I have a lot of resistance to the model when it comes to people who are actual victims, specifically those who experience systematic racism, sexism, and abuse. I see this when there are two models at work at once time, and one person’s R isn’t in line with their T’s.
For instance, if a woman who is an active participant on a date and has the thought = “I’m excited to meet this guy, he seems nice” F- Excited A- Goes on the date, has drinks/dinner. Decides to end date and leave. R- The date doesn’t let her go, forces her to have sex against her will.
How can her model be one that she created? How can she have created her R’s when she was at the effect of another person’s A’s?
We have definitions of assault. Legal ones. So if T’s are ALWAYS supposed to be evidence for the R’s, how does one go from T= “I’m excited for this date, he seems nice” to R= Forced to have sex after I said no”?
If R’s by definition are what we see in the world as an effect of our A’s, how can we control our R’s if someone else’s A’s is at play?
I understand that most perpetrators don’t believe they’re assaulting at the moment, and this idea could be construed as Assault = T’s, but there is clear evidence for what assault is and looks like, (i.e. what a camera would see & what could be argued in a court of law based on descriptions of what assault is).
If we have a definition for something that is clearly assault and someone else’s A’s affect our R’s, how can we always have control over our R’s?