xxxzxxx

"I find this comment funny considering he could have easily slipped something into her drink, as happens so often in real life."

Yea but then he didn't take advantage of her the way he did. Then he took advantage of her by drugging her which is him playing a different trick altogether. Also he'd have to run a way bigger risk of being found out while the woman might also be able to go to the police and have her urine tested if she was fast enough.
The matter of the fact is that if the woman didn't drink herself half-dead the guy couldn't play the simple trick he did. Also if she got drugged then she didn't by her own free will put herself in a state to be easily taken advantage off and she wouldn't have been at fault for being in that situation.
___________
"Again, he could have EASILY done this by drugging her."

Again then he's not playing the same trick. Then he's drugging her which is more risky and then she's not at fault for being unable to protect herself at all.
_____
"It's specifically called victim blaming because it's blaming the victim of a crime for the crime, rather than the criminal, and I will always disagree with this."

Just because some people make up/use a term with negative connotations trying to invalidate a concept doesn't make it correct.
Victim-blaming as a word is used in an attempt to portray women as never at fault for their own decisions as long as they have become a victim.
Also victim-blaming is not blaming the victim rather than the criminal - that is a red herring.. Victim-blaming is blaming a victim for making braindead decisions that put them in a vulnerable situation where bad people that exist in this world (and always will) could easily take advantage of said victim.
I and most people that "victim-blame" never say that the criminal is not guilty of the crime.

______________

"And as far as using victim blaming to teach women, it will never work. If you blame someone for the unbelievable crime and trauma that befell them, you will only alienate them, hurt them, and worsen the effects of the trauma, and they won't listen to you."

The FL is not a real person. I'm using the medium (drama) to make the argument that the FL put herself in danger by being so drunk that she didn't have control of herself. The drama highlighted this. I only replied because you were complaining that the drama unfairly just blamed the FL. The drama blamed the FL because she made a dumb decision that left her vulnerable.
____________

"Not the best way to teach someone how to be responsible, is it? "

I'm not trying to teach the FL. I'm teaching whoever reads these comments (frankly I think nobody are going to) that drinking until you can't remember anything the next day is putting yourself in a position where bad people can take advantage of you. And if you still do so the reason you got chosen as the target of the assault might potentially be a result of your own actions.
Also at this point it's just a discussion/debate on the topic - not really teaching anybody anything.
When people victim-blame on the internet or in real life they 99,99% the times do not do so towards the victim. They write on a forum etc. about how the victim might have been able to have avoided whatever happened. They are not writing to specifically expect the victim to read their advice but rather other people.
________
"I believe proper safety and precautions against such things should be taught, but that should never include blaming the victim."

As I said they are the exact same as victim-blaming most of the time. Teaching safety and precautions against such things are victim-blaming victims that didn't follow that safety in the past.

"I believe when he said he trusted her, he was referring to her relationship with the second male lead. He was trusting her not to cheat on him. The conversation had nothing to do with her drinking habits. (I'm curious whether you even watched the drama?)"

I watched the drama and I feel you are being a bit "purposely obtuse". If you have a conversation about trust right before your partner goes out to a party/reunion then that pretty much always includes not getting so drunk that you can't take care of yourself. If you then get so drunk that anyone can take advantage of you then you've def. broken that trust.
_______________

"My advice: Blame her for getting drunk. Don't blame her for getting taken advantage of. There's actually a big difference between the two."

I'll blame her for getting so drunk that she put herself in a situation where she could easily be taken advantage off. There is not "actually a big difference between the two" when the getting drunk is directly the cause of her being tricked. If she didn't drink herself into a state of not being able to take care of herself the guy would never have been able to play the trick he did.
They are directly connected even though you are trying your hardest to pretend that not to be the case.
As I asked you before. If the FL didn't drink so much would the guy have been able to play this trick on her? We both know the answer to this question because the trick relied on her being so drunk as to not remember anything the next day.
__________________
"Teaching responsibility and victim-blaming are also two completely separate things. I really hope you're not equating the two right now."

Teaching women not to drink to the point of losing all control in an attempt to avoid women being taken advantage off is by the core victim-blaming women that have refused to follow this rule and then gets taken advantage off.
Yes in some cases there is a difference between the two.
When victim-blaming is done without a clear benefit or "teaching" then it's different but victim-blaming and teaching can be the same..
______________
"And yet there are many, MANY instances in which people are extremely careful and work very hard not to do idiotic things, and yet they end up with terrible problems and trauma, through no fault of their own. I wonder if your ideology includes that simple truth."

I wrote so many comments including this --->
"We are not talking about her just leaving her front door and then getting into an accident.
We are talking about someone who did something easily avoidable and something that's not really needed - getting so drunk you can't walk. [...]
You need to leave your home to go out etc. You don't need to get so drunk as you can't walk."

