I am confident this comes from a good place but I really really dislike that this comment is telling (the friend of) someone who was raped what she should do. People who have been raped can respond however they want, whether they decide to report the situation or not is entirely up to them, and I hate when people act like there is one correct response.
I’m interested in understanding your position better. Do you agree there are circumstances under which reporting a crime is the correct response? (Would you agree that an FTX employee blowing the whistle on SBF would be the correct response, for example?) If you can think of at least one scenario where you think reporting a crime is the correct response, maybe you could outline how this scenario differs? (For the purpose of our discussion, I’m assuming that the current crime is serious, unambiguous, and unrepented, constituting significant evidence that the perpetrator will cause major harm to others.)
My first guess is you think there’s something unique about rape such that the associated trauma means reporting can cause suffering. In that case, this would appear to be a straightforward demandingness dilemma—one’s feeling about the statement “it is correct to report rape” might be similar to one’s feeling about the statement “it is correct to forgo luxuries to donate to effective charities”. In both cases you’re looking at taking on discomfort yourself in order to do good for others. (In my mind the key considerations for demandingness dilemmas are: how much good you’re doing for others, how much discomfort you’re taking on, and what is personally psychologically sustainable for you. And I think saying “Seems to me they should [do the demanding thing]” is generally OK.)
Hey Truck Driver Wannabe (great Forum name by the way) - I’m a medical doctor and have recently completed extra training in helping people who’ve experienced sexual assault. There are no ‘shoulds’ (except that the perpetrator should not have done it). I can’t do this topic justice in a Forum commentary (nor would I want to) but if you’d like to contact me directly, I’m happy to talk to you more about this.
I really appreciate your effort to understand the other side of the argument and I see why you are confused about the reaction.
For me, I find the idea that a person has any responsibility whatsoever to involve the cea community health team in any matter regarding their personal life (including and especially sexual assault) baffling. Reporting to CEA is not obviously net harm reducing, because a predator who is kicked out of CEA sponsored events can and will just move to another community and continue their predatory behavior elsewhere. And that is assuming that CEA handles the situation perfectly.
I also don’t think a person has such a responsibility to report to law enforcement, only partly because law enforcement has generally not earned a reputation for handling these cases well.
If we lived in a different world where law enforcement was more competent in these cases, then I agree this would be a straightforward demandingness dilemma. However, I don’t expect anyone to be publicly retraumatized in the service of helping strangers and I think it is extremely unfair to do so. Being publicly humiliated, mocked, disbelieved, called names, concern trolled, having every past sexual and romantic encounter up for public scrutiny, and being forced to publicly and repeatedly detail the most horrifying moments of your life is not even almost the same as, say, donating ten percent of your income. All or many of these things often happen to people who report sexual assault to a responsible and thorough law enforcement agency that does all the right things and has ample resources.
In general I don’t think it’s that healthy to expect others to give a certain amount of their time or money or anything else. I think we should all set an example in our own lives and be public about why we make the choices we do, but respect that others have the right to choose what and how much they give (emotionally and otherwise). But even if I didn’t believe that in general, I would still believe it in case of sexual assault.
“I find the idea that a person has any responsibility whatsoever to donate to $EA_CHARITY baffling.”
“Donating to $EA_CHARITY is not obviously net harm reducing. Their work may funge against other efforts. And even if they do perfect work, solving poverty in the developing world still leaves developed-world poverty as a major problem.”
“The person reading your comment could be almost broke, such that if they donate to $EA_CHARITY they would homeless and destitute. It is unreasonable for us to ask anyone to take that sacrifice.”
“Other charities which claim to solve the problem $EA_CHARITY works on have been found to be scams. Don’t be surprised if they sell your credit card details to cybercriminals.”
“People have the right to choose how much they give.”
These are all valid replies I agree with partially or fully.
But they all seem to operate under the assumption that I hold a much different position than the one I actually hold. I’m not totally sure what I did to give people the mistaken impression.
Maybe I just need to learn to avoid triggering people.
In any case, I think you and I agree more than we disagree.
Seems to me she should be talking to them anyway.
