When a crime happens and the victim reports it, usually an investigation takes place and the victim is referred for counselling, and need never see or hear from the assailant again, except perhaps to give testimony in court. Therefore after the trauma there is a process of healing and recovery, and support from the community, to enable the victim to take the time to make their life whole again. The point is that victims aren’t usually continuously exposed to the abuser who harmed them; the assault lasts a finite amount of time, and the recovery process, free from assault, hopefully lasts a lifetime. No one in their right mind would allow a rapist to hang around and keep raping after the first incident. No one would let a flasher hang around a school and keep flashing children after the first incident. The only way it would be possible for these things to keep happening is due to some unfortunate misinterpretation of the nature of things, for instance mistaking an abuser for a guardian or a rapist for a friend. However such misinterpretation would be extremely disingenuous if persisting after reports from the victim. Who would let someone keep raping someone even after they called rape?
Speaking of misinterpretation, it’s important to know who and what things really are, particularly with regard to people. We are brought up to expect people to feel sympathy or empathy for our concerns, but the sad fact is some people don’t, and we need to be aware of those and not confuse them for others. If someone gets off on misery they aren’t the right shoulder to cry on. This can be the case even if they appear to be exactly the right people for the role, as sometimes people can be attracted into roles that enable them to satisfy their kinks. This is a well known trope with paedophile priests, but can apply to anything; it’s not inconceivable that an arsonist might want to become a fire-fighter, a bloodthirsty individual a soldier, or a necrophiliac a coroner; some people find their way into professions that fulfil perverse desires in a way they couldn’t otherwise, and as they’re in there with everyone else working innocently in the same professions, it would theoretically be difficult to tell such people apart from the others. I suppose you would have to follow your gut and the weight of evidence. As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, the likelihood is that it is a duck.
It’s important to call a spade a spade; it occurs to me that there is likely a sexual thrill for the people abusing me that others (me included) don’t perceive, because we don’t share the thrill. It can be difficult to understand fringe perversions if you don’t feel the same way. For instance someone might get a thrill out of feeling cold metal against their flesh, or watching someone eat (the proverbial feeders), or watching someone poop, or watching people in the shower, and I’d never know as I don’t share the perversion. Such a person could be doing the same as others are doing but getting a different thrill from it.
The pattern here is attacking a helpless man remotely in a manner he can’t escape from and then listening to him rant and rave in anguish. It doesn’t matter that we don’t understand what the thrill is; any behaviour repeated for long enough must have a thrill attached to it or there would be no cause to keep going. Therefore even if I don’t perceive what the thrill is exactly, I can deduce that there is a thrill, and that it may be a sexual one. Preventing the criminals from committing the crime may also prevent a hidden, perverse and sinister aspect to it also, which is important because no one should be allowed to gratify their perversions, sexual or otherwise, without the consent of others; every instance is a serious violation.
Comments