Poll: Young adults grow uneasier with LGBTQ

[Jub]

You seem to be under the misconception that humans are supermen capable of shrugging off real traumatic events. Events perceived as dangerous can and regularly do cause lasting trauma, and that trauma is no less real than trauma caused by physical injury or threats. Consider: A person who witnesses a rape which they cannot prevent, but who is in no physical danger themselves, and develops PTSD from the experience. Is there a 'deep flaw within their psyche' that is responsible?

Yes, given that others can witness similar events and not be so harmed. Experiencing PTSD is a flaw that causes harm to only a segment of the population.

In fact, it turns out that PTSD has been studied* and age and past trauma are the determining factors in how likely one is to develop PTSD. Thus you already have to have been damaged at a young age to be at substantial risk of developing PTSD. I believe this proves my point about PTSD being the result of a deeply flawed psyche.

*https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... d-022813#1

So you wouldn't be frightened by a machine pursuing you, not knowing why or for how long it will chase? If so, you are highly irregular.

Why would I be frightened? The thing only has a TV, if anything I'd be looking for the cameras and assume I was on a prank TV show.

These are issues that cannot be rigidly quantified because they are inherently subjective and individual. Nonetheless, I gave you what I consider to be a suitably clear line: If your intent is to cause fear and trauma, you have crossed the line between merely provocative content and emotional violence. Cases where no intent is present are, as always, blurrier. The presence of intent however clearly transforms it from merely shocking into deliberate emotional violence. It is a clear dividing line - a clear definition.

That's patently false, just because we can't currently understand our own minds enough to quantify things like trauma, and I would argue that we do have enough of an understand to quantify at least some well studied traumas like PTSD in soldiers, doesn't mean they are unquantifiable any more than the stars were immeasurably distant before we developed technology by which to measure that distance. I reject your model as being impossibly subjective, overly biased, and incapable of being impartial.

[loomer]

You seem to be under the misconception that humans are supermen capable of shrugging off real traumatic events. Events perceived as dangerous can and regularly do cause lasting trauma, and that trauma is no less real than trauma caused by physical injury or threats. Consider: A person who witnesses a rape which they cannot prevent, but who is in no physical danger themselves, and develops PTSD from the experience. Is there a 'deep flaw within their psyche' that is responsible?

Yes, given that others can witness similar events and not be so harmed. Experiencing PTSD is a flaw that causes harm to only a segment of the population.

In fact, it turns out that PTSD has been studied* and age and past trauma are the determining factors in how likely one is to develop PTSD. Thus you already have to have been damaged at a young age to be at substantial risk of developing PTSD. I believe this proves my point about PTSD being the result of a deeply flawed psyche.

*https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... d-022813#1

Your article refers only to soldiers and does not, in fact, demonstrate that PTSD is a 'deep flaw in the psyche'. If it such a flaw, then it is a terrifyingly common flaw among humans with a 7.8% lifetime occurence rate in the US and a 2-15% rate in a number of nations. Nor is PTSD the only form trauma can take. Sexual violence, you may be interested to know, is enormously more prone to causing PTSD symptoms. I assume you're not going to suggest that the 50% prevalence indicates that half of all women assaulted simply had an innate deep flaw of the psyche?

So no. This doesn't prove your point. Further, we inhabit a society that should in fact - if we value kindness, anyway - be willing to make reasonable concessions in public spaces for those with special vulnerabilities, where doing so is possible, practicable, and appropriate. While this is a normative statement that cannot be proven, it is one I believe most reasonable people would agree with.

To return, now, to our example. You agree that the three examples I have given constitute traumas, even if we disagree that developing PTSD indicates an underlying 'deep flaw'. If these events are traumatic without being directly dangerous, why is the sudden appearance and pursuit of what a person can reasonably believe to be an attacker intending to visit sexual violence on them not capable of giving rise to a trauma?

So you wouldn't be frightened by a machine pursuing you, not knowing why or for how long it will chase? If so, you are highly irregular.

Why would I be frightened? The thing only has a TV, if anything I'd be looking for the cameras and assume I was on a prank TV show.

You are being pursued by something you cannot control, cannot stop, and which is showing you unwanted imagery. Someone has set this machine to pursue you. This does not alarm you?

These are issues that cannot be rigidly quantified because they are inherently subjective and individual. Nonetheless, I gave you what I consider to be a suitably clear line: If your intent is to cause fear and trauma, you have crossed the line between merely provocative content and emotional violence. Cases where no intent is present are, as always, blurrier. The presence of intent however clearly transforms it from merely shocking into deliberate emotional violence. It is a clear dividing line - a clear definition.

That's patently false, just because we can't currently understand our own minds enough to quantify things like trauma, and I would argue that we do have enough of an understand to quantify at least some well studied traumas like PTSD in soldiers, doesn't mean they are unquantifiable any more than the stars were immeasurably distant before we developed technology by which to measure that distance. I reject your model as being impossibly subjective, overly biased, and incapable of being impartial.

Then reject away, but I have given you a clear demarcation point at which point conduct becomes more than merely shocking and transforms into emotional violence.

[Jub]

Your article refers only to soldiers and does not, in fact, demonstrate that PTSD is a 'deep flaw in the psyche'. If it such a flaw, then it is a terrifyingly common flaw among humans with a 7.8% lifetime occurence rate in the US and a 2-15% rate in a number of nations. Nor is PTSD the only form trauma can take. Sexual violence, you may be interested to know, is enormously more prone to causing PTSD symptoms. I assume you're not going to suggest that the 50% prevalence indicates that half of all women assaulted simply had an innate deep flaw of the psyche?

15% is high but not so high as to warrant a complete rethinking of a society's social values for. It's also a persistent prevalence rate with the yearly rate being 3.5%, even accounting for a temporary increase due to shocking new behaviors in public I doubt we increase the rate significantly even with the most extreme of non-violent behaviors. Beyond that what was once shocking would quickly become the new normal as has happened throughout human history so long term harm would be literally none at all.

Using your own numbers It would be like taking Penn and Teller's Handicapped Accessibility segment, which involved an iron lung, and saying that we should make sure that every building is accessible to even the most profoundly disabled of people including those in an iron lung. It might be possible given enough time and money tossed at this issue, but what is your effort getting in return?

