Christene Blasey Ford And Brett Kavanaugh

I watched her testimony live. I didn't watch his. I recommended a couple of friends to watch it. Both went to sleep, without watching.

I was curious about this molestation as I am about any act of molestation or rape, there usually being no witness to the act. Especially the question of consent is rather troublesome unless the event was recorded. 

In India, women often accuse a man of rape when he backs out of marrying her. (Latest: https://m.timesofindia.com/city/hyderabad/telangana-iim-a-graduate-arrested-in-rape-and-cheating-case/amp_articleshow/65999106.cms)
When I mentioned this to a friend yesterday, she replied that the woman's consent was contingent on marriage. And hence, she added, where there was no marriage, there was no consent either. And hence that the woman has a right to accuse the man of rape

I didn't agree. The sex happened with consent. The man didn't keep his commitment later. Hence he could or should be charged on a civil offense of welshing and not on a criminal offense of rape. If I were to have sex with a call girl and then didn't pay her, am I to be charged with rape? Is it not a question of cheating her instead of raping her? My friend demurred. She said that in this case it was a commercial transaction. Huh. If I take a loan from you and don't return it - is it any different from taking a loan from a bank and not returning it? Just because the latter is a commercial transaction? I think not. 

I told my friend that a decision to complain of rape seems often related to the woman's emotional reaction to the event rather than to a strict question of consent. Meaning that if the victim feels good she wouldn't accuse the man of rape.
My friend said that the complaint could stem from how the victim related to the accused immediately prior to the event. Deep waters.

Now you understand why I am curious about rape and molestation, especially in cases where there are only two parties (as against a gang rape) and they are known to each other and where the two are of similar age. In such cases, things become very nebulous.

Now, coming to the Senate testimony, no verified facts were presented. And it is difficult to know what exactly happened 35 years back. The whole thing is about making an opinion based on the emotions displayed by either party. Quite dangerous, I would say. In a non-physical conflict between two people, the one that's a lesser (or less sophisticated) feeler is toast. Feeler=emotional person.

See this from 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/. Emotions can be timed. Ford could have done it.

How much of Ms Ford's demeanor during the senate hearing was staged? She had the little girl's voice and a lump in her throat throughout.

She didn't know the meaning of the word exculpatory? I can't believe it.

I kept thinking about it and then Googled.

A ha. Here it is

• https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/christine-blasey-fords-body-language. 

Of course I didn't observe as muchas the author nor do I have much understanding of body language. But something about Ms Ford's testimony seemed off, it seemed too stage managed. I wonder whether her team didn't have a conversation with her after the testimony which went something like this "you should have stooped your shoulders more when you said this", "not held you head high when he asked you that", "you should have broken down when you said that". And a similar conversation prior to the testimony. I know of the idea of practicing to get the facts right. But Ms Ford, I think, practised to also get the emotions right.

• And here: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/09/27/remember-this-everything-ford-says-remains-uncorroborated/amp/

• And here http://lucianne.com/thread.aspx/?artnum=953422

On Brett Kavanaugh's body language:

https://www.instyle.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-body-language-decoded

There already are 3 women who have accused Judge Kavanaugh of molestation. In a lighter vein, if there are few more would there be a class action suit against him?

Will we ever know what really happened? Will FBI find anything relevant? On Oct 6th, 2018 and beyond how will things look?

An interesting quote from Therapeutic Narratives Needn’t Be Factual https://www.wsj.com/articles/therapeutic-narratives-neednt-be-factual-1538607530: "Consider that according to Ms. Ford, she first told the story during therapy. The therapist’s role is different from that of a detective, journalist or lawyer. When a patient tells me a story, I don’t test it to see if it’s objectively accurate. I may help patients see things from a different perspective, but I never doubt the reality of what they are saying—or, as Sen. Cory Booker put it, of “her truth.” The therapist’s job is to empathize with and believe those in pain." 
Read also this:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/customer-is-always-right.html

