Physical Desires vs. Human Dignity and Unfulfilled Dreams...

Kyle Nelson2 said:If someone just mumbled this nonsense on some street corner in Chicago, I probably wouldn't even bother responding...
But we’re talking about a priest here—someone who’s supposedly highly educated. And since they’re considered "spiritual" leaders, there’s this whole default assumption that they shouldn't just represent the people, but actually "guide" them in some higher sense...
So, I guess, in their eyes, they have to be superior and smarter than the rest of us masses...

Honestly, the fact that he’s reduced his entire sense of dignity to some pathetic object of worship tells you everything you need to know about how miserable that man's life really is...

I mean, maybe—and this is a big maybe—we could just assume he said it all just to try and comfort his relatives.

I don't know, man. That feels super sketchy to me.☕

I suspect many have fundamentally misconstrued the priest’s remark regarding her departing "with honor and dignity." It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding at play here. I don't believe he was referring to some external, third-party standard of dignity—as if she were somehow forfeiting her reputation or her perceived innocence in the eyes of her parents or the local community. Rather, I would argue his comment pertained entirely to her own internal perspective. Is it not more likely that the loss of dignity is a matter of self-perception? That is certainly my contention.
From my particular vantage point, if I were to find myself being brutally dispatched by a silverback gorilla and stuffed into a shipping crate, I suspect I would feel at least a marginal sense of lost dignity. Is there truly any individual among us who wouldn't experience a certain erosion of self-respect when forced into actions—or subjected to circumstances—against their own volition? One would assume that the preservation of agency is central to the human condition, wouldn't they? To be coerced, whether by nature or by force, seems inherently contrary to the maintenance of one's pride. 🤷

As for her father, perhaps he finds some small, hollow comfort in the fact that she wasn't assaulted before the murder occurred. Or perhaps that is merely a delusion? I suspect the reality hasn't truly sunk in yet, especially considering how visibly shaken he appeared when those reporters were badgering him for a statement.

Chloe Smith11 said:So, the priest put it this way:
"She proved she was willing to face death rather than betray her youthful ideals; she chose to lose her physical life instead of trampling upon her human dignity and her unfulfilled dreams."
I suppose the wording was a bit clumsy, though I suspect its primary purpose was to offer comfort to the family and send a message to other women to hold their ground. It feels a little awkward because it’s hard to imagine a young girl preoccupied with such heavy ideological reflections at a time like that—truthfully, it's impossible to know what crosses a person's mind in those moments, as it likely varies from one individual to the next.
As for how we interpret that statement and this ongoing debate—women who have been victims of sexual assault certainly suffer humiliation and have their dignity violated, but their honor remains intact; it seems that is something John Doe still fails to grasp.

That priest's statement is just plain bullshit... because it implies the girl somehow "chose" death. I mean... the poor thing was murdered in cold blood, and that's the only truth here.
Everything else is just a product of that half-crazy American obsession with turning every single tragedy and horror into some grand epic poem.🙄
It also feels like they're trying to force a comparison to those firefighters who are constantly being labeled "heroes" or "martyrs" in endless press releases for whatever reason. Is that just a way to soothe the collective conscience or what? Should we be calling everyone who dies in car accidents "heroes" too? And how exactly is that supposed to help anyone...

Donna Campbell6 said:That priest's statement is just plain bullshit... because it implies the girl somehow "chose" death. I mean... the poor thing was murdered in cold blood, and that's the only truth here.
Everything else is just a product of that half-crazy American obsession with turning every single tragedy and horror into some grand epic poem.🙄
It also feels like they're trying to force a comparison to those firefighters who are constantly being labeled "heroes" or "martyrs" in endless press releases for whatever reason. Is that just a way to soothe the collective conscience or what? Should we be calling everyone who dies in car accidents "heroes" too? And how exactly is that supposed to help anyone...