Lastly, your sexual assault study wouldn't account for something like a flasher because it wouldn't include the 'that violates a person's sense of autonomy, control and mastery over their body' factor. The opening of the study also suggests that the rates of PTSD are more a factor or poor post-event treatment and a culture of stigma surrounding rape victims rather than being solely the result of the event itself. I'm all for better treatment of mental health issues and destigmatizing victims of sexual violence, in fact, I think a lot of the harm caused is because we assume it should be so traumatic.

Should, absent current social factors, being made to feel powerless and being sexually assaulted really be significantly more traumatic that the same loss of control but ending in a stabbing instead? I can't answer that but I suspect that how we view sexual assault and rape plays a large factor and your study seems to back that up.

So no. This doesn't prove your point. Further, we inhabit a society that should in fact - if we value kindness, anyway - be willing to make reasonable concessions in public spaces for those with special vulnerabilities, where doing so is possible, practicable, and appropriate. While this is a normative statement that cannot be proven, it is one I believe most reasonable people would agree with.

Seeing as you've yet to define reasonable conduct we can't exactly make much of this, can we?

To return, now, to our example. You agree that the three examples I have given constitute traumas, even if we disagree that developing PTSD indicates an underlying 'deep flaw'. If these events are traumatic without being directly dangerous, why is the sudden appearance and pursuit of what a person can reasonably believe to be an attacker intending to visit sexual violence on them not capable of giving rise to a trauma?

I disagree that the events you listed would be traumatic to an average person and even your own numbers back that up. Given that none of these scenarios are anywhere near what your sexual assault study set their bar at I think it's reasonable to say that, on average, your scenarios would cause negligible long term harm.

You are being pursued by something you cannot control, cannot stop, and which is showing you unwanted imagery. Someone has set this machine to pursue you. This does not alarm you?

I think I'd find it more surreal and surprising than alarming. It's the sort of stunt that reality TV or YouTube would pull so I'd probably assume that until proven otherwise. I also doubt that such a robot would handle stairs, or hoping a fence very well so escaping would be pretty easy if I was fearful.

Then reject away, but I have given you a clear demarcation point at which point conduct becomes more than merely shocking and transforms into emotional violence.

You really haven't and your studies don't say what you think they do.

[loomer]

Your article refers only to soldiers and does not, in fact, demonstrate that PTSD is a 'deep flaw in the psyche'. If it such a flaw, then it is a terrifyingly common flaw among humans with a 7.8% lifetime occurence rate in the US and a 2-15% rate in a number of nations. Nor is PTSD the only form trauma can take. Sexual violence, you may be interested to know, is enormously more prone to causing PTSD symptoms. I assume you're not going to suggest that the 50% prevalence indicates that half of all women assaulted simply had an innate deep flaw of the psyche?

15% is high but not so high as to warrant a complete rethinking of a society's social values for. It's also a persistent prevalence rate with the yearly rate being 3.5%, even accounting for a temporary increase due to shocking new behaviors in public I doubt we increase the rate significantly even with the most extreme of non-violent behaviors. Beyond that what was once shocking would quickly become the new normal as has happened throughout human history so long term harm would be literally none at all.

No complete rethinking is being called for on my end, Jub - you're the one arguing that the existing status quo of 'generally, try not to upset people without reason' should be overturned. I'd like you to demonstrate your assertion that the long term harm of creating a culture in which sexual harassment is rampant will be negligible. Are there studies to this effect?

Using your own numbers It would be like taking Penn and Teller's Handicapped Accessibility segment, which involved an iron lung, and saying that we should make sure that every building is accessible to even the most profoundly disabled of people including those in an iron lung. It might be possible given enough time and money tossed at this issue, but what is your effort getting in return?

My own numbers say anywhere from 1 in 50 to 1 in 6 people experience PTSD. Anxiety and depression rates are higher still. The upside is that very few accomodations are actually necessary - just a system that does not go 'okay guys, do anything, anywhere, at any time'. Your analogy is fundamentally broken, given that most people with PTSD, anxiety, etc can function reasonably well under ordinary circumstances, unlike those in an iron lung. It is closer to suggesting that buildings could perhaps be made accessible to those in wheel chairs - an ordinary, indeed legally mandated in many jurisdictions, proposition.

However, I did not raise the statistics - you did. I do not suggest we base our entire society around PTSD, and raise PTSD simply as an example of how traumatic events can constitute real harm.

Lastly, your sexual assault study wouldn't account for something like a flasher because it wouldn't include the 'that violates a person's sense of autonomy, control and mastery over their body' factor. The opening of the study also suggests that the rates of PTSD are more a factor or poor post-event treatment and a culture of stigma surrounding rape victims rather than being solely the result of the event itself. I'm all for better treatment of mental health issues and destigmatizing victims of sexual violence, in fact, I think a lot of the harm caused is because we assume it should be so traumatic.

No, but it would certainly cover a sexual assault like the one we hypothesize. And while you are correct that the need for better treatment and stigma is central to the issue, these are secondary to the traumatic event itself. I am glad you acknowledge that the 50% of sexual assault survivors are not merely weak and prone to some internal flaw, however.

Should, absent current social factors, being made to feel powerless and being sexually assaulted really be significantly more traumatic that the same loss of control but ending in a stabbing instead? I can't answer that but I suspect that how we view sexual assault and rape plays a large factor and your study seems to back that up.

Whether social attitude or otherwise, the evidence strongly suggests that sexual violence is especially serious. In a different society this may change - but we do not live in a different society.

So no. This doesn't prove your point. Further, we inhabit a society that should in fact - if we value kindness, anyway - be willing to make reasonable concessions in public spaces for those with special vulnerabilities, where doing so is possible, practicable, and appropriate. While this is a normative statement that cannot be proven, it is one I believe most reasonable people would agree with.

Seeing as you've yet to define reasonable conduct we can't exactly make much of this, can we?

Reasonable conduct can be given its ordinary legal definition for the present purpose.

To return, now, to our example. You agree that the three examples I have given constitute traumas, even if we disagree that developing PTSD indicates an underlying 'deep flaw'. If these events are traumatic without being directly dangerous, why is the sudden appearance and pursuit of what a person can reasonably believe to be an attacker intending to visit sexual violence on them not capable of giving rise to a trauma?