Additional Reading

1. A brief summary of both people's testimony before the senate: https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/kavanaugh-ford-testimonies
2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-senate-questions
3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-28/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-testimony-represents-her-generation/10315614
4. http://lucianne.com/thread.aspx/?artnum=953422
5. https://pointofview.net/articles/mistaken-identity/
6. The Senate’s Job Isn’t to Kill a Mockingbird https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-senates-job-isnt-to-kill-a-mockingbird-1538607608 Killed by a MockingFord
7. https://www.wsj.com/articles/tomorrows-elite-lawyers-disavow-due-process-1538695941: Quote: "The #BelieveSurvivors mantra is a cornerstone of the campus grievance industry but inimical to everything that a law school should teach. It’s a religious gesture, not a legal one: Such belief is independent of proof, arising out of a pre-existing commitment to a narrative of ubiquitous female abuse by patriarchal white males. The “survivor” label presupposes the conclusion that evidence should establish: that the accused is guilty of an offense. The fact-finder, if there even is one, regards contradictions or holes in a woman’s story as evidence of “trauma” and thus as further corroboration. According to #BelieveSurvivors logic, the Innocence Project, which exists to vacate wrongful convictions and has a presence at law schools across the country, should be disbanded.    Examples abound of student rape allegations arising out of voluntary drunken hookups, following which the self-described victim sought further sexual contact with her alleged rapist. Even if such cases weren’t so common, to presume the guilt of the accused based on an accusation alone would still be an affront to due process. From Tomorrow’s Elite Lawyers Disavow Due Process." 
8. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/04/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-credible-psychology-research-column/1510524002/ and https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/04/false-accusations-kavanaugh-ford-innocent-column/1488329002/
9. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/stockholm-syndrome.html - true life story of a gang rape.
10. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/10/metoo-got-molested.html
11. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/05/trump-justices-abortion-roe-v-wade-gorsuch-kavanaugh-coney-barrett?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
    
12. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/: On Brett and Trump
    
13. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/the-impunity-of-brett-kavanaughs-binge-drinking/571435/
    

La Multi Ani

Simple Maths Puzzle

Not as simple as it seems.

There are multiple solutions, no unique solution.

When Do We Stop Being A Chocolate

I had earlier defined how we can be loved - as a child or as a chocolate: http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/02/understanding-love.html

Briefly, being loved as a child refers to how a mother loves her child and protects it. Being loved as a chocolate refers to how a woman loves chocolate and consumes it.

Is it ok if we are seen as a chocolate more than 80% of the time by people around us? 

What if we are seen as a chocolate by an adult 80% of the time?

Is this ok? 

I guess it's ok because we feel wanted and keeps our energy channeled to being a chocolate. We also desire being a chocolate. So this is a win-win for both parties. But what happens when we don't want to be a chocolate any more?

More importantly, what event triggers our desire to stop being a chocolate?

Either it's because we realize we are entitled to being a child too and being treated as one and hence want to be one. Or our ego is somehow deeply hurt by a person for whom we were a chocolate. And we hence decide we won't be a chocolate any more for that person. Maybe for others too.

It creates a huge change in our lives and in the life of the person to whom we have decided to stop being a chocolate. In the other person, there is a shock - he doesn't get Chocolate any more and wonders what happened to us. And and waits for us to start behaving normally again.

Only we understand that we wasted ourselves. And a sweet part of us is gone forever. Castrated or amputated as it were.

Who created the problem? That we gave chocolate freely? Or that someone helped himself to chocolate freely?

Note: For clarity, I have mentioned the chocolate donor as the first person and the recipient as a male. It could very well be that the recipient was a female and the recipient was the first person or any other combination. Both parties need not be of the same gender and they need not be having any romantic relationship.

What Is Kindness?

See kindness can mean A. sweet, empathetic, helpful (extending someone else's resources, not putting themselves through pain) including SASC routine.

