Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.
Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.
Begging the question
The link contains extensive discussion. It explains circular reasoning thus:
To beg the question is to assume something that you have no right to assume. What don't you have a right to assume? The conclusion itself, obviously, or any proposition that is just the conclusion stated in different words. Clearly, to use any argument in which the conclusion is also one of the premisses is to reason in a circle: reasoning from the premisses to the conclusion brings you back to where you started.Feminist "victim blaming" accusations start with two wrongful assumptions.
First, feminists assume that the individual under discussion is a victim (feminists label incidents "rape" whether their assigned "victim" agrees with them or not). This includes circumstances where the female they want to label "victim" has actively engaged in consensual sex and later regretted it for any reason, even when the "victim" doesn't feel victimized. An example of the practical application of feminist ideological advocacy on this is university responses; my daughter has been taught at her university that any alcohol consumption at all negates a woman's ability to consent to sex. That, when combined with the campus SaVE act, indicates that if a regularly sexually active heterosexual couple has sex after the two of them have each consumed a single drink, and someone (it doesn't have to be the girl) makes a complaint against the guy, he may be considered guilty of rape, expelled from school, and barred from attending other universities in the state. Further, the censure would be reflected on his academic record, and could influence legal proceedings on the matter.
Second, feminists assume that a "victim's" interest in exercising her own agency to control her risk level is automatically unreasonable and therefore a dysfunction. This argument extends to treating anything women do outside of feminist-led organizational advisement as a sign of "self-blame," whether it's an effective means of self-defense or not. These groups protest the idea that women and girls should be encouraged to learn and use self-defense, then obtain government and other grant funding to teach self-defense to recovering victims. Not only is that a conflict of interest (feminist organizations profit from convincing women that they can't defend themselves without feminists' approval,) it's self-contradictory. Either attempting to control one's risk level is always an irrational, dysfunctional response to danger, or it's sometimes not - even if doing so is not under the controlled guidance of feminist ideology.
With these in mind, feminist "logic" proceeds by labeling women's regret of their own choices preceding or during a sexual encounter "self-blame." Both assumptions are articulated for the purpose of labeling discussion on rape prevention "victim blaming." One cannot argue in debate that women have the right or responsibility to exercise mindful awareness the same as is expected of men without being accused of victim blaming. One cannot differentiate between an act of contravening a person's right to refuse intimate contact and a sexual encounter that is later regretted by one party or the other without being accused of victim blaming.
Affirming the consequent
The example in the link uses several scenarios. I want to look for a minute at just the first two.
1) If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
2) Bill Gates is rich.
3) Therefore, he owns Fort Knox.
The fallacy is obvious in that example. That one is rich isn't necessarily an indication of what specific things one owns. It's simply a measure of one's overall wealth. It's less obvious in the second, as we often "diagnose" ourselves based on past experience. This is a much more common mistake.
1) If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
2) I have a sore throat.
3) Therefore, I have the flu.
This often takes the form of "Last time I had symptom X, I was diagnosed with Y. I have symptom X again, so it must be Y again.
As the factors appear more related or the issue becomes more clouded with additional steps (such as past experience) or ideology, it becomes easier for the mind to disguise that mistake as a reasonable course of thought. The flaws in in the "logic" behind feminist claims of victim blaming are similarly clouded by combining two different fallacies to reach a flawed conclusion, but once you see them, they're glaringly obvious.
The flaw begins with "If a trauma makes the victim feel helpless and afraid, then the victim will adopt behaviors to try to gain control over future circumstances to avoid experiencing the trauma again." Feminists insert "begging the question" twice between what would be steps 1 and 2 in order to impose the victim label. This expands the flaw to 5 steps and clouds it enough to hide the flaw from most individuals.
1) If a trauma makes the victim feel helpless and afraid, then the victim will adopt behaviors to try to gain control over future circumstances to avoid experiencing the trauma again.
