Teen Pressures Boyfriend into Suicide
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ide/?tid=sm_fb

I made a thread about this news story because I'm in two minds about it.
I've been in both situations here. A lot of us here probably know that when you're suicidally depressed consolation often doesn't help no matter what it is.

When one of my friends was in the same situation and I realised that there was nothing I could do to get them out of it, I straight up told him that it was his choice, and that whatever he decided to do I'd be there for him, and I think that's what matters.

The girl in this article clearly went all out, but after thinking about it, she knows this guy, she probably thought that he'd just be in pain and this was his only way out. On the other hand, she could be a total sociopath, but I still don't think it's right that people are putting full blame on the bitch for his death.
Then AGAIN, she is a woman, I wouldn't be surprised if she was emotionally manipulating him from the beginning. Goes without saying he probably wouldn't have done it then if she hadn't egged him on. Especially when you read the end of the article, it's probably the latter.

Just trying to look at it from a different perspective seeing as 100% of the comments I've seen are people raging about how she should rot in hell without actually thinking about it.

Weird innit

Whether she knows him or not, that's still not right, especially the way she went about it, and that she cared more about her being in trouble or not, rather than the fact that she made him commit suicide. Seems straight forward to me anyway.

I've been depressed once. I wouldn't have killed myself if somebody had asked me to, at the time I was depressed. If so, it would had made me less likely to kill myself.

That's the first time I have ever used this tense.

Reading that article was so surreal. Just them causally talking about suicide. And gosh, 18 years old? Your life has just begun really. I guess them being young had something to do with it.

I've never been depressed, let alone suicidally depressed. So maybe I'm not the best to comment on this thread, but I've had a mate recently who killed himself without any reasons given at all. None at all. And If I heard someone helped him to do it. I'll probably be more overwhelmed with grief.

I also had a girl in my class kill herself after her boyfriend dumped her. Such a unneeded loss of life...

In my view (again, never experienced depression, so just bare that in mind). You need a pretty damn good reason to kill yourself, otherwise it's you just giving up. The cowards way out. And I think the young people who do it haven't lived long enough to really say "yeah life isn't for me". Obviously there are some obvious expectations. Like dying from a terminal illness. But even then surely you'll want to live as long as possible to see as much as possible before the end?

I dunno. it's a touchy subject. The only thing that girl should be charged for is lying to the police. And of course answer a f ton of questions.

What?

There were probably reasons. He just didn't communicate them.

If you ever find yourself talking to someone who's suicidal, then that definitely deserves to be on the list of things you should absolutely avoid saying. Mental illness is a dangerous thing. Suicidal people generally aren't in a healthy state of mind whatsoever, which is usually why it's in your best interest to try and talk them out of it. It's not a matter of being a coward.

Sometimes there isn't always a solid reason, moments in depression don't always have a known cause or reason, it sucks, and there's nothing really that can be done about it.

Sometimes the constant low feelings can get to someone, as with most stuff like that, the time varies from person to person, so I guess after feeling low for a long time with no real understanding of the reason, they'd want to be done with it.

Though I do agree when there is a reason, suicide over a breakup (or ask.fm etc.) is a waste. I might sound harsh... but I don't really sympathise with them, it's more the families that I'd feel bad for since they have to deal with that in their mind that it was over something so trivial (and young too).

I can understand the guy in this case killing himself, she was his girlfriend and had much more power in convincing him to do it or not do it. She just had to go and choose the wrong one and then lie to the police about it. I'd say she definitely should be charged for how she pressured him (she knew what she'd done was wrong), and lying to police.

Generally men are far more easily manipulated by women.

I'm so sick of this rhetoric.
There's no way of knowing what someone is actually going through when they're suicidal. Everyone has individual experiences and most of the time when they actually do it it's for legitimate reasons (in their head) and not just for attention, unless they go around posting it on Tumblr on Facebook.

You sexist little twat.

That's not sexist. That's an actual fact.

We have Jacob II now, everyone.

Of course you don't tell a suicidal or depressed person that suicide is their choice or that they should do it. That's called not being autistic.

Your sentence construction lost me.

FACTS ARE FUCKING CIS OPPRESSIVE SHITLORDS
Bullshit, it IS their choice. If you can't own your own god damned life then what can you own?

Nothing. You can own nothing. That is the fucking point!

You seem to be labouring under the idea that free will is a factor in the "choice" of suicide. Insofar as free will actually exists, depression is the total obviation of it. You aren't in control, the disease is. It takes everything you are and bit by bit, shreds it. You feel parts of your personality fall away as you empty out from the inside. After a while of this you are barely human any more, and you feel it. You feel very little, but you feel that. Food has no taste, joy leaves no mark on you. The delights of life that others will point to to make you want to live are meaningless, because even when you participate in them you don't and can't experience them. Their love and encouragement penetrates you like oil penetrates water.

They aren't even speaking to you any more, they speak to a disease wearing your face. You linger in a state of living death, because the distinction between life and death means very little to you. And your loved ones had better hope you stay that way, because there's a good chance that when that distinction reappears it will be skewed the wrong way.

This is a mere glimpse of what it is to be mentally ill. If you are trying to model such behaviour on the assumption that they can choose and make rational decisions about their own lives then you are necessarily going to reach the wrong conclusions. They are sick. The very parts of your mind that you use to model theirs are the parts that are sick and not functioning properly. They may never function properly again. Mental healthcare is still in its infancy, it's like trying to treat infectious disease in the middle ages.