"If a person walks into a lion cage and gets eaten by a lion then the person is a victim but he's also at fault for being eaten. He's not at fault for making the lion eat him but he's at fault for purposely putting himself in a position to be eaten he could easily have avoided. Victim blaming is not by default wrong. Victim blaming is wrong when you are blaming victims for stuff that's irrelevant or unavoidable. Or mistakes that can very easily be made by anyone without much fault."

"Most people need to walk in traffic or drive to go to work and earn money to live. That's a risk but nobody is going to blame you for a car accident (when following the traffic laws) even though you are taking a risk by driving because we understand that it's needed for everyday life and not purposely making yourself a target for no reason.
Getting so drunk that you can't remember what happened the next day is not the same."

"Possibly true, but that doesn't force him to assault her, and it also doesn't mean she deserves to be assaulted--contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe (I'm not claiming that you believe this, by the way)."

This is not possible true - it is true. I feel like you are so hell bent on not accepting the truth even though you know it's the truth so you write possible true. I mean it's pretty simple. Did the guy make her drink herself to the point she had no control anymore - which in turn makes her an easy target to be taken advantage off? He didn't. That was her choice and her actions. There are nothing possible about that - it's the truth.
I was about to rage about you creating a straw man argument when I read "and it also doesn't mean she deserves to be assaulted" but luckily you acknowledge I never wrote that. Yes she doesn't deserve to be assaulted but as I wrote earlier there are (and will always be) people that will take advantage of other people and do crimes.
___________

"The reason I said it was a slippery slope is because depending on what your logic and brain tell you, you could end up blaming anyone for just about anything."

Yea you can but if you don't make a good argument other people will tell you that you are an idiot and full of shit - it's that simple. If you do not victim blame people that put themselves needlessly in danger by making idiotic decisions then you do not teach people to take care of themselves and accept responsibility for their own safety. You are always just blaming the world as if that will ever help - bad people will always be in the world. If you do idiotic stuff to put you in danger then you are responsible for you ending up having problems in life - that's just reality.

If you go back to my first comment I also specifically wrote "from the point of view of the marriage".
_________

"Well if you get so drunk that you don't remember what you've been doing the next day then why wouldn't it be your fault (from the point of view of the marriage) if you end up getting taken advantage of?"

Why did I wrote from the point of view of the marriage.
Well if my wife get willingly drunk as hell at a club and put herself in danger (especially if we just had a discussion about me trusting her not doing anything dumb) then I'm gonna blame her if she ends up getting taken advantage off. Yes I'd want the guy put in jail and rot for a long time but I'm def. not gonna trust my wife again for a long time.

What kind of logic is this.
"Animals are definitely more important than humans in terms of life and existence."

Just because animals as a whole are needed for existence on earth doesn't mean that individually animals are equally as important to an individual human being from the perspective of other humans beings.
Your argument of "If all “Animalia” (minus humans) spontaneously ceased to exist, humans would as well" is so damn idiotic that it's sad. All animals are not going to spontaneously cease to exist.
But lets play along with your dumb take. What would be worse for human beings as a whole. All animal spontaneously ceasing to exist or all human beings spontaneously ceasing to exist?
If all animal ceased to exist some human beings would still be able to survive by artificial pollination of plants or at least survive for years before the earth lost all breathing air.
If all humans ceased to exist - all humans would be gone in an instant. So what's worse for human beings?
But this entire hypothetical game is dumb by itself.
As I said any human being that have your opinion that an animal is more important than human beings are a danger to society.
If any disaster happen you'll run to save an animal instead of a human being.
Also I bet if your family member was dying and a doctor decided he'd rather treat an animal instead of your family member you'd lose your mind.

What kind of idiotic logic is this.
"Animals are definitely more important than humans in terms of life and existence."
Just because animals as a whole are needed for existence on earth doesn't mean that individually animals are equally as important to an individual human being from the perspective of other humans beings.
Your argument of "If all “Animalia” (minus humans) spontaneously ceased to exist, humans would as well" is so damn idiotic that it's sad. All animals are not going to spontaneously cease to exist.
But lets play along with your dumb take. What would be worse for human beings as a whole. All animal spontaneously ceasing to exist or all human beings spontaneously ceasing to exist?
If all animal ceased to exist some human beings would still be able to survive by artificial pollination of plants or at least survive for years before the earth lost all breathing air.
If all humans ceased to exist - all humans would be gone in an instant. So what's worse for human beings?
But this entire hypothetical game is dumb by itself.
As I said any human being that have your opinion that an animal is more important than human beings are a danger to society.
If any disaster happen you'll run to save an animal instead of a human being.
Also I bet if your family member was dying and a doctor decided he'd rather treat an animal instead of your family member you'd lose your shit.
You are just spouting idiocy.