I disagree that the events you listed would be traumatic to an average person and even your own numbers back that up. Given that none of these scenarios are anywhere near what your sexual assault study set their bar at I think it's reasonable to say that, on average, your scenarios would cause negligible long term harm.

Jub, all three events I raised are classic trauma incidents - witnessing a rape, witnessing a car wreck, and being held at gunpoint. This is why I raised them. Your idea of what is traumatic is completely out of touch with the lived reality of most humans and with the literature. See for instance this article and the general consensus reflected in the DSM-V that merely witnessing a traumatic event - not just directly experiencing it - is sufficient to induce PTSD (see e.g. if you don't have a copy of the DSM-V, which affirms that it is sufficient to merely witness in person a traumatic event even under the tightened requirements of the DSM-V on page 3. Bear in mind, of course, that PTSD is not involved in all incidents causing psychological harm and that incidents that do not rise to the DSM-V requirements of trauma may nonetheless contribute to psychological disorders.

You are quite literally wrong in this instance.

You are being pursued by something you cannot control, cannot stop, and which is showing you unwanted imagery. Someone has set this machine to pursue you. This does not alarm you?

I think I'd find it more surreal and surprising than alarming. It's the sort of stunt that reality TV or YouTube would pull so I'd probably assume that until proven otherwise. I also doubt that such a robot would handle stairs, or hoping a fence very well so escaping would be pretty easy if I was fearful.

Said stunts and pranks are designed to induce fear for the viewer's pleasure, are they not?

Then reject away, but I have given you a clear demarcation point at which point conduct becomes more than merely shocking and transforms into emotional violence.

You really haven't and your studies don't say what you think they do.

Again, Jub, you asked me at what point shocking conduct ceases to become merely shocking and becomes emotional violence in my view. I have given you a very clear demarcation point: When you intend to cause trauma or fear, it constitutes emotional violence. It is a deliberate act intended to cause harm to another person. This is, undeniably, emotional violence. While I concede that where the intention is not present the line is necessarily fuzzier, I have nonetheless repeatedly offered a clear line of demarcation.

What do you propose is the distinction point between mere shock and emotional violence if you are dissatisfied with direct intention to cause trauma as a clearcut demarcation?

[Jub]

No complete rethinking is being called for on my end, Jub - you're the one arguing that the existing status quo of 'generally, try not to upset people without reason' should be overturned. I'd like you to demonstrate your assertion that the long term harm of creating a culture in which sexual harassment is rampant will be negligible. Are there studies to this effect?

I'm not suggesting that the extremes of behavior, such as we've been discussing, would or should become commonplace. This entire argument started because you suggested wearing fetish gear in a toy store was the equivalent of sexual assault because it forces other people to engage in your kink. If that is your threshold for what constitutes sexual assault I dare say we have room for a little assault in public.

My own numbers say anywhere from 1 in 50 to 1 in 6 people experience PTSD. Anxiety and depression rates are higher still.

I'm aware. As somebody who suffers from mental illness; specifically having Anxiety and Depression as symptoms of another disorder with other things like ADD and being on the autism spectrum also being investigated, I'm well aware of what mental health issues can do. However, rather than request that other people handle me with kid gloves, I seek help to overcome my issues. I think that's the reasonable adult thing to do.

However, I did not raise the statistics - you did. I do not suggest we base our entire society around PTSD, and raise PTSD simply as an example of how traumatic events can constitute real harm.

You didn't show much, you showed that PTSD exists and that physically violent sexual assault, not your own definition of 'sexual violence' can cause high rates of PTSD. Given that I've never expressed any acceptance for violating somebody else's body autonomy the most shocking of your numbers doesn't apply to my suggestions. So please so that a mild shock such as a flasher causes PTSD at an appreciable rate and that it would continue to do so if nudity and public sexuality were more commonplace and we can talk.

No, but it would certainly cover a sexual assault like the one we hypothesize.

I don't believe that it would because in none of the examples we've discussed has anybody lost body autonomy via force or drugs or any other means. Unless you think that body autonomy is violated merely by somebody approaching you briefly before running away, which would be daft, I don't think we've covered this at all.

And while you are correct that the need for better treatment and stigma is central to the issue, these are secondary to the traumatic event itself. I am glad you acknowledge that the 50% of sexual assault survivors are not merely weak and prone to some internal flaw, however.

I never retracted that statement. They are still flawed otherwise nobody would get away without PTSD, flawed doesn't mean lesser though, it's simply a statement of fact. For whatever reason, some people are just more prone to suffering from mental trauma than others, that's undeniably a weakness and a flaw even if it's a very common and human flaw.

Whether social attitude or otherwise, the evidence strongly suggests that sexual violence is especially serious. In a different society this may change - but we do not live in a different society.

We could if we made changes towards one, which is what I was suggesting before we got off on this tangent.

Reasonable conduct can be given its ordinary legal definition for the present purpose.

Then so many common and harmless behaviors become unreasonable. The wearing of a one-piece bathing suit by women in the 1920's would have constituted such at the time and yet I think we can agree that women should be free to wear even less than that to the beach. My entire issue with the concept of what is socially acceptable is that what is acceptable is rooted in very conservative standards which oppress a considerable number of people and cause very real harm.

An example of this harm would be in the area of acceptance towards transgender individuals. It isn't normal to be trans and to far too many people that means it is wrong. Do you deny that this causes undue harm?

Taking a more extreme example, in the kink community, many people are preyed upon by a few predators, usually older males identifying themselves as Doms. Do you deny that if the kink community were more out in the open that people would have a better idea of what is and isn't healthy and more people would be able to avoid unhealthy kink dynamics?

Jub, all three events I raised are classic trauma incidents - witnessing a rape, witnessing a car wreck, and being held at gunpoint. This is why I raised them. Your idea of what is traumatic is completely out of touch with the lived reality of most humans and with the literature. See for instance this article and the general consensus reflected in the DSM-V that merely witnessing a traumatic event - not just directly experiencing it - is sufficient to induce PTSD (see e.g. if you don't have a copy of the DSM-V, which affirms that it is sufficient to merely witness in person a traumatic event even under the tightened requirements of the DSM-V on page 3. Bear in mind, of course, that PTSD is not involved in all incidents causing psychological harm and that incidents that do not rise to the DSM-V requirements of trauma may nonetheless contribute to psychological disorders.