I'm with you.👍 (And honestly, that "half-mad American urge" toward myth-making is a spot-on observation... feels very much like a classic piece of gritty Americana right in the heart of it.🙏)

Donna Campbell6 said:That priest's statement is just plain bullshit... because it implies the girl somehow "chose" death. I mean... the poor thing was murdered in cold blood, and that's the only truth here.
Everything else is just a product of that half-crazy American obsession with turning every single tragedy and horror into some grand epic poem.🙄
It also feels like they're trying to force a comparison to those firefighters who are constantly being labeled "heroes" or "martyrs" in endless press releases for whatever reason. Is that just a way to soothe the collective conscience or what? Should we be calling everyone who dies in car accidents "heroes" too? And how exactly is that supposed to help anyone...

1. Writing epics isn't something exclusive to the North America.
2. Depicting a woman resisting assault as a heroine isn't necessarily meant to highlight the fact that she was murdered; rather, I guess the intention might be to encourage or empower women facing abuse in general—to show them they can fight back.
3. If we feel our firefighters shouldn't have been labeled heroes, then by that same logic, we shouldn't have honored those who perished on 9/11 either. Both groups died in the line of duty for the greater good—though perhaps our local crews were just trying to put out brush fires, we shouldn't forget they were also responding to house fires—and the sheer scale of those events only amplified the intensity of the commentary that followed.
4. Sometimes people who pass away tragically are called heroes because of their actions, though I suspect it's mostly just a way to offer some small measure of comfort to their loved ones. It's a shame that some people, who don't quite grasp the full context, continue to debate why certain individuals are deemed heroes while others aren't. In the end, the priest's attempt to provide solace to the father seemed perfectly appropriate, and I suppose that’s what matters most.

The only thing I really can't wrap my head around is this whole idea that death has somehow become a tragedy. It hasn't. Honestly, life isn't either. They’re just two sides of the exact same coin, and if we decide to label one side as tragic, we end up dragging the other down with it too.

No matter how someone passes away, from an objective standpoint, nobody is truly a victim—because killers don't stumble upon their "victims" by accident. If a person doesn't perceive themselves as a victim, they never actually become one. That’s just a subjective truth that eventually hardens into a subjective reality. There’s this old wisdom from India that says if you are perfect in *ahimsa* (non-violence), no enemy can even begin to form against you. We don't sit around and think about that enough, but the fact is, like attracts like: violence breeds more violence, while peace fosters more peace... our version of that is basically "you reap what you sow."

A hero—a true legend—is defined by how they lived their entire life, which includes how they face the end. Someone who dies in a car wreck isn't a hero; firefighters aren't inherently heroes just because of their job. A real hero knows exactly what they are doing, even if nobody else sees it. They have mastery over themselves and their own existence, meeting death with a sense of awareness and peace, knowing they lived exactly the kind of life they intended to live.

So, to me, it feels totally pointless to label this girl as either a hero or a victim. She met her end just as she was, for reasons that remain entirely unknown to us... but I know we live in an era where we've collectively decided to cast death as some kind of monster. It isn't a monster; we only act like it is because we don't truly understand it.
Violence, though, is a different story altogether. We spend all our time condemning the violence others inflict on each other, yet we practice it ourselves every single day in one form or another... if you look at it strictly, any act that forces someone else to bend their will to yours is a form of violence, and there are endless ways to do that. Every time we shrug our shoulders at violence, deciding it's not a big deal, we're actually fueling it. There are infinite ways that happens too... when a bunch of small things pile up, that power multiplies a hundredfold—and yeah, that applies to the negative stuff just as much.

Things like this should serve as a wake-up call for us to reflect on where we ourselves are committing or enabling violence, so we can start consciously stripping it away instead of just making assumptions about someone else's life that we know nothing about. I honestly don't think there's a more effective way to handle it.

