Thanks, now that you point it out, I can see how that part can overshadow the whole comment and be read in a way I didn't intend to. I'll aim to do better in fu

Thanks, now that you point it out, I can see how that part can overshadow the whole comment and be read in a way I didn't intend to. I'll aim to do better in future comments. I admit that I'm less prepared to comment in a minefield topic like this than I had thought, as my comment has been easily, and rightfully so, misinterpreted. I'm sorry about that and grateful you do not assume too much. Knowing the etymology of 'victim', it would never cross my mind to do so. I agree with your explanation how rape and subsequent shaming and general mistreatment is being facilitated, and I think the root cause is our conflicted and unhealthy approach to sexuality. I don't think it would reach the same effect if sexuality was a mundane topic, so that abuse can be treated as a crime rather than, as you say, presented as disobedience by those in positions of power and widespread misogyny in general. If it wasn't a taboo topic, victims would probably be more inclined to come forward and falsely accused but acquitted wouldn't be shunned as easily. That's the gist of my theory, if I look at it like a programmer, a logician. How true that is in the real world I don't know, and I'm sorry for not phrasing it as an open question to begin with. Basically I tried and failed to paint a complete picture how society prefers to mark abuse victims as well as falsely accused perpetrators as personae non grata rather than find solutions to the problem. Tragically, society fails so much that it causes and is responsible for suicides. I blame society only, and theorize that our inexcusably wrong approach to sexuality facilitates it. Neither was I trying to say that her death is an inevitable outcome or that men are somehow led to commit those heinous crimes. Thinking men have no choice and have to be protected is why some wives have to wear veils. It's wrong, at least 2300 years late in human society, and nothing I stand behind. Seeing how my comment has been interpreted that way convinced me that I'm unprepared to debate this topic in an international plaintext forum among people who don't know each other personally. Sorry. Any insensitivity I may have expressed in the comment is because I'm a technically minded person first, thinking in terms of logic, and looking for the root cause of a segfault (societal flaw). I guess I'll stay with technical topics where there's a closed world with rules I can look up. This thread, and your comment in particular, provided me with a more complete picture than I had this morning. Thanks for pointing out the flaws and incomplete parts of my thoughts. I believe in constructive criticism and open debate, so asking someone "did you really mean .... or what is it you're trying to say?" is my preferred approach rather than making assumptions, so thanks. Also, yes, if we knew each other personally, you'd have been more likely to correct me, knowing what kind of person I am. Thank you for not reducing me to a utf-8 blob on HN.