Or B. generous, helpful (extending personal resources)

Most people deeply appreciate the A. variety. While people accept B variety, they wont value people who can't offer A variety

Customer Is Always Right

Argument against:

The customer is always right - this is a vacuous empty headed statement that is used to indicate that feedback is always right. I do not believe it. Quite often, the feedback takes into account what the customer (someone else) thinks which may reflect only their emotions or beliefs and may not adhere to being right or correct.

Why do people still say it? This is one way to indicate to an employee or a subordinate that he made a mistake in not understanding someone else's point of view. 

What if we do understand it? And accept it? Would we do what the "customer" says? Would it be in line with what we think and know to be right? And if it isn't? Are we to let go of our beliefs and dump them in favor of the customer's?

Why do people still say it? This is one way to indicate to an employee or a subordinate that he made a mistake in not understanding someone else's point of view. 

Crap.

For:

In our life, we are surrounded by people.. Each of whom is our customer. They may not buy products or services from us. But they are customers in the sense that our survival depends on what they think about us. 

If a whole lot of people think that we are a bad (use any negative word) person then our survival is vitiated by so much..

It's the tendency to take what the customer (people around us) as important - no matter what we believe to be true.. That's the essence of a good relationship. That's what feelers are capable of doing unlike thinkers. 

For thinkers, if for a second we can stop our rule engine, and focus on what the customer is saying without judging them based on our rules cast in stone, how different life would be (for thinkers). 

Imagine if we accepted what our customer said, have our inbuilt rule engine (that screams that the customer is wrong because he lied or was late or careless or irresponsible ... Whatever) imagine what we would become...


When someone says "you did this", they are right from their point of view.. they don't intend to lie. You may not have done whatever they are accusing you of. But the person genuinely feels that you did it.. Do we focus on the truth? Or on his pain? Depends whether you are F or T.

When you do not try to compare what was said with your rule engine (did the person violate some rule) or when you do not compare with facts then you are being non-judgmental = being empathetic.

So I wanted to think. If I could think that the customer is right... Understand what he needs.. accept him... How would I be? A complete moron who accepts anything at face value?


Or is it possible to accept and still not screw up?

Additional Reading:
Which of Ford or Brett is right? Did Brett Kavanaugh molest Christine Blasey Ford or didn't he?
://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/christene-blasey-ford-and-brett.html

The Queen Is King

Most of us, both thinkers and feelers, think we are in control of our emotions. That we process what we hear and see and that we process the sensory information and inward communication through our S2, rather than though S1. (For an  understanding of S1 and S2 read http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/10/thinking-fast-and-slow-daniel-kahnemann.html)
Inward communication refers to what we receive unlike outward communication which is what we transmit.

If such was the case how do we get irritated with others. Or angry or pleased?

If S2 was handling and managing all communications with external parties strictly with no input from S1, how can we get irritated or angry or happy? 

When a computer plays chess and wins, does it feel thrilled? When it loses does it feel sad? 

How do our feelings come out if we were processing things only with S2?

Is it not the truth that even if S2 was front ending everything, the show is managed really by S1? Whenever we talk to people, our S1 is actively involved in the background creating the emotions which S2, if it is up and running at all, tries to keep under control. 

Our non-verbal responses to communication with us is handled by our S1. Our verbal responses are to some extent tempered by S2.

S2 serves to guard our S1 from f***ing up. No matter how strong you think your S2 is, after taking some amount of pummelling it gives up, it gives in to S1. As Daniel Kaufman says, S2 is effortful and lazy. 

Do we agree that people can make us, even Thinkers, feel thrilled or wild with fury if they addressed our S1 appropriately, through flattery, insult etc. 

When it comes to outward communication, Thinkers are, unfortunately, wired to appeal to others using their rationality - a rationality that is usually wasted on feelers. Thinkers try to best present what they have to say logically not appreciating the fact that the audience may have little interest in using their S2 to process the inputs from the thinker.

Feelers, on the other hand, use their S2 to identify how best to communicate with the audience and reach the audience's S1. They know where the seat of power lies in the audience. 

The intelligent feelers know whether to focus on the audience"s S1 or S2 and package the message accordingly. The intelligent thinker logically explains his communication which is often lost on his audience.