- Trauma such as combat conditions sometimes leads to (Post Traumitc Stress Disorder) PTSD.
One of the symptoms of PTSD is the sufferer's tendency to blame himself for conditions he could not control, and to adopt behaviors to try to gain a measure of control over those conditions. Since the conditions can't be controlled, those behaviors focus on what can mitigate their impact. This is why war vets in your circle of friends and family may be unable to sit with their backs exposed to unseen approach. One cannot control what another person is going to do, but one can influence one's ability to see it coming.
Another is to attribute significance to conditions which don't affect the outcome of a situation, and adopt behaviors to control those conditions. That's not a tendency that is unique to stress disorders; having a lucky item without which you feel more vulnerable to misfortune is an example.
Another is to (out of stress-trained habit) apply defensive responses which are necessary in frequently, unpredictably violent circumstances to ordinarily peaceful situations. An example of this is when a vet is triggered to respond in self-defense or even with panic when there is a loud noise that's similar to the noise he experienced during combat.
- Rape can be a traumatic experience.
2) Begging the question; assuming victimization, as described above.
3) Begging the question; assuming that mindful behavior is dysfunction if sexual violence is at issue, also described above.
4) The (person we labeled) victim has adopted behaviors to avoid revisiting a regretted or upsetting experience.
Because feminists have already applied the label "rape" whether the female's ability to refuse was contravened or she now regrets a conscious choice to consent, they fall right into affirming the consequent.
5) The (person we labeled) victim must be traumatized and responding to feelings of helplessness and fear
This leads to the assertion that discussion on women's power to take control over any factors surrounding incidents feminists want to call rape (which include rape, but also include regretted consensual sex acts) is victim blaming and therefore verboten. That is how feminists argue that being upset about a sexual encounter makes it rape regardless of what happened during the encounter, and use "victim blaming" as a thought-terminating cliche to stifle rational discussion on the topic.
- That the discussion is about rape and not some other area of risk
does not change what is and what is not a reasonable expectation of
personal responsibility for one's own safety. Feminists argue as if it
- The presumption that assuming control over your environment is
automatically unreasonable is bullshit. That something can be stretched
to an unreasonable level (for example, never wearing red because you
were wearing red when you got shot) does not make responses to one's
environment (for example, wearing your seat-belt because you know that an
impact could send you through the windshield without it) unreasonable.
- The presumption that a sexual choice regretted by a woman
indicates that she was raped is also bullshit. Humans regularly make
decisions we regret without being told that since we regret the
decision, it must have been imposed on us from the outside. Force,
coercion, or incapacitation are ways of imposing. When an individual
simply makes a bad decision, it's not imposed, and it's not unreasonable
to feel responsible instead of victimized. A woman who did something
while drunk that when sober she realizes was a bad idea is not the
victim that a woman who was raped while passed out or unresponsive would
- The consequent doesn't prove the antecedent. Assuming
responsibility for factors under one's control which can affect the
outcome of a circumstance is not necessarily an illegitimate conclusion,
even when not all of the factors one encountered in said
circumstance were under one's control. Changing one's behavior to avoid
the consequences of a bad decision is not automatically dysfunctional choice that indicates trauma. It's also a sign of learning. To qualify as an irrational response to
trauma, that change must be unproductive as a means of improving one's
situation with respect to risk, or so burdensome that its drawbacks
outweigh its benefits.
The terms of that order are no contact.That doesn't just mean you're not allowed to contact her. It means she's claiming to be so afraid of you that she had to ask the state to intervene and make you stay away from her. It means she's claiming that contact with you is dangerous... which in turn means she should by all rights be averse to initiating contact with you. That she is doing so contradicts the claims on which the order is based.
If she contacts you, that can be seen by the state as an admission that she lied to get that restraining order. It's very hard to get an order removed, but proving that the holder of the order is violating it is one way. Once an order is permanent, upheld by a judge, you need evidence in order to even contest it. Attempts by the holder to contact you are the kind of evidence you need.
