
0
Assuming there's no additional information missing, yes. In all three. Not once did any of the men do anything illegal or anything wrong in my opinion.

A: People are allowed to have sex. The man didn't drug her, coerce her or in any way force her back to his place. As far as we know, he was honest about his intentions. I don't see how he could be seen as being deserving of being robbed.

B: A black man living in a racist time/place is asking to be lynched as much as a woman wearing a low cut top is asking to be raped. Having consensual sex with a white woman and being accused of rape and then being beaten to death seems out of his control (other than the sex).

C: Similar to A. Honest in his intentions, didn't force the woman to have sex with him somehow. If you have an STD, I believe you have a moral obligation to tell people. If you don't know, then shit happens and people get infected. No one is to blame. If you know and you infect people, it's as bad as a lot of the Big Pharma claims.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
jlopo said:
1) do you have sympathy for any of the men in my scenarios? Why or why not?
Why wouldn't I?

2) Do you think that the men are partially at fault/responsible for their misfortunes? DO you think that they were "asking" for their troubles?
How were they asking for their troubles? Did Guy A ask to get robbed? Did Guy B ask to get falsely accused of rape? Did Guy C ask to be infected with HIV? None of those were part of your stories, but you seem to be implying that they were.

3) do you think that they deserve sympathy?
Why wouldn't they?
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Well, this is very obvious - yes, all three men deserve sympathy. No one deserves to be robbed or lynched and if someone has HIV, they are morally (if not legally, depending on what nation you live in), obligated to tell someone.

And yes, if the genders were reversed, I would feel sympathy for the women as well. While there are steps people can take to prevent crime, victims should not be blamed for being victims, even if you could point towards possible preventative measures they could have taken. When a crime has been committed, the principle blame must be put upon the perpetrator of the crime.