Chloe Smith11 said:1. Writing epics isn't something exclusive to the North America.
2. Depicting a woman resisting assault as a heroine isn't necessarily meant to highlight the fact that she was murdered; rather, I guess the intention might be to encourage or empower women facing abuse in general—to show them they can fight back.
3. If we feel our firefighters shouldn't have been labeled heroes, then by that same logic, we shouldn't have honored those who perished on 9/11 either. Both groups died in the line of duty for the greater good—though perhaps our local crews were just trying to put out brush fires, we shouldn't forget they were also responding to house fires—and the sheer scale of those events only amplified the intensity of the commentary that followed.
4. Sometimes people who pass away tragically are called heroes because of their actions, though I suspect it's mostly just a way to offer some small measure of comfort to their loved ones. It's a shame that some people, who don't quite grasp the full context, continue to debate why certain individuals are deemed heroes while others aren't. In the end, the priest's attempt to provide solace to the father seemed perfectly appropriate, and I suppose that’s what matters most.

1. I'm not claiming that. But when it comes to this stuff, Americans are definitely the champions at it.
2. Generally speaking, you should fight for yourself, obviously. But if you ask any cop what a clerk should do during a robbery, they'll say "don't play the hero." But honestly, I think this case from Trilla can't really be analyzed with those "what if" scenarios. It's just a horrific crime. Period.
3. Those New York City firefighters knew they were in over their heads and that the towers could come down at any second. Our guys didn't know, because there wasn't supposed to be any danger. It's true they died serving the public good, but it's the same situation as a construction worker dying on a job site, for example.
I'm not downplaying the tragedy or any of that horror at all. I'm just wondering why we need these epic terms like "hero" or "martyr." I highly doubt it actually makes things easier for the families, but hey, it sure makes for more bombastic media headlines.🙄
4. Okay, if it helps the father, then fine. We're all different. I guess some other fathers might tell the reporters and the priest to go to hell. I hope the minister hit the right note this time. Either way, his statement taken out of context sounds... well, I won't say how...

casualowl1 said:Some people spend their entire lives trying and still fail. That’s on you.

If someone kidnapped you, forced you into sex work, and sold you as a slave—forcing you into drugs, abortions, or even those horrific hymen surgeries—would you really say you haven't lost your dignity and honor? Just because it was someone else pulling the strings?
Maybe you wouldn't "lose" it, but it would be violently stripped away from you. It's exactly what that guy was attempting to do to her.

His statement implies that you have to fight back.
Your take implies that it's better to just give in the moment someone looks at you wrong. At least you stay alive that way. That's a pathetic way to live.

Also, the statement strongly emphasizes that dignity and honor depend entirely on a person's own actions. And she chose to fight for herself. She fought for her dignity, her honor, her human rights, and ultimately, her life.

He's saying we should fight against assault.
You're implying we shouldn't resist because if we fail, we might lose our lives.

There is immense honor in dying while fighting for your ideals, for freedom, and for your basic human dignity. But what do you actually know about honor and respect? You seem to think they're just handed to you by God and don't need to be earned or fought for.

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the man who said this knew her personally and understood her values, whereas you don't have a clue.

But honestly, we have zero clue what she actually chose, how she acted, what was going through her head, or what those last three minutes of her life were actually like.

For all we know, maybe she was terrified and begging for her life at the end... just wanting to be left alone. We don't know. Even a priest doesn't know. Her parents don't know either.

The only person who truly knows is the pathological killer, whom obviously none of us are ever going to believe anyway...

My initial question was really just... what exactly makes her one of the "great women" of our era? I still don't have an answer, even though this thread turned into such a solid debate...👍

casualowl1 said:Some people spend their entire lives trying and still fail. That’s on you.

If someone kidnapped you, forced you into sex work, and sold you as a slave—forcing you into drugs, abortions, or even those horrific hymen surgeries—would you really say you haven't lost your dignity and honor? Just because it was someone else pulling the strings?
Maybe you wouldn't "lose" it, but it would be violently stripped away from you. It's exactly what that guy was attempting to do to her.

His statement implies that you have to fight back.
Your take implies that it's better to just give in the moment someone looks at you wrong. At least you stay alive that way. That's a pathetic way to live.

Also, the statement strongly emphasizes that dignity and honor depend entirely on a person's own actions. And she chose to fight for herself. She fought for her dignity, her honor, her human rights, and ultimately, her life.