Essentially, if you are not aware of and not addressing someone's S1, you are wasting your time. This is what EQ, Emotional Quotient, is all about. Emotional intelligence beats IQ hands down for effective communication.

Who is now set up for success in communication? Thinker or feeler?

Tailpiece:
Successful communicaton is essential to survival. The struggle to survive replaces Innocence with maturity (maturity= EQ).

Extreme consequences can restrain the exercise of your preferences.

Stockholm Syndrome

I have always been interested, morbidly so, in rapes, extra marital affairs, sex, criminal behavior etc. 

Recently a friend Y from Europe told me about an incident from her life. She had been raped couple of years back while on a trip to Africa with her boyfriend M. Apparently there were 5 men A, B, C, D, E. It was a gangrape. And that she had enjoyed it.

As I showed interest, she went on to tell me all. For hours, over few days we spoke only on this topic. Neither of us was getting bored in the process.

What happened was something like this:

She and her boyfriend visited a certain country in Africa. They visited many places, had a good time. Finally they landed at the city where the events unfolded. They had booked separate hotel rooms for the two of them since they weren't married and since local custom demanded that unmarried couples not stay in the same room.

The incident happened over two days. The first day she and her boyfriend were at a bar along with many other people, local and foreign. My friend is a very attractive woman and she was wearing a dress that would raise hundreds of eyebrows. Her boyfriend had earlier cautioned her against such dress. But my friend wouldn't listen. This caused a good amount of rift between the two of them. 

Later in the night most patrons had left the bar. Only my friend, her boyfriend and two locals A, B remained. The locals made disparaging remarks about my friend Y. Soon they were hurling insults at each other. A and B also tried to physically assault Y. Her boyfriend M stepped in. And then Y and M retired to their respective rooms. My friend was irritated with M. She ended up being frustrated. When I asked her about it, she told me that she was ovulating at that time and wanted to look feminine and had insisted on wearing a particular dress much against the wishes of M.

The next day, the arguments between Y and M continued. My friend refused to relent. She wore a daring dress. She insisted that there was nothing wrong in her wanting to look feminine.

Later at night when Y was alone sleeping in her room she woke up with a start. And found 5 men A, B, C, D, E in her room. A and B were the same two men from the previous night in the bar, now joined by three more.

She was lying on her back. A was holding her legs. B was holding her wrists. The others C, D, E were around her. The 5 men were old, ugly and mean. My friend told me that the men proceeded with the activities with a calm, patience and seriousness that was eerie. They were like experienced surgeons in the Operating Theater.

It was as though they had practiced rape often. The first man A insisted that my friend look at his face constantly. She physically resisted them with all her strength while being raped by A. But they were 5 of them. She pleaded with them. It was about 20 minutes since the men had begun assaulting her. 
But the men had come to hunt. It was likely premeditated. They weren't going to go away without getting what they wanted. 

Reaching the end of her strength, she yelled at them using profane expressions. She closed her eyes and turned her head to the side.
The first man A then slapped her. He pulled her chin up and made her look at him. He wanted her to make continuous eye connect with him.

At this point my friend's resolve weakened completely. Her expression changed. A and B interpreted her expression correctly.  They released her hands. Y lifted her hands up and smiled at the men. 

She had decided at this time to surrender unconditionally to them. She simultaneously felt emotionally close to these men, as though they were her husbands instead of her rapists.

Then, she continued with her story, she had sex with them with gay abandon and that it was the best sex of her life.

When we discussed further, she told me that she felt closer to the 5 men maybe because they had insulted her boyfriend, maybe because they admired her sexy dress - which (dress) had been the cause of serious rift between her and her boyfriend. Maybe hence the 5 men had become her allies instead of being hated by her.

After the men left what she felt was deep satisfaction, pride, fear, guilt, joy, sadness.