What kind of idiotic logic is this.
"Animals are definitely more important than humans in terms of life and existence."
Just because animals as a whole are needed for existence on earth doesn't mean that individually animals are equally as important to an individual human being from the perspective of other humans beings.
Your argument of "If all “Animalia” (minus humans) spontaneously ceased to exist, humans would as well" is so damn idiotic that it's sad. All animals are not going to spontaneously cease to exist.
But lets play along with your dumb take. What would be worse for human beings as a whole. All animal spontaneously ceasing to exist or all human beings spontaneously ceasing to exist?
If all animal ceased to exist some human beings would still be able to survive by artificial pollination of plants or at least survive for years before the earth lost all breathing air.
If all humans ceased to exist - all humans would be gone in an instant. So what's worse for human beings?
But this entire hypothetical game is dumb by itself.
As I said any human being that have your opinion that an animal is more important than human beings are a danger to society.
If any disaster happen you'll run to save an animal instead of a human being.
Also I bet if your family member was dying and a doctor decided he'd rather treat an animal instead of your family member you'd lose your shit.
You are just spouting idiocy.

EDIT: My comment end up so long because it's not an easy topic to discuss - sorry.

"I think you're in dangerous territory because you might be edging into victim-blaming."

I am edging into victim-blaming. Just because you name something victim-blaming (which contains a negative connotation) doesn't mean it's wrong. A victim can 100% be at fault for ending up a victim.
If a person walks into a lion cage and gets eaten by a lion then the person is a victim but he's also at fault for being eaten. He's not at fault for making the lion eat him but he's at fault for purposely putting himself in a position to be eaten he could easily have avoided. Victim blaming is not by default wrong. Victim blaming is wrong when you are blaming victims for stuff that's irrelevant or unavoidable. Or mistakes that can very easily be made by anyone without much fault.
I don't care to be politically correct - I care about writing what I think is the truth.
__________
"I think your point is that there is shared responsibility in the situation [...]"

I guess you could look at it as shared responsibility as to why the entire situation happened (two parts put together) but that's not what I meant.
The FL didn't share the responsibility of the guy to trick her - that's his responsibility 100%. She has not fault in his decision to do that.
The guy taking advantage of her isn't at fault that she decided to make herself an easy target - that's her responsibility.
I guess you could label it as shared responsibility (if looking at the entire situation) but they both have 100% responsibility on each their part of what resulted in the overall incident.
Her fault wasn't illegal though. What he did was.
_________________
"I'm never going to advocate acting foolish (getting drunk or leaving your house unlocked for example) but who decides what's foolish? Is wearing a short skirt foolish, and is a woman to blame for being assaulted if she does such a thing? That's a slippery slope, isn't it?"

Who decides what's foolish? Your logic and brain I guess and potentially statistics. Would you think logically leaving your front door open in a dangerous neighborhood as very risky and stupid? Would doing so increase the risk (statistically) of getting stolen from? If yes then it's probably foolish to do so.
Will wearing a short skirt increase risk of getting assaulted? If yes (I don't think that's true though) then you have to weight in the happiness wearing a short skirt provides vs. risk of wearing short skirt.
If you have a very high chance of getting raped by wearing a short skirt and your life is not really destroyed by not doing so then yes I'd say you are at fault for increasing your risk of being raped.
That said I highly doubt that statistically wearing a short skirt actually matter in terms of rape risk.
I'm 100% sure though that getting black-out drunk at parties increases the risk of getting raped or taken advantage of in other ways.
I don't think it's a slippery slope - at the end of the day it's not illegal to make yourself a bigger target of being taken advantage off.
You are just going to be looked at as dumb or careless by other people which is 100% deserved. And blame might also help people make better choices.
You have to weight in the risk vs. the necessity of doing something and the happiness it provides.
Most people need to walk in traffic or drive to go to work and earn money to live. That's a risk but nobody is going to blame you for a car accident (when following the traffic laws) even though you are taking a risk by driving because we understand that it's needed for everyday life and not purposely making yourself a target for no reason.
Getting so drunk that you can't remember what happened the next day is not the same.

I'm not contradicting myself - you seem to not understand the concept at hand.
She's at fault for ending up a victim. He's a criminal for doing something illegal.
She's not at fault for him making the decision to take advantage of her - he's at fault for that.
She's at fault for putting herself in a situation where someone could easily take advantage of her so she's at fault for being taken advantage of.
As I said she wasn't just randomly picked out of the street. She willingly put herself in a situation where she was able to easily be taken advantage off - that's why she's at fault.
He's at fault for taking advantage (illegally or not) of someone else.
Both of these can be true at the same time without being a contradiction.
_______
"You're also just restating everything you said in your original comment: she's to blame for what happened, which I will always disagree with."