He's saying we should fight against assault.
You're implying we shouldn't resist because if we fail, we might lose our lives.

There is immense honor in dying while fighting for your ideals, for freedom, and for your basic human dignity. But what do you actually know about honor and respect? You seem to think they're just handed to you by God and don't need to be earned or fought for.

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the man who said this knew her personally and understood her values, whereas you don't have a clue.

Were you actually there? I get the feeling she was just attacked and defending herself, rather than fighting for some grand human rights
cause. 🙄

He's implying you have to fight against sexual assault.
You're implying people shouldn't resist assault because they might fail and lose their lives in the process.

No, look, in most situations where someone tries to assault you, it isn't exactly a choice between two evils—like choosing between being raped or being murdered.

If it were like that, I’d totally support a woman's right to choose life. 🙂
But life isn't some weird video game where things work the way you're describing them.

Sure, you can argue that people should fight back against assault—you could point to that girl who tossed a predator out of her car last week—but saying that at someone's funeral... I just don't get it.

It is incredibly honorable to die fighting for ideals, for freedom, and for one's own human dignity.

I believe that. 🙂 But we aren't talking about dying for an ideal here; we're talking about a brutal murder.

What do you even know about honor and respect?

Nothing. 😉

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the person who said this knew her personally and understood her ideals, whereas you haven't got a clue.

Does a priest know his parishioners' ideals? Fine, if you say so. 🙂

Chloe Smith11
I think the statement was clumsy, but its main purpose was to encourage the family and send a message to other women not to back down.

And what kind of message does that send to rape survivors? How exactly do you think a woman should feel—stripped of her "honor," her dignity, and her unfulfilled dreams—while we glorify this manufactured myth about a girl sacrificing her entire life at the altar of virginity, choosing death over losing her hymen?

2. Showing a woman fighting back against a rapist isn't meant to be heroic because she was murdered; it's meant to empower or support women in abusive situations to fight for themselves.

So, her role model should be a dead 21-year-old? I (maybe? obviously 😁) don't have any honor or dignity left, but if someone pointed a gun at my head, I’d still be singing some nursery rhyme. Personally, I think recovering from assault is easier than recovering from your own murder.😬

The priest's attempt to offer comfort clearly worked for the father, and that's what matters most.

If some survivor who didn't "defend her honor" jumped off a church steeple, would that still be okay? This guy said this in a public forum, not in a private conversation.

Jose Miller3 said:My initial question was: what puts her in the ranks of the great women of our era?

In these tough times, when traditional values are being pushed aside by reckless consumers of all kinds of pleasures—including physical ones—she gave her life rather than lose her hymen? The priest is an idiot.🤷

As for dignity, here's the definition:
the state of being worthy of honour or respect

Do rape survivors stop being worthy of respect?😕

The guy is an absolute idiot, plain and simple. What kind of "honor" is he even talking about? If she had been "unvirtuous," would he have just let some creep assault her because he "doesn't give a damn about honor"? I honestly thought maybe someone misquoted him or he was just exaggerating, but this is completely nonsensical.

This isn't about logic or common sense. The poor girl... it's devastating, especially since that animal beat her so badly she died in agony. But honor? What kind of defense of honor is this? He wanted to rape her. 🙄

🤮

😢

unknown,
Your message to women is fundamentally flawed and serves only to embolden attackers and rapists.
According to your logic, an attacked woman should simply submit and allow herself to be violated by anyone using force,
just because
she might otherwise face a bullet or a blow that could kill her?

How can anyone—including yourself—possibly argue that she was merely defending her hymen?

In the heat of an attack, a person reacts unknown, just as they react when fighting for their life. One does not selectively choose to protect an ear, an eye, or a kidney over a hymen.

We cannot predict how we would react in such a situation, nor can we teach anyone else to do so, because instinct operates independently of reason.

Instinctive actions stem from the amygdala, the brain's "shortcut" center,
rather than through the conscious, deliberative pathways we use when we aren't in immediate danger.