After the event she never called the police, didn't inform her embassy, didn't tell M, nor her parents. To this day only a handful of people know about this. She said she didn't call the police because she wanted to avoid the hassles of a lengthy and perhaps inefficient legal process one could expect in a third world country. But I guessed she didn't find it right to lodge a complaint when she consented to it halfway through.

She feels awful about what happened. And yet even today she would want to have her baby fathered by A but brought up by M. See the conflict?

My friend is an open person and she didn't obfuscate any part of the story. She asked me only one question; Why did she give in to the men and get ready to join them instead of fighting with them till the end or even passing out. This was nagging her. And me too.

I made a list of pertinent things:

1. Sleeping in different rooms
2. Argument with boyfriend about dress. Ovulation makes a woman daring in her behavior. The fact that A and B had been deeply attracted to her the previous night prior to the fight made an impact on her.
3. Points above made Y weak, vulnerable, unable to resist or fight for long
4. Usually women come online for virtual sex or  to flirt after a serious argument with their partner.
5. Staring at A's eyes and being needed by them intently added to it.
6. Their calm and patience made her comfortable. They were alpha males and she was attracted to them. That A and B, from the previous night, were among the five men enhanced her experience. I guess the men  bet among themselves that the victim would consent before each gangrape incident was completed.
7. That she hated being assaulted by the 5 men became irrelevant. 
8. Y wanted to be satisfied and to satisfy them. Hence she gave up her fight.

Points 1-4 above had weakened her S2. Her S1 took over causing her to surrender. Points 5-8 facilitated her to enjoy the night that had earlier begun as a nightmare. The 5 men, especially A and B were experts who turned a helpless victim into a willing participant.
Once she gave in, the enjoyment followed. The turning point was her decision to surrender.

My question to my friend was: The decision to surrender was made by S1. How can she take responsibility for it and feel guilt? 

She is still not fully convinced. But it has brought her closer to understanding the things that were crucial and things that were irrelevant.

I can't but help wonder how it would have been if I were in her place. Makes me also wonder about those 5 men. What kind of a game were they playing? It is quite likely that the hotel staff and the local police were in cahoots with the 5 men, if not they were part of the 5 man team.

The question that arises is: is it so easy to make a rape victim participate eagerly in the act? Do the bullet points mentioned above suggest a recipe for it? Troubling.


Additional Reading:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome - The bullet points in this article seem very relevant.
2. How to Sell Your Rape Story
3. From the novel Media Justice by Dennis Carstens: "The last time she met Doyle like this, having not eaten anything since breakfast, after four glasses of wine, Doyle was starting to look pretty good to her. Fortunately, her rational brain was still working and she managed to get out of there and home unsullied."
4. https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
5. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-teenager-held-for-false-claim-that-12-israelis-raped-her-in-cyprus-6dq3x07s7
6. The 22-Year-Old Force Behind Egypt’s Growing #MeToo Movement
   

Cornell University incident - "“I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night,” Mr. Newell wrote. He then said that both he and Matthew Ingalls, another of the men she would later accuse of assault, both felt terrible for being too under the influence of drugs and alcohol to “shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand.”

Jane Doe replied and reassured him.

“At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt,” she wrote."

"At Chi Phi, the fraternity was preparing for a Halloween party, and Jane Doe was eager to attend. Text messages included in the investigation show Mr. Ingalls assuring Jane Doe that he and other fraternity members wanted her to be there.

“chi phi is your house and you are welcome here,” he wrote, relaying the views of the fraternity’s president, who was not among those accused of sexual assault.

“thank u i really appreciate that,” Jane Doe responded. “<3 i’ll bring my cigs tomorrow”

But then Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternity’s president, according to the text messages.

She was disinvited from the party. It was for her own good, he said.

Jane Doe sent a biting text to Mr. Ingalls.

“I knew this was going to happen,” she wrote. “The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren’t my friends. Yall are covering your asses.”

By Nov. 3, Jane Doe appears to have concluded that she was assaulted at the October party." Does this lead one to believe that she was concluding based on how she felt over the recent days than on what happened on that day?

More on Cornell incident, this, this, Original testimony about the events of the night