If she didn't get so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened the next day would the guy have been able to trick her like this? That's all you gotta ask yourself.
There are bad people in this world - this is a fact. If you purposely put yourself in a position a bad person can take advantage of you then you are at fault that bad stuff is happening to you.
The bad guy is at fault for being a criminal. Your "punishment" (for lack of better word) is bad stuff happening to you. The punishment of someone doing something illegal is hopefully being caught and put in jail. That's how the world works sadly.
________________
"If you leave your house unlocked and someone breaks in, guess who goes to jail? The person who broke in, NOT you, who was stupid for leaving your house unlocked. That's just the way it works."

Yea he's going to jail (if he's caught) because he's a criminal and did something illegal.
You on the other hand got your house broken into potentially because you left the door unlocked - so you are potentially at fault your house got broken into.

Yea it does make sense. If you leave front door open in a neighborhood known for theft and your home get stolen from then you will be blamed for this. Because you did something that was easy to avoid that aided in the reason of you being stolen from.
The ones stealing are still criminals and should be punished as such though.
For some reason people love to defend victims (especially female victims) and ignore their idiocy as soon as they become victims.
This incident didn't happen out of the blue. The FL knew the situation was not perfect before she went that's why she had decided not to go. That's why the ML told her to go anyway because he trusted her and she still ended up getting so drunk she couldn't walk straight. Which is the reason she got taken advantage off - she's 100% at fault this happened to her.
She's not at fault that the rapist raped - but she's at fault that she became the victim.
We are not talking about her just leaving her front door and then getting into an accident.
We are talking about someone who did something easily avoidable and something that's not really needed - getting so drunk you can't walk. While having had a talk about trust right before....
You need to leave your home to go out etc. You don't need to get so drunk as you can't walk.
As I said the guy is a criminal but that doesn't mean the woman didn't take actions that made him able to turn her into the victim.
You are pretending like she just randomly got picked out of the street and raped - she didn't.

Yea the story is ridiculous. Also it's based on a manga written as a fantasy for women so frankly you shouldn't really expect some amazing story though.

Was she drugged or did she herself drink too much?

"We ended up with a situation in which, mysteriously, our FL doesn't know for sure if she's been sexually assaulted by an old flame, and instead of exploring the trauma of such an incident, the drama puts all the responsibility on her for possibly being unfaithful to ML."
__________

Well if you get so drunk that you don't remember what you've been doing the next day then why wouldn't it be your fault (from the point of view of the marriage) if you end up getting taken advantage of?
Yea a person taking advantage of someone else in such a state is a criminal but that doesn't mean what the woman did is not worthy of blame.

"I guess that means you think I’m more important than animals in the event of a house fire ???"

Yea even though you are really blurring the lines with all your dumb takes.
____________
"So idk why y’all think animals aren’t important ?"

That's a straw man. I never said animals weren't important I said they were not as important as human beings and claiming they are is ridiculous.

Yea no I'm not. You are just mad because someone called out your crazy opinion.
________
"Humans aren’t more important than animals, and the way that humans treat and think of animals says a lot about who they actually are."
________
There is no missing context here you straight up claim humans are not more important than animals - as I said you are just mad you got called out.
Also considering your use of emojis I don't think I can expect much more from a person with your mental capacity.

I don't care whether the horse was shot in an act of kindness and humane - I did not make a statement on that.
I called out your idiotic take on the value of animals in comparison to human beings. As I said you are lunatic if you think ---> "Humans aren’t more important than animals, and the way that humans treat and think of animals says a lot about who they actually are."
________
Ironically your comment also says a lot about you.

Yea they are (at least to any normal human being) - are you a lunatic?. Only a crazy person would make such a dumb statement. In a burning house a child and an animal (lets say horse) is trapped and you only got time to save one. The choice is not hard for 99% of normal human beings.
So many crazy people on here when considering you actually got "hearted" for that statement.

There is a difference between being "a good man" and being unrealistically dumb as fuck.

Just because characters "hate" a woman in a movie doesn't mean it's misogynistic. They are not hating on her because she's a woman but because they saw her abandoning a baby outside to die (didn't even put the child in the box).
You sound like someone who can't handle a woman doing something wrong getting hated on.
Also I'm not sure why you felt the lines being outrageous. They both said something that's true. If you can't take care of a baby then don't have one. And abortion is def. more evil than putting your child in the care of someone else after birth because you can't take care of him.

Yea exactly this movie was good but the part with the couple in the ending was kind of dumb.
There is no way a couple that got "baited" like this would be fine with visiting a child that was used to bait them into a criminal record and never being able to adopt.

How would it not be moral for him to get together with the FL and leave the wife?
The ML is not morally good - he is just braindead stupid.