Even if an attacked individual managed to compose themselves and choose submission over resistance,
who is to guarantee they would be left alive?
An attacker knows that afterward comes trial, social condemnation, prison, or perhaps a bullet—a swift and entirely just 😉 act of retribution from the victim, her brothers, or her father.

No one here is suggesting that survivors do not deserve respect; rather, we are stating that being violated destroys one's self-respect.
That is a massive distinction.
The victim loses her sense of self-worth. She is blamed. Despised. Judged mentally;
told things like she should have fought harder, run sooner, been more cautious, trained in martial arts, built more muscle, stayed indoors, or avoided being out at noon.

She is left feeling pathetic and weak.

Brandon Castillo4 said:The guy is an absolute idiot, plain and simple. What kind of "honor" is he even talking about? If she had been "unvirtuous," would he have just let some creep assault her because he "doesn't give a damn about honor"? I honestly thought maybe someone misquoted him or he was just exaggerating, but this is completely nonsensical.

This isn't about logic or common sense. The poor girl... it's devastating, especially since that animal beat her so badly she died in agony. But honor? What kind of defense of honor is this? He wanted to rape her. 🙄

🤮

😢

It's a matter of terminology. 🤔
Honor equals self-respect.

@ Alex
It seems we just have fundamentally different philosophies when it comes to life and death, though I suppose there’s a distinction between contemplating these things in a quiet room and being thrust into a crisis where you don't exactly have much time for deep reflection. In this specific instance, there wasn't any mention of a weapon being involved, and I find the priest's claim that she "chose death" to be somewhat nonsensical. In my view, she chose to take a risk and fight back, because there's certainly no guarantee that a man would show mercy just because she surrendered to his advances. I'll admit, perhaps the priest could have phrased things a bit more thoughtfully, but if her intention was simply to offer some small measure of comfort to those who cared for her, then I guess it's acceptable enough.

restlessridge36 said:unknown,
Your message to women is fundamentally flawed and serves only to embolden attackers and rapists.
According to your logic, an attacked woman should simply submit and allow herself to be violated by anyone using force,
just because
she might otherwise face a bullet or a blow that could kill her?

How can anyone—including yourself—possibly argue that she was merely defending her hymen?

In the heat of an attack, a person reacts unknown, just as they react when fighting for their life. One does not selectively choose to protect an ear, an eye, or a kidney over a hymen.

We cannot predict how we would react in such a situation, nor can we teach anyone else to do so, because instinct operates independently of reason.

Instinctive actions stem from the amygdala, the brain's "shortcut" center,
rather than through the conscious, deliberative pathways we use when we aren't in immediate danger.

Even if an attacked individual managed to compose themselves and choose submission over resistance,
who is to guarantee they would be left alive?
An attacker knows that afterward comes trial, social condemnation, prison, or perhaps a bullet—a swift and entirely just 😉 act of retribution from the victim, her brothers, or her father.

No one here is suggesting that survivors do not deserve respect; rather, we are stating that being violated destroys one's self-respect.
That is a massive distinction.
The victim loses her sense of self-worth. She is blamed. Despised. Judged mentally;
told things like she should have fought harder, run sooner, been more cautious, trained in martial arts, built more muscle, stayed indoors, or avoided being out at noon.

She is left feeling pathetic and weak.

Look, I honestly didn't get any of that from what Alex wrote.
This whole thread drifted into trying to analyze something we have zero clue about—how some poor girl would actually react when facing a killer in her final moments. Now we've got people here trying to build theories on how someone *should* behave in a crisis, which is just... pointless, really...
On top of that, the more I sit here thinking about that priest's "take," the more it makes my blood boil. He's acting all high and mighty, coming at this from some "morally enlightened" angle, trying to frame this girl's horrific death as something almost noble... like she was sacrificing herself for some ideal or moral code (his version, obviously). Because apparently... being raped is somehow worse? By saying stuff like that, this total fraud is basically throwing shade on every survivor who actually made it out alive...

