Maliciousness: Prey or Victims?

What started off as a simple rant turned into a heated discussion between Chris and Anonymous... To any of you who are interested in what the debate entails, click here.

First of all, I’d like to address the claims made about my actions... Anonymous (who will be referred to as “A” from now on) believes it is an act of malice to criticize someone w/o evidence or the chance to defend themselves. It is my opinion that malice does not exist in my actions for two very simple reasons: the evidence – hearing it from my ex himself and having it noted in an AIM transcript, and the chance to defend himself – like many of the people who know me, he also frequents this blog. If he wanted to defend his actions, he could simply comment in the comments section – I never delete comments.

In addition, I believe I have acted with the utmost respect to my ex by not identifying him (the identification was done by Chris) and not including a chat transcript in my possession that would be incriminating, yet boring to those who read my blog. Not disclosing a person’s identity is rather an act of consideracy, not malice.

Secondly, “A” believes I have forgiven my first b/f for cheating on me. This is not true. To forgive means to renounce anger or resentment against. Let me just say that I still feel much anger and resentment for what he’s done. It’s much like the relationship between an abused child and their abusive parent. You may be able to overlook what they have done, but you will never forget and therefore never give up the right to feel angry and resentful of their actions.

Having cleared my name, I shall now address the debate on malice. For the purposes of my argument, I shall show how prey and consent play into malice and address the differences between prey and victimhood in relation to malice.

“A” brings up a very good point when he/she says, “Of course you can stab a corpse, but I've never heard a steak complain.” Why would a steak not complain? Well, because it’s dead, and dead things don’t have much choice when it comes to what is being done to them. In fact, a steak is privy to any act done unto them because it doesn’t have a say in what happens. The steak could be called prey, or one who is defenseless in the case of attack, as could a toddler of an abusive parent; but in this case, a toddler is alive and has the capability to feel.

Now, the question then becomes, “Why isn’t a patient of surgery considered prey?” The answer is consent. The patient is consentual of the surgery to be performed. This nullifies their ability to be preyed upon because their basis for having a choice (unlike the steak) is consent. They consent to the procedure. What’s the difference between a stranger “stabbing” you and a doctor “stabbing” you? Consent, regardless of their intent.

Malice is defined as a desire to harm others or see others suffer. Anyone who would prey on a defenseless baby by abusing them is malicious. Similarly, mugging a helpless old woman is also malicious. Maliciousness, for the purposes of this blog, occurs when harm occurs to those who are unable to have a choice in the matter (prey), who are subject to the whim of others’ harmful intent (inability to consent).

Does the young woman who is cheated on consent to being cheated on? I would hope not. If she could be in the bedroom of her lover when he decides to cheat on her, then she is no longer defenseless in being attacked and is no longer prey because she has the ability to do something about it. So, cheating (because the person who is being cheated on is not present to give or withdraw consent) is malicious. This is why “swingers” are not prey and are not privy to defining “swinging” as malicious. Again, the difference between cheating and “swinging” is consent.

A victim, as opposed to prey, is defined as a person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking. As we have defined maliciousness as harmful intent to prey without the ability to give consent, the victim cannot suffer maliciousness because they are voluntarily consensual of the consequences of their behavior. Take, for example, the drug user. There is a high chance that they will overdose, contract an STD, or permanently damage themselves due to drug usage. In this case, they are victims of any such consequences. They are inflicting this risky behavior on themselves – personal consent. This is the same with drinking, gambling, and “swinging”.

Taking a recent example in my life to juxtapose this, I was overdosed on date rape drugs at a club. Because of this, I was in the hospital. I did not take the drugs knowingly and therefore had no consent of doing so. I would be defined as prey and the act of drugging me, malicious. If I had taken the drugs knowingly (consent) and gone to the hospital, I would be a victim of my own risky, yet voluntary, behavior. The only maliciousness that would exist would be self-inflicted.

Going back to the girl who is cheated on... It is not the girl’s fault the first time she is cheated on in a relationship. She is considered prey that hasn’t given consent for such an act. After finding out she has been cheated on, it is her decision to stay with the unfaithful party or not. If she does stay, she is necessarily consenting to a risky situation. Much like the example of drugs, she now knows there are consequences to the risky behavior/situation. Therefore, if her partner cheats again, she is no longer prey and without consent. She has voluntarily and knowingly put herself in a situation that bears consequences. This is why people say, “Cheats once? Shame on them. Cheats twice? Shame on you.”

To counter “A’s” argument that cheaters are just as bad as flakes, as bad as liars, etc... I say, “Flakes once? Shame on them. Flakes twice? Shame on you.”