You are quite literally wrong in this instance.

What, you're saying that some events that are shocking might cause some people with existing susceptibility mental trauma to become traumatized! It's almost like some 15% of people will experience sufficient trauma from some source to have PTSD from it. Now, where have I seen that 15% figure before...

The DSM-5 itself isn't clear on what exactly constitutes trauma and what it has listed includes several contested sources of trauma. I would tend to think that the scope should be broadened to fit with the experiences of those who are diagnosed with PTSD though.

Given that, I don't dispute that the examples you gave could also cause somebody trauma, but the average person wouldn't be traumatized by those experiences to a detrimental degree. I would also argue that even fewer people would be traumatized by the far less shocking events that we've been primarily discussing.

Said stunts and pranks are designed to induce fear for the viewer's pleasure, are they not?

Not always. Even in my example if you change what's on the robot's screen from a flasher (or equivalent) to puppies and I doubt any but the weakest willed would feel fear.

Again, Jub, you asked me at what point shocking conduct ceases to become merely shocking and becomes emotional violence in my view. I have given you a very clear demarcation point: When you intend to cause trauma or fear, it constitutes emotional violence. It is a deliberate act intended to cause harm to another person. This is, undeniably, emotional violence. While I concede that where the intention is not present the line is necessarily fuzzier, I have nonetheless repeatedly offered a clear line of demarcation.

Intent, being solely in one's own head, is a difficult thing to prove, something which the legal system can easily attest to. I also don't feel that intent matters all that much given that harm can be caused as easily as unintentionally as it can be intentionally, as such I must continue to reject your standard. My own standard would be something that is targeted at a group or individual, and that is known to cause lasting emotional or physical trauma; define lasting as causing significant impairment for more than one month, in at least 33% of the world's population regardless of culture or creed. It's significantly less vague replacing intent with targeting, assigning a reasonably objective figure to establish a threshold of harm, and defining a period for which the harm must last.

I'm sure we won't agree on the numbers, but was doing that really so difficult for you?

You might still be, and probably are, an utterly crass asshole for doing things at that level but can reasonably expect that any given individual won't be unduly harmed by such an action. I would also suggest that in such a world we'd ideally see a much greater focus on maintaining good mental health with plenty of easily accessed therapists for all who desire them. I'd rather a world where relatively minor traumas are commonplace and dealt with as such than one where traumas are relatively rare and yet still remain poorly treated.

[loomer]

No complete rethinking is being called for on my end, Jub - you're the one arguing that the existing status quo of 'generally, try not to upset people without reason' should be overturned. I'd like you to demonstrate your assertion that the long term harm of creating a culture in which sexual harassment is rampant will be negligible. Are there studies to this effect?

I'm not suggesting that the extremes of behavior, such as we've been discussing, would or should become commonplace. This entire argument started because you suggested wearing fetish gear in a toy store was the equivalent of sexual assault because it forces other people to engage in your kink. If that is your threshold for what constitutes sexual assault I dare say we have room for a little assault in public.

It is not my threshold for it, nor have I ever suggested it is. But right now we are discussing something else - a clear cut case of sexual assault where a person in sexually coded clothing threatens another person by fondling themselves while moving quickly and aggressively towards them.

My own numbers say anywhere from 1 in 50 to 1 in 6 people experience PTSD. Anxiety and depression rates are higher still.

I'm aware. As somebody who suffers from mental illness; specifically having Anxiety and Depression as symptoms of another disorder with other things like ADD and being on the autism spectrum also being investigated, I'm well aware of what mental health issues can do. However, rather than request that other people handle me with kid gloves, I seek help to overcome my issues. I think that's the reasonable adult thing to do.

Sure. But again - no one is asking for kid gloves here. Just that I would hope we live in a society that is willing to be kind, and recognize that not all actions are appropriate in all places because some may be injured by them. Have you considered that it is possible that some of your difficulty comprehending coding and emotional violence may be related to your own issues? I say this not out of cruelty, but genuine concern.

However, I did not raise the statistics - you did. I do not suggest we base our entire society around PTSD, and raise PTSD simply as an example of how traumatic events can constitute real harm.

You didn't show much, you showed that PTSD exists and that physically violent sexual assault, not your own definition of 'sexual violence' can cause high rates of PTSD. Given that I've never expressed any acceptance for violating somebody else's body autonomy the most shocking of your numbers doesn't apply to my suggestions. So please so that a mild shock such as a flasher causes PTSD at an appreciable rate and that it would continue to do so if nudity and public sexuality were more commonplace and we can talk.

I raised three examples of traumatic events. You attempted to counter with 'PTSD is caused by a flaw in the person' using a study on soldiers as proof. I raised evidence that if it is, many many people are flawed. I will not endeavour to prove that a 'mild shock such as a flasher causes PTSD', as I have made no such claim. You seem to consistently desire to conflate a person deliberately menacing another with a flasher. The two are distinct categories of misconduct - though, as it happens, flashing can in fact qualify as a trauma as well, though not one sufficient to meet the requirements of PTSD.

No, but it would certainly cover a sexual assault like the one we hypothesize.

I don't believe that it would because in none of the examples we've discussed has anybody lost body autonomy via force or drugs or any other means. Unless you think that body autonomy is violated merely by somebody approaching you briefly before running away, which would be daft, I don't think we've covered this at all.

So you don't think that a person approaching a lone person, in a deserted place, while making sexually threatening sounds and movements is a sexual assault and trauma simply because it doesn't involve the loss of bodily autonomy? Trauma does not, in fact, require these factors - and neither does sexual assault. Please provide a source that backs your claim that unless bodily autonomy is lost, an event is not traumatic.

And while you are correct that the need for better treatment and stigma is central to the issue, these are secondary to the traumatic event itself. I am glad you acknowledge that the 50% of sexual assault survivors are not merely weak and prone to some internal flaw, however.

I never retracted that statement. They are still flawed otherwise nobody would get away without PTSD, flawed doesn't mean lesser though, it's simply a statement of fact. For whatever reason, some people are just more prone to suffering from mental trauma than others, that's undeniably a weakness and a flaw even if it's a very common and human flaw.