It’s not about self-respect. You can't just twist definitions to suit your own agenda. Honor is closer to pride—it's about status or social standing. It isn't self-respect.

But whatever. Tell me, since you're acting like a devout churchgoer who respects the institution, what business does he have using those kinds of words at that girl's funeral? I get the whole "rest in peace" principle, but why on earth dive into something as incredibly deep and messy as some defense of "honor"?

Of course she fought back; what else was she supposed to do against a crazed maniac? Honestly, it would have been better if the idiot had just assaulted her instead of killing her, because then she’d actually be alive. Even if she were traumatized, she’d at least have the chance to LIVE. That doesn't mean she "betrayed her ideals." She didn't have a choice. She wasn't standing at a crossroads deciding between "let him rape me and hope I survive" versus "fight back even if it costs my life." A psychopath simply lost control and killed her.

Can't the priest just lead her burial with dignity through prayer? Can't he let the family and friends say a few words about the kind of person she was and just let us move on without dissecting his personal definition of honor? I want to believe he didn't mean anything malicious, but he overstepped, because in THAT MOMENT, none of that mattered. If he wanted to lecture people, he could have talked about the IRS and Big Dick, or congratulated the new administration, or even tossed out a comment about how "condoms kill."

Having certain views—whether they are his or the Church's—doesn't give anyone the right to weaponize them at her FUNERAL.

Let's just be decent human beings and see this poor, suffering young soul off to her eternal rest with some peace and dignity.

Edward Green said:It feels like all this talk about a survivor's "honor" boils down to one thing: if a woman doesn't have the right to sex, she's a slut. If she's forced, she isn't quite a slut anymore, but people still won't view her as an honorable woman.

Disgusting, slimy, backwards mindset. 🤮

I feel sick for these women. On top of the assault itself, they have to deal with a society that judges them—a society that honestly thinks they'd be better off dead than having "lost their dignity."

Big Dick's quote, which you posted, perfectly sketches out society's double standards, and the pastor's statement is, in my view, a perfect mirror of those very same standards. While I suspect his remarks perhaps played a role in the moment—offering what the girl's loved ones perhaps wanted to hear and what might have perhaps comforted them—I believe his words were incomplete, socially dangerous, and irresponsible. Therefore, I only partially agree with the following:

casualowl1 said:Some people spend their entire lives trying and still fail. That’s on you.

If someone kidnapped you, forced you into sex work, and sold you as a slave—forcing you into drugs, abortions, or even those horrific hymen surgeries—would you really say you haven't lost your dignity and honor? Just because it was someone else pulling the strings?
Maybe you wouldn't "lose" it, but it would be violently stripped away from you. It's exactly what that guy was attempting to do to her.

His statement implies that you have to fight back.
Your take implies that it's better to just give in the moment someone looks at you wrong. At least you stay alive that way. That's a pathetic way to live.

Also, the statement strongly emphasizes that dignity and honor depend entirely on a person's own actions. And she chose to fight for herself. She fought for her dignity, her honor, her human rights, and ultimately, her life.

He's saying we should fight against assault.
You're implying we shouldn't resist because if we fail, we might lose our lives.

There is immense honor in dying while fighting for your ideals, for freedom, and for your basic human dignity. But what do you actually know about honor and respect? You seem to think they're just handed to you by God and don't need to be earned or fought for.

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the man who said this knew her personally and understood her values, whereas you don't have a clue.

It implies it, but instead of—or alongside—that pathetic rhetoric, the statement should have more strongly implied that the girl lost the battle. She lost because of the twisted, reckless actions of another person, and since she has already lost it, the responsibility for any further struggle should fall upon our societal institutions. It would have been enough for him to say that such an injustice must be sanctioned and that the case warrants serious reflection. Instead, by making that statement, he simply placed the incident within that exact framework Big Dick described, which Alex quoted, merely reproducing it without any meaningful intervention. The girl experienced an attempted rape; therefore, the pastor concludes that it was right for her to fight to the death (likely) to defend against that loss of honor, and now life goes on (for everyone else). Rather than stating that her fundamental human rights—her right to life itself and the ability to live it freely—were brutally stripped away from her.