Sometimes an individual who has a restraining order has obtained it for the purpose of using it as a weapon in custody and property disputes, or simply as a weapon of abuse. If your ex is trying to contact you in ways that feel like an ambush, that might be what she is doing.
Protect yourself by documenting, keeping in contact with your attorney, and when possible, contesting the order in court on the basis of her continued attempts to contact you.
I've written a more detailed description of restraining order abuse and how to protect yourself in earlier entries in this blog.
Restraining order abuse and vexatious litigation
There are 4 pages to this. The page on documenting yourself as a means of self-defense against an ex using a restraining order as a weapon is the third page, titled "A Temporary Restraining Order Has Been Filed Against Me. What Should I Do?" If you are the subject of a permanent (whether long-term or just 5 years, as some states do) order, and the order's holder is trying to contact you, follow those methods to catch her in the act, but add to them documentation of your deliberate, meticulous avoidance of her. Show that you are going out of your way to not be places where she would go. This will be hard - you may have to live almost like a prisoner for a while, but if it helps you to demonstrate that she's the one trying to violate the order, it may pay off by helping you clear your name.
If your ex contacts you by any means of electronic or telecommunication, let your voice mail or other answering program pick up for you, and record it.
Edit: To show what a lot of men with restraining orders against them have to deal with, here are some of the google searches that have led people to the post "A Temporary Restraining Order Has Been Filed Against Me. What Should I Do?"
- what to do when there is a restraining order against you and you are falsely being accused of violating it
- false restraining order
- she has an order of protection against me and calls me
- do women break their own order of protection
- if she has a no contact order on me is she allowed to come to my job
- how do I stop a person with a restraining order against me from following me
- what can I do if a person who has a order protection against me comes near me on purpose
- how do I get my kids if my ex has a restraining order
- how can I stop my ex getting temporary restraining orders over and over
- ex has protection orders against all her exes
- recourse for false allegation charges
- restraining order abuse
- harassment through the legal system and how to stop it
- my wife has a restraing (sic) order against me she keeps following and having me arrested
- getting your stuff back during order of protection
- do i have any legal recourse for lies in a request for restraining order
- do i need a lawyer to defend me if served with a protection order
- can a social services make someone get an injunction on me for no reason
- can my girlfriend file a restraining order against me if i own the house
- do you avoid exs family during no contact
- help defending against a vexatious litigant
- if there is a restraining order against you what do you do about classes you take with that person
- does a person have to leave if a person with a restraining order filed against them shows up
- entrapment tro
(temporary restraining order)
- someone has a protection order against me but theyre (sic) constantly contacting me
- using the court system to harass
- what do i fo when a person who has a no contact order against me keeps calling me
- can I contact someone I have a restraining order against if we have kids together
- can I get penalized for contacting someone I have a restraining order against
- if u have an injunction on someone and you talk to them what happens to you
- what happens if you talk to someone you have a restraining order against
- what is going to happen if he talk (sic) to my family after restrain. order
- can I get someone arrested if I go where he is and I have a restraining order
- if I have a restraining order and he is where I go but leaves is it still a violation
- what happens if you don't go to court after filing for a restriction order
- does my restraining order stop his visitation
- can I use a restraining order to stop him going for custody
- compensation for restraining order
- I have a restraining order but I still love him
- can I still see someone i have an injunction against
- in have a restraining order against my ex, what happens if i let him in
- if I have a restraining order can I make him talk to me
- do I have to prove he violated a no contact order to get him arrested
- can judges tell if your (sic) lying about a restraining order
- consequence of lying for restraining order
- can people be arrested for entrapment
- baiting someone as to have them arrested
- can i discredit myself if i lie in order to get a temporary injunction
- can I get in trouble for saying he violated a tro if he didn't
- victim trying to bait violation of harassment order
- victum (sic) abusing restraining order harassing accused