If you believe most people who develop PTSD and other disorders are flawed, then yes - we are nearly all flawed. If this is the case, then we must accept the flaw is the human condition, and work around it - not brush it off with the equivalent of a 'toughen up, then'.

Whether social attitude or otherwise, the evidence strongly suggests that sexual violence is especially serious. In a different society this may change - but we do not live in a different society.

We could if we made changes towards one, which is what I was suggesting before we got off on this tangent.

But we don't. We live in this world, and what you describe as a tangent is in fact a debate around sexual ethics in the here and now - the very thing being contested.

Reasonable conduct can be given its ordinary legal definition for the present purpose.

Then so many common and harmless behaviors become unreasonable. The wearing of a one-piece bathing suit by women in the 1920's would have constituted such at the time and yet I think we can agree that women should be free to wear even less than that to the beach. My entire issue with the concept of what is socially acceptable is that what is acceptable is rooted in very conservative standards which oppress a considerable number of people and cause very real harm.

An example of this harm would be in the area of acceptance towards transgender individuals. It isn't normal to be trans and to far too many people that means it is wrong. Do you deny that this causes undue harm?

No, not really. Prior behaviours that were unreasonable do not magically return to this status because we accept the ordinary legal sense of reasonable conduct, which is necessarily sensitive to its time and context. While we may agree that the existent standards are flawed, I redirect your attention to what we are actually discussing here, which is the issue of a sexual assault.

Taking a more extreme example, in the kink community, many people are preyed upon by a few predators, usually older males identifying themselves as Doms. Do you deny that if the kink community were more out in the open that people would have a better idea of what is and isn't healthy and more people would be able to avoid unhealthy kink dynamics?

I don't, and you will find that at no point have I suggested that we must never seek to reform the extant standards - just that we shouldn't be cavalier in disregarding them when doing so can cause genuine harm. However, I again point you to what we are in fact discussing: A clearcut sexual assault issue.

Jub, all three events I raised are classic trauma incidents - witnessing a rape, witnessing a car wreck, and being held at gunpoint. This is why I raised them. Your idea of what is traumatic is completely out of touch with the lived reality of most humans and with the literature. See for instance this article and the general consensus reflected in the DSM-V that merely witnessing a traumatic event - not just directly experiencing it - is sufficient to induce PTSD (see e.g. if you don't have a copy of the DSM-V, which affirms that it is sufficient to merely witness in person a traumatic event even under the tightened requirements of the DSM-V on page 3. Bear in mind, of course, that PTSD is not involved in all incidents causing psychological harm and that incidents that do not rise to the DSM-V requirements of trauma may nonetheless contribute to psychological disorders.

You are quite literally wrong in this instance.

What, you're saying that some events that are shocking might cause some people with existing susceptibility mental trauma to become traumatized! It's almost like some 15% of people will experience sufficient trauma from some source to have PTSD from it. Now, where have I seen that 15% figure before...

The DSM-5 itself isn't clear on what exactly constitutes trauma and what it has listed includes several contested sources of trauma. I would tend to think that the scope should be broadened to fit with the experiences of those who are diagnosed with PTSD though.

The DSM-5 is plenty clear, if overly restrictive. It reflects the consensus on the subject overall, and I'd like for you to outline precisely why you object to the contested sources it includes. Please provide a proper source for the claim, while you're at it, that only people with an existing suspectibility will become traumatized from witnessing a car accident, a rape, or being held at gunpoint.

Given that, I don't dispute that the examples you gave could also cause somebody trauma, but the average person wouldn't be traumatized by those experiences to a detrimental degree. I would also argue that even fewer people would be traumatized by the far less shocking events that we've been primarily discussing.

The events themselves are traumatic and have a good chance of traumatizing an average person. The event we are primarily discussing - a sexual assault - is also likely to be a traumatic event. Do you deny that, to an ordinary person, being accosted in a sexually threatening manner in an abandoned place could be frightening and traumatic, especially given the reasonable fear of becoming one of the (for Australians) 1 in 6 women and 1 in 20 men (a rate far lower than is genuine) who have been sexually abused? If so, please provide a source to back this assertion. Do you deny that this is a reasonable fear? If so, please provide an argument as to why it is not reasonable to fear this when accosted in a sexually threatening manner in an abandoned place.

Said stunts and pranks are designed to induce fear for the viewer's pleasure, are they not?

Not always. Even in my example if you change what's on the robot's screen from a flasher (or equivalent) to puppies and I doubt any but the weakest willed would feel fear.

If you change it to puppies, yes, many people would experience it differently. But this is irrelevant to the fact that you posit a machine designed to harass people is essentially incapable of causing fear, which is an absurd proposition.

Again, Jub, you asked me at what point shocking conduct ceases to become merely shocking and becomes emotional violence in my view. I have given you a very clear demarcation point: When you intend to cause trauma or fear, it constitutes emotional violence. It is a deliberate act intended to cause harm to another person. This is, undeniably, emotional violence. While I concede that where the intention is not present the line is necessarily fuzzier, I have nonetheless repeatedly offered a clear line of demarcation.

Intent, being solely in one's own head, is a difficult thing to prove, something which the legal system can easily attest to. I also don't feel that intent matters all that much given that harm can be caused as easily as unintentionally as it can be intentionally, as such I must continue to reject your standard. My own standard would be something that is targeted at a group or individual, and that is known to cause lasting emotional or physical trauma; define lasting as causing significant impairment for more than one month, in at least 33% of the world's population regardless of culture or creed. It's significantly less vague replacing intent with targeting, assigning a reasonably objective figure to establish a threshold of harm, and defining a period for which the harm must last.

I'm sure we won't agree on the numbers, but was doing that really so difficult for you?

I don't agree with you at all, actually. Intent may be hard to prove, but we may nonetheless posit it as a valid hard cutoff for where things become, definitively, an act of emotional violence, just as we may posit it as the difference between a murder and an accident. Your requirement that the trauma be lasting is also unconscionable (a trauma that does not last a month may still cause genuine harm), as is the requirement it be sufficient to affect no less than 2.5 billion people to rise to the level of emotional violence. An act sufficient to induce it in one person, deliberately pursued, is still an act of emotional violence whether or not the other 6.999 billion would be affected if it is done with the full and knowing intent to cause harm.