The case was framed through sacrifice, perhaps even falsifying the motivation that drove her until the final moment, rather than emphasizing the tragedy of the pathology that led to her becoming a victim in the first place. I am not suggesting he should have crammed all of that into a funeral sermon, but I do think the emphasis should have been on those elements, rather than on this false, distorted image of a noble struggle for survival by some socially maladjusted kid from the neighborhood.

The statement implies there's a need to fight back.
Your stance suggests it’s better just to roll over the second someone looks at you sideways. At least you’ll stay alive that way. That is a pathetic choice.

It wasn't a choice. She was trapped by a psychopath—someone she thought was just some decent guy she met once. Who actually knows what went down? Maybe in a different scenario, he would've backed off after she pushed his hand away the first time.

I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing this was a pure explosion of panic. A fight for survival, for personal space, for basic human rights. Just raw, massive fear.

There was NO CHOICE.

Some people will probably claim she had a ballot in her hand where she could have voted for a different outcome, but instead, being "brave," she chose death. That is such an exaggerated, ridiculous take, and it isn't a CHOICE. Who knows what his actual intention was? We don't know what really happened. He’s clearly lying, claiming he didn't intend to assault her and that he just pushed her, causing her to fall, etc.—which does absolutely nothing to explain the bruises all over him or those injuries on his hands.

The bottom line is that the priest shouldn't have been getting dragged into these kinds of debates during her funeral.

restlessridge36 said:unknown,
Your message to women is fundamentally flawed and serves only to embolden attackers and rapists.
According to your logic, an attacked woman should simply submit and allow herself to be violated by anyone using force,
just because
she might otherwise face a bullet or a blow that could kill her?

How can anyone—including yourself—possibly argue that she was merely defending her hymen?

In the heat of an attack, a person reacts unknown, just as they react when fighting for their life. One does not selectively choose to protect an ear, an eye, or a kidney over a hymen.

We cannot predict how we would react in such a situation, nor can we teach anyone else to do so, because instinct operates independently of reason.

Instinctive actions stem from the amygdala, the brain's "shortcut" center,
rather than through the conscious, deliberative pathways we use when we aren't in immediate danger.

Even if an attacked individual managed to compose themselves and choose submission over resistance,
who is to guarantee they would be left alive?
An attacker knows that afterward comes trial, social condemnation, prison, or perhaps a bullet—a swift and entirely just 😉 act of retribution from the victim, her brothers, or her father.

No one here is suggesting that survivors do not deserve respect; rather, we are stating that being violated destroys one's self-respect.
That is a massive distinction.
The victim loses her sense of self-worth. She is blamed. Despised. Judged mentally;
told things like she should have fought harder, run sooner, been more cautious, trained in martial arts, built more muscle, stayed indoors, or avoided being out at noon.

She is left feeling pathetic and weak.

Look, when someone tries to rape a woman, she usually isn't even given the choice between being assaulted or being murdered. Unless there's a knife to her throat, we aren't playing some twisted video game where this "choice" the local preacher keeps rambling about actually exists.

And even if it did exist (which it doesn't, so talking about whether she "should" fight back is pointless), why are we at a funeral for a girl who wasn't even raped, but was brutally murdered, instead of a) even talking about the actual issue, or b) promoting this myth that choosing death over rape is heroic? Wouldn't it be better to talk about fighting back, like that girl last week who stopped an attempted assault and managed to escape the guy's car? (They knew each other, too).

In the heat of an attack, people react instinctively. It's the same way they react when they are FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES. They aren't picking and choosing between an ear, an eye, or a kidney—so why would they care about their hymen?

Exactly (read my second sentence in this post). And I highly doubt she was sitting there pondering her unfulfilled dreams, her "purity," or her dignity, like that preacher implies in his statement. Not to mention, according to him, she was defending her dignity and honor rather than her life. Like she decided that was worth more. Personally, I think that's nonsense... but hey, the preacher knew the victim and claims to know what her ideals were. Claims she was ready to die for them. Bullshit.