I am confident this comes from a good place but I really really dislike that this comment is telling (the friend of) someone who was raped what she should do. People who have been raped can respond however they want, whether they decide to report the situation or not is entirely up to them, and I hate when people act like there is one correct response.
Thanks Kirsten.
I’m interested in understanding your position better. Do you agree there are circumstances under which reporting a crime is the correct response? (Would you agree that an FTX employee blowing the whistle on SBF would be the correct response, for example?) If you can think of at least one scenario where you think reporting a crime is the correct response, maybe you could outline how this scenario differs? (For the purpose of our discussion, I’m assuming that the current crime is serious, unambiguous, and unrepented, constituting significant evidence that the perpetrator will cause major harm to others.)
My first guess is you think there’s something unique about rape such that the associated trauma means reporting can cause suffering. In that case, this would appear to be a straightforward demandingness dilemma—one’s feeling about the statement “it is correct to report rape” might be similar to one’s feeling about the statement “it is correct to forgo luxuries to donate to effective charities”. In both cases you’re looking at taking on discomfort yourself in order to do good for others. (In my mind the key considerations for demandingness dilemmas are: how much good you’re doing for others, how much discomfort you’re taking on, and what is personally psychologically sustainable for you. And I think saying “Seems to me they should [do the demanding thing]” is generally OK.)
Thanks for any thoughts you’re willing to share.
Hey Truck Driver Wannabe (great Forum name by the way) - I’m a medical doctor and have recently completed extra training in helping people who’ve experienced sexual assault. There are no ‘shoulds’ (except that the perpetrator should not have done it). I can’t do this topic justice in a Forum commentary (nor would I want to) but if you’d like to contact me directly, I’m happy to talk to you more about this.
Hi Truck Driver Wannabe,
I really appreciate your effort to understand the other side of the argument and I see why you are confused about the reaction.
For me, I find the idea that a person has any responsibility whatsoever to involve the cea community health team in any matter regarding their personal life (including and especially sexual assault) baffling. Reporting to CEA is not obviously net harm reducing, because a predator who is kicked out of CEA sponsored events can and will just move to another community and continue their predatory behavior elsewhere. And that is assuming that CEA handles the situation perfectly.
I also don’t think a person has such a responsibility to report to law enforcement, only partly because law enforcement has generally not earned a reputation for handling these cases well.
If we lived in a different world where law enforcement was more competent in these cases, then I agree this would be a straightforward demandingness dilemma. However, I don’t expect anyone to be publicly retraumatized in the service of helping strangers and I think it is extremely unfair to do so. Being publicly humiliated, mocked, disbelieved, called names, concern trolled, having every past sexual and romantic encounter up for public scrutiny, and being forced to publicly and repeatedly detail the most horrifying moments of your life is not even almost the same as, say, donating ten percent of your income. All or many of these things often happen to people who report sexual assault to a responsible and thorough law enforcement agency that does all the right things and has ample resources.
In general I don’t think it’s that healthy to expect others to give a certain amount of their time or money or anything else. I think we should all set an example in our own lives and be public about why we make the choices we do, but respect that others have the right to choose what and how much they give (emotionally and otherwise). But even if I didn’t believe that in general, I would still believe it in case of sexual assault.
Hi Monica, thanks for the reply.
Suppose my original comment was
And I got these replies:
“I find the idea that a person has any responsibility whatsoever to donate to $EA_CHARITY baffling.”
“Donating to $EA_CHARITY is not obviously net harm reducing. Their work may funge against other efforts. And even if they do perfect work, solving poverty in the developing world still leaves developed-world poverty as a major problem.”
“The person reading your comment could be almost broke, such that if they donate to $EA_CHARITY they would homeless and destitute. It is unreasonable for us to ask anyone to take that sacrifice.”
“Other charities which claim to solve the problem $EA_CHARITY works on have been found to be scams. Don’t be surprised if they sell your credit card details to cybercriminals.”
“People have the right to choose how much they give.”
These are all valid replies I agree with partially or fully.
But they all seem to operate under the assumption that I hold a much different position than the one I actually hold. I’m not totally sure what I did to give people the mistaken impression.
Maybe I just need to learn to avoid triggering people.
In any case, I think you and I agree more than we disagree.