Your model states that if I uncover a traumatized person's history and systematically exploit their triggers to hurt that person, this is not an act of emotional violence - nor is it one when an abusive spouse utilizes a hurtful childhood memory to deliberately cause serious emotional harm to their partner. Why? Because their triggers are unlikely to cause lasting emotional or physical trauma in at least 33% of the world population. Any such model is so inherently flawed that its definition of emotional violence is completely useless. Your model of what constitutes emotional violence is in fact less useful than one focused on reading the context of what has been done, its subjective impact, and the intent of those who have done it given this limitation.

[Jub]

It is not my threshold for it, nor have I ever suggested it is.

You suggested that wearing fetish clothing outside of fetish safe spaces was at best unethical and such is relevant to the discussion as you left our prior discussion unconcluded before coming back to start an almost entirely new discussion.

Sure. But again - no one is asking for kid gloves here. Just that I would hope we live in a society that is willing to be kind, and recognize that not all actions are appropriate in all places because some may be injured by them. Have you considered that it is possible that some of your difficulty comprehending coding and emotional violence may be related to your own issues? I say this not out of cruelty, but genuine concern.

You assume that this is something I actually experience significant issues with rather than me simply pressing you to accurately and strictly define your own position. I simply see no reason to hold back when discussing something. To my way of thinking it's far better to push hard and ensure that nothing more can be said on a topic than to mince words and feel that you missed something. I know that others disagree with this stance and it causes friction but if there was ever a forum where that wasn't an issue this is it.

I raised three examples of traumatic events. You attempted to counter with 'PTSD is caused by a flaw in the person' using a study on soldiers as proof. I raised evidence that if it is, many many people are flawed. I will not endeavour to prove that a 'mild shock such as a flasher causes PTSD', as I have made no such claim. You seem to consistently desire to conflate a person deliberately menacing another with a flasher. The two are distinct categories of misconduct - though, as it happens, flashing can in fact qualify as a trauma as well, though not one sufficient to meet the requirements of PTSD.

The example that you restarted our discussion was said to have approached rapidly, touched himself, and run away. This seems nearly indistinguishable from running at or leaping out at somebody, exposing yourself (possible with self-touching), and then running away.

I would also argue that for a flasher to cause trauma, even to a lesser degree than PTSD, one must have some existing flaw or trauma to cause such disproportionate damage to one's psyche.

So you don't think that a person approaching a lone person, in a deserted place, while making sexually threatening sounds and movements is a sexual assault and trauma simply because it doesn't involve the loss of bodily autonomy?

The 50% study you quoted listed loss of bodily autonomy as a criterion for their study. I never said that an event couldn't be traumatic without such a loss merely that you 50% figure requires such a loss to be valid. FFS did you even read the study you quoted?

If you believe most people who develop PTSD and other disorders are flawed, then yes - we are nearly all flawed. If this is the case, then we must accept the flaw is the human condition, and work around it - not brush it off with the equivalent of a 'toughen up, then'.

I think it's preferable to increase human tolerances and thus decrease future traumas rather than codling people and normalizing significant flaws. I much prefer to think that most flaws can be minimized and overcome rather than accepting all weakness as being inherent and permanent.

But we don't. We live in this world, and what you describe as a tangent is in fact a debate around sexual ethics in the here and now - the very thing being contested.

I'm arguing for greater freedom to express nudity, sexuality, and fetish in public spaces. You're the one who introduced the most extreme behaviors to the conversation to which I asserted that I wouldn't find them to be harmful. You've tried to drag this conversation off a cliff since we started it.

Now can we please get back to the original point of contention and agree that merely wearing fetish gear in public is not unduly involving others in your sexual gratification?

No, not really. Prior behaviours that were unreasonable do not magically return to this status because we accept the ordinary legal sense of reasonable conduct, which is necessarily sensitive to its time and context. While we may agree that the existent standards are flawed, I redirect your attention to what we are actually discussing here, which is the issue of a sexual assault.

You brought up sexual assault in an attempt to steer the conversation away from the initial topic. So no, I won't be discussing sexual assault with you any further as it was never the point I was trying to make in the first place.

I don't, and you will find that at no point have I suggested that we must never seek to reform the extant standards - just that we shouldn't be cavalier in disregarding them when doing so can cause genuine harm. However, I again point you to what we are in fact discussing: A clearcut sexual assault issue.

You brought up sexual assault after leaving our previous conversation which you steered in the extreme direction that it went. It was you that introduced masturbating in public and shitting in a library, not me.

I've been trying to return our conversation back to that topic for several posts now and will no longer discuss sexual assault with you until we have resolved our initial point of contention.

The DSM-5 is plenty clear, if overly restrictive. It reflects the consensus on the subject overall, and I'd like for you to outline precisely why you object to the contested sources it includes. Please provide a proper source for the claim, while you're at it, that only people with an existing suspectibility will become traumatized from witnessing a car accident, a rape, or being held at gunpoint.

Did you miss the line where I said, "I would tend to think that the scope should be broadened to fit with the experiences of those who are diagnosed with PTSD though."? Are you even reading what I'm saying or are you skimming and getting shit out of context?

The events themselves are traumatic and have a good chance of traumatizing an average person. The event we are primarily discussing - a sexual assault - is also likely to be a traumatic event. Do you deny that, to an ordinary person, being accosted in a sexually threatening manner in an abandoned place could be frightening and traumatic, especially given the reasonable fear of becoming one of the (for Australians) 1 in 6 women and 1 in 20 men (a rate far lower than is genuine) who have been sexually abused? If so, please provide a source to back this assertion. Do you deny that this is a reasonable fear? If so, please provide an argument as to why it is not reasonable to fear this when accosted in a sexually threatening manner in an abandoned place.

I'll give you that it's frightening and even that to some percentage of people it can become traumatic, but I'd argue that the example you gave is likely at the lower end of what would be classed as a trauma if it indeed qualifies at all.

If you change it to puppies, yes, many people would experience it differently. But this is irrelevant to the fact that you posit a machine designed to harass people is essentially incapable of causing fear, which is an absurd proposition.