If an attacked person actually managed to pull themselves together and chose "surrender" over resistance,
who's to guarantee they'd be left alive!?

I literally wrote that in my last post. 🙂 Sorry if you struggle with basic reading comprehension. 🙂

johhny_park said:Again, I'm saying the priest could have phrased it better, but if he was just trying to comfort people, then fine.

The priest said something stupid, plain and simple, so from that angle, it's not okay. If the outcome is positive (the family feels comforted), maybe you can argue it's fine. But if some girl reads this in the news or hears it at the funeral and decides to kill herself, is that still okay? Turning a brutal murder into a myth about how heroic it is to choose death over losing "honor, dignity, and dreams"—which is just code for rape—is DANGEROUS.

casualowl1 said:Wait, so what, they "aren't"? Does that mean it's totally fine? Like, just lie down and enjoy the ride while it lasts?

The governor's statement is spot on for a million different reasons. I honestly don't get how anyone can even question this, especially since you women 👎

A few people have already said exactly what I’m thinking, so there's no point in me repeating myself.
You clearly don't grasp that rape is a criminal offense—which is what you seem to think😕
dignity and honor are things nobody can take away from you. They are inherent to being human, so they can't be "stripped" away. Secondly, while a perpetrator might try to use assault to strip someone of their dignity, you don't actually lose your dignity or honor by being a victim. Get it?
In the real world, there is no choice between "life or dignity." First off, because dignity can't be taken from you even when it's under attack, and second, for the exact reasons Logan Paul and a few others pointed out in that previous post.
The priest's comment is exactly what that guy rightly called it: symptomatic of an environment prone to myth-making. Plus, it's dangerous given the context of what Logan Paul mentioned... I mean, does being a victim of sexual assault mean a person no longer has dignity?

blueheron62 said:A few people have already said exactly what I’m thinking, so there's no point in me repeating myself.
You clearly don't grasp that rape is a criminal offense—which is what you seem to think😕
dignity and honor are things nobody can take away from you. They are inherent to being human, so they can't be "stripped" away. Secondly, while a perpetrator might try to use assault to strip someone of their dignity, you don't actually lose your dignity or honor by being a victim. Get it?
In the real world, there is no choice between "life or dignity." First off, because dignity can't be taken from you even when it's under attack, and second, for the exact reasons Logan Paul and a few others pointed out in that previous post.
The priest's comment is exactly what that guy rightly called it: symptomatic of an environment prone to myth-making. Plus, it's dangerous given the context of what Logan Paul mentioned... I mean, does being a victim of sexual assault mean a person no longer has dignity?

That might have been true in a different historical era. In the past, a woman who lost her virginity before marriage was often labeled "dishonored." Losing one's innocence was synonymous with losing one's honor. Such an act would essentially "shame" her, ruining her chances of marriage, and at best, she might be sent to a convent. From those ancient perspectives, rape was tantamount to death; in fact, death was often seen as a better option than being assaulted. It is quite easy to imagine women begging their attackers to kill them instead, or even preferring death over the trauma. Death would "preserve her honor," whereas assault left her with nothing but a "life of shame."
Today, making such a statement feels absurd because we live in a completely different age. Sex is no longer a taboo tied to "female honor." Of course, we are still far from being entirely free from those outdated mindsets, which is why victims of assault may still feel "shamed," as if the attacker "took" something from them—even though it is simply a matter of violence, whether that takes the form of sexual assault or physical battery. They are fundamentally the same thing.
Furthermore, debating whether a victim fought back or surrendered is a modern mistake. Most women would certainly attempt to defend themselves, and if they realized resistance was futile, they might submit simply to save their lives. There is no basis for moralizing about that choice.
As for the priest, I don't believe he intended anything malicious. He likely meant to offer some comfort to the parents of the deceased girl to ease their grief. While his wording was clumsy and open to interpretation, I doubt there was any deeper, darker message behind his statement.