Would you be fearful if the model of robot was commonplace and this sort of occurrence was a not unheard of prank? I ask because that's what the entire point I was trying to make in this thread boils down to; that shocking behavior in public, even if not designed as a form of protest, is helpful in moving what is seen as normal, and thus not shocking or harmful forward. You seem to dispute this as causing undue harm but have yet to show that the harm from a relatively minor and isolated incident is equivalent to the harm done by forcing certain forms of expression out of the public eye.

I don't agree with you at all, actually. Intent may be hard to prove, but we may nonetheless posit it as a valid hard cutoff for where things become, definitively, an act of emotional violence, just as we may posit it as the difference between a murder and an accident. Your requirement that the trauma be lasting is also unconscionable (a trauma that does not last a month may still cause genuine harm), as is the requirement it be sufficient to affect no less than 2.5 billion people to rise to the level of emotional violence. An act sufficient to induce it in one person, deliberately pursued, is still an act of emotional violence whether or not the other 6.999 billion would be affected if it is done with the full and knowing intent to cause harm.

Again, intent matters very little when it comes to outcomes, a stray word can still hurt and a stray bullet can still kill. The violence is in the outcome and not the act nor the intent.

Your model states that if I uncover a traumatized person's history and systematically exploit their triggers to hurt that person, this is not an act of emotional violence - nor is it one when an abusive spouse utilizes a hurtful childhood memory to deliberately cause serious emotional harm to their partner. Why? Because their triggers are unlikely to cause lasting emotional or physical trauma in at least 33% of the world population. Any such model is so inherently flawed that its definition of emotional violence is completely useless. Your model of what constitutes emotional violence is in fact less useful than one focused on reading the context of what has been done, its subjective impact, and the intent of those who have done it given this limitation.

No, because while the specific case may only be harmful to one person, the general case of exploiting a known weakness would be traumatic to nearly anybody if you found the right trigger. This is still narrow in that it requires targeting as I had specified but broad enough not to allow serious and easily found loop holes liek you're suggesting.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Jub, how does the victim know while the man is charging her that he will not actually touch her? Should she not be afraid until the second physical contact is made? Does the fact that the rape threat did not become actual rape negate the terror she experienced while he was charging her in imitation of an impending rape?

Where I live there is a legal difference between the threat of violence, assault, and actual violence, battery. But they are both still crimes, and for good reason. Perhaps you have never experienced such a threatening experience or can't sympathize with the everyday vulnerability many people live with, but surely you can acknowledge others do, and that threatening people with implied (sexual) violence is a violation of their rights.

[Jub]

Jub, how does the victim know while the man is charging her that he will not actually touch her? Should she not be afraid until the second physical contact is made? Does the fact that the rape threat did not become actual rape negate the terror she experienced while he was charging her in imitation of an impending rape?

In the circumstance, described in loomer's article we get some details of what happened.

The first encounter described went as follows:
-"I was walking along with my torch and looked up to see someone charging at me in a full black rubbery suit and managed to take a picture."
-"He kept coming towards me and was touching his groin, grunting and breathing heavy. As I tried to take a step back he was right in front of my face and he put his leg forward. I was just trying to assess the situation in my head quickly."
-remembers pushing and screaming at the man, before he started running backwards to the main road.

So if we assume her account is accurate, and most witness stories aren't accurate for shit, this guy advanced quickly in a way that was taken as a charge. While doing so he was grunting and breathing heavily, she noted him as touching his groin as he advanced, he got close to her took a step in before being pushed and running off.

The three potentially aggressive behaviors here are the charge, him touching his groin, and him stepping in. Any of these actions could easily be misconstrued by a loan woman startled at night by a man in unusual clothing. The only thing that gives this story any real credibility is the 13 other reports of a man, or possibly several men, in disguises creeping on people. We don't know if there was anything sexual about these other incidents as the article only gives the one witnesses account.

I know that was a lot of set up but here's how I'd evaluate a similar threat:
-Did they startle me?
-How large are they compared to me?
-What are they wearing?
-How close are they to me?
-Are they saying anything?
-Are they sprinting, running, jogging, or briskly walking towards me (any of these could be considered a charge under some circumstances so I list them all)?
-Can I outrun that pace long enough to escape?
-Do they have a weapon that I can see?
-What posture are they in, does it look aggressive or defensive?

If they get close:
-Where are there hands?
-Are they making a move to block me in?
-Are they actually blocking me in?

Depending on the answer to these questions I'd make a hasty assessment of what threat level they were to me. I doubt I'd include the threat of rape or violent sexual assault in this so this sort of thing would be a bit creepy to me but nothing more.

If I was 5" shorter, weighed half (or less) of what I do now, and was equipped with lady bits I'd probably be reaching for some method of self-defense just in case. This being Canada that would probably be an air horn or switching my flashlight on to a dazzling pattern, and if it was a rough area I might carry bear spray even knowing the hassle it'll cause me if I ever actually use it. The situation would certainly be more intense, but I can't imagine fearing for my life or bodily autonomy with just what was described here.

Where I live there is a legal difference between the threat of violence, assault, and actual violence, battery. But they are both still crimes, and for good reason.

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction between threats, assault, and battery including the distinction that with enough prior provocation even spitting at somebody can be assault if the other party feels threatened badly enough.

Perhaps you have never experienced such a threatening experience or can't sympathize with the everyday vulnerability many people live with, but surely you can acknowledge others do, and that threatening people with implied (sexual) violence is a violation of their rights.

I've had a few rough moments myself, shit happens and not all of it is good shit. Some highlights were having a knife pulled on me, getting jumped by multiple larger bullies as a kid, dealing with drunks and drug addicts late at night, and pissing off a guy 17 or 18 years old, with a good deal of height and weight on me, as a 14-year-old. I no case was I harmed, and in one case I broke the other guy's leg after nailing him in the throat. I followed some simple steps each time, try to talk to them and deescalate things, know your exits and run for them, when corned try again to talk, and finally let them make the first move and counter in an opening. The very basics of self-defense that work for pretty much anybody regardless of size or skill.

I might have failed against a determined attacker but of all the scary encounter's we'll have in a lifetime few are violent. Even in the case of rape and sexual assault the vast majority of them are random attacks at night. They're usually people you know, involve drugs or coercion, and rarely involve actual violence. The same goes for cases of murder, muggings, and battery. So knowing this I'm likely able to stay a bit calmer under stress and make better choices.

So looping back to the example in question as either gender I'd certainly be startled and would have an adrenaline response. I probably wouldn't get physical and shove him as I'd have already been backing away while trying to talk to the 'attacker'. My next escalation would be an attempt to remove myself from the situation. I consider things fairly abnormal if they even get to the leaving part. Beyond that, I'm going to have to start looking at self-defense but this guy didn't seem committed enough for that to be an issue.

Does that offer enough detail as to my reaction to such a situation?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Do you think it's reasonable to expect everyone to go through so many steps so quickly to assess a potentially dangerous situation?

It sounds to me like even you understand that your reactions are not typical and should not be considered representative of the population at large. Perhaps it would help if you tried to get into the mindset of someone far less capable of self defense who has experienced a lifetime of abuse or aggressive behavior that society as a whole has shrugged off? Rather than judge the scenario by the toughest person's reaction, judge by the most vulnerable's?

Other than that, all I can say is this is pretty clearly a sexual assault. Your justifications haven't convinced me otherwise. I dare say they likely haven't convinced anyone else, either, except maybe yourself.

[Jub]

Do you think it's reasonable to expect everyone to go through so many steps so quickly to assess a potentially dangerous situation?

Most of those are instincts common to all humans, especially assessing the relative size, speed, distance, and posture of a potential attacker as well as if they startled you and what they're saying. So the only conscious steps are spatial awareness, observing any weapons, and trying to figure out your own course of action.

This is self-defense 101 level shit that most people can do if they ever bother to spend a moment thinking about it. This literally isn't even stuff that requires practice or active thought once you've run it through a couple of times in your head.

It sounds to me like even you understand that your reactions are not typical and should not be considered representative of the population at large. Perhaps it would help if you tried to get into the mindset of someone far less capable of self defense who has experienced a lifetime of abuse or aggressive behavior that society as a whole has shrugged off?

If I'd experienced abuse and aggressive behavior, especially the ongoing kind, I'd expect to have learned more self-defense and have better reactions than I have now, not worse. Maybe I overestimate other people but self-defense boils down to assessing the risk, attempting to deescalate either verbally or by leaving the area and, if all else fails, fight dirty while making a scene. I don't see how 3 steps are too much to handle even under stress.

Rather than judge the scenario by the toughest person's reaction, judge by the most vulnerable's?

I don't think I am the most capable or toughest person. I have several friends that would be better than I am either due to greater physical ability or due to greater ability to project self-confidence under pressure. I also don't have training as a security officer would have. As these things go I can't be much above average unless average is a painfully low bar.

Other than that, all I can say is this is pretty clearly a sexual assault. Your justifications haven't convinced me otherwise. I dare say they likely haven't convinced anyone else, either, except maybe yourself.

It's only a sexual assault if he was actually touching himself, which is the one detail we don't have more than one report of. If he wasn't touching himself there wouldn't be a case for anything more than a possible mischief charge for scaring people. So it boils down to this, if her testimony and cellphone pictures, along with the fact that 13 other reports were filed, were all you had to go by would you convict him of sexual assault?

[loomer]

You brought up sexual assault in an attempt to steer the conversation away from the initial topic. So no, I won't be discussing sexual assault with you any further as it was never the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, as I will not allow you to further obfuscate, evade, and equivocate on the question, nor indulge your deluded fantasies around why actions harmful now are okay because in a hypothetical ideal world, they wouldn't be. Your models of emotional violence are dysfunctional, your ideas of what constitutes trauma are divorced from reality, and your proposed system of sexual ethics involves acts with non-consenting third parties, and this is why the present issue - a very clear cut matter of sexual assault - is where the debate lies. That you have repeatedly equivocated, evaded, and obfuscated attempts to get you to answer is a clear indicator that you know the conduct is unacceptable - you just won't admit it.

[LadyTevar]

ote
Most of those are instincts common to all humans, especially assessing the relative size, speed, distance, and posture of a potential attacker as well as if they startled you and what they're saying. So the only conscious steps are spatial awareness, observing any weapons, and trying to figure out your own course of action.

This is self-defense 101 level shit that most people can do if they ever bother to spend a moment thinking about it. This literally isn't even stuff that requires practice or active thought once you've run it through a couple of times in your head.

No. Wrong. When faced with a situation like someone coming after you YOU FUCKING FREEZE LIKE A RABBIT. Unless you've actually HAD Self-Defense training, in which case you will evade. Try again.

If I'd experienced abuse and aggressive behavior, especially the ongoing kind, I'd expect to have learned more self-defense and have better reactions than I have now, not worse. Maybe I overestimate other people but self-defense boils down to assessing the risk, attempting to deescalate either verbally or by leaving the area and, if all else fails, fight dirty while making a scene. I don't see how 3 steps are too much to handle even under stress.

And there is the rub. YOU have never experienced it, but you're suddenly an expert? No, it DOESN'T work that way. After you get abused, you become a rabbit, trying to avoid whatever triggered the abuse. For some abusers, 'deescalation' does not work. You're not allowed to run, and fighting back can get you fuckin' killed. Again, WTF makes you think you're an expert?

I don't think I am the most capable or toughest person. I have several friends that would be better than I am either due to greater physical ability or due to greater ability to project self-confidence under pressure. I also don't have training as a security officer would have. As these things go I can't be much above average unless average is a painfully low bar.

Average is a damn low bar. You have to be trained not to flinch, not to freeze. You have to be trained to act, not react. Why else do you think soldiers go through basic training? Most humans will hesitate before acting, and that hesitation has to be trained out of you.

Now, I suggest that you take your "expertise" out of this thread, because it's PAINFULLY CLEAR you've no idea WTF you're spouting. Take it from someone who has been trapped by a man and had to be rescued, by someone who was chased by a angry sword-weilding Ex, and by someone is FEMALE AND LIVES THIS SHIT.

[Dalton]

You know, Jub, I come in here far too often to clean up after you. I’m tired of it. Voluntarily remove yourself from posting in this thread or I will ensure that this entire forum is closed to you.