BM summed it up perfectly. I don't think I could've ever worded it better than that. Rationality is not present, which is why it's never a matter of someone being able to actually choose if they want to commit suicide or not. It's an illness.

That's pretty fucking baseless.

★('·.¸('·.¸ M E N T A L ★ I L L N E S S ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)★

~ ° ° ♥ • .¸ S E X I S M ¸. • ♥ ° ° ~

I only skim read this thread.

at least not the z word
you know, zoophilia

Are you serious? Women are more manipulative than men, they're more emotional and they're better liars. It's not sexism, it's biology. Men are more likely to be physically violent or intimidating, whereas women tend to play with people's emotions and toy with them mentally.

You know what, you're right. Science is wrong and we all just need to accept that the patriarchy is brainwashing us.

I actually agree with a lot of what you have said here, at the time I was going through the same thing my friend was so I guess that's what skewed my perception.

Are you saying we've become Tumblr?

Playing very hard and fast with the term "science" there. At best it is very bad science, and the mistakes are transparent. If you start a scientific investigation with clear and present biases then they will influence the design of your investigation and of your results. Most prevalent is pointing out a psychological phenomenon, real or imagined, present in your culture, and then looking for a biological basis, without ever looking further afield (to unrelated cultures for example) to see if they are common there, or even examining the basis for the claim that is being investigated. Then they assemble a retroactive "just so" story that fits the assumed data. That kind of lazy thinking has ruined the field of evolutionary psychology to the point that is little more than the punchline to a joke. You know the one.

Q: What do you call the scientific study of western college students?
A: Evolutionary psychology! *rimshot*

Except when I learned this I didn't start with the conclusion, in fact, I initially thought the opposite, but I've seen far more evidence to support my point than yours, and no, that isn't just me blocking out anything that disagrees with me. If you can link me to some studies then I'll take a look, but as it stands I'm not really convinced by someone who made such a misguided post about SJWs.

It's hard to find studies for something so specific but let's look at something similar, which gender cheats on their partner more on average. We can then determine from that who is more manipulative from a number of different factors (like lying). Obviously it isn't perfect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-lying-it.html
http://www.yourtango.com/201172881/w...-men-heres-why
http://hellobeautiful.com/2013/09/27...more-than-men/

'Baseless' might have been the wrong word to use but calling it a biological fact completely disregards the influence that cultures and norms have on people's upbringings and how genders are generally treated. I'm not arguing that a large percentage of males don't react violently/physically, but the notion that these are biological traits instead of psychological ones caused by the nature of one's environment is where it seems off.

I like that one of your sources is the Daily Mail, Nep.

A 17 year old has just proclaimed the answer to the timeless 'nature vs nurture' debate everyone. Who needs verifiable facts when we have what I can only assume are ad hominem anecdotes from a teenage misandrist? I suppose we're just dealing in vast aggregates and Victorian theories.

Women are meek and mild! Men shouldn't cry! Opium will secure our trade monopoly in China!


Also, your angsty nihilist approach to suicide is bunk.

topkek

People are so afraid of pointing these things out because of how much people like to throw around labels like "sexist" and "racist", as you've clearly demonstrated, STM.
You really need to grow up, and realise that the sexes are different whether you like it or not.


When it quotes it's sources directly, it's perfectly fine.

Well, yes, generally speaking. Should it be that way? Different discussion, but that's how it is. Notice how it has nothing to do with my argument.

Are you going to ask me to post 1000 different studies on how men are less openly emotional than women now? Or do you have enough brain cells to observe daily life?

Of course, being a teenager, every point I make is simply a result of my unending angst, and nothing actually legitimate. God forbid someone actually try and have a discussion about a controversial subject. Let all views stay the way they are, no ideas be criticised, and nothing change. Let's make sure there's no progression and that society stays the same forever.

Also, I'm guessing you didn't read the part where I said I agreed with what BM said.
You ballsed that one up, didn't you? I believe the word you're looking for is 'misogynist', and even then I'm not one. I also urge you to look up what an 'ad hominem' actually is, and then after you've done that come back and have an actual debate instead of throwing around buzzwords like a fucking child who writes for Huff Post or some bullshit.

This all stems from the utterly mad idea that you can divide the human race in two (and it doesn't matter by what criteria you do it) and find trends sufficient to celebrate or condemn one half. There's so much wrong with that approach without even leaving the realm of statistical analysis which, as difficult as that as a discipline is to comprehend, seems for no reason I can account for somehow even harder to understand than the concept of culture =/= biology.

So I can't, let's say, divide mankind in two, having people in coma and people not in coma, and say, like, people in coma suck at sports?

(they do)

I'm not really sure where you're going with that, BM

Splitting people based on being in a coma or not is quite different from judging characteristics based on gender.

He specifically stated that criteria don't matter.

Would you believe that the sexes are actually different? Holy shit!

Would you believe that each individual person within those sexes are actually different? Holy shit!

You're not attempting to prove or establishing a link there, the one is a necessary result of the other. It's like dividing the population into people in prison and people not in prison and noticing that those in prison are more likely to have been convicted of a crime at some point. It's like, wow! Great work there.

But then you might notice that, in America at least, the prison population is disproportionately black compared to the non-prison population, and thereby conclude that black people are genetically predisposed toward criminal activity, and if I have to explain what's wrong with that conclusion then I have severely misjudged the character and intellect of this forum.


Your coma example has another, much more subtle difference, in that unlike the man/woman categories, by describing the two options as x and not x you have by the law of identity, outlined logically exclusive and exhaustive categories. You might instead have listed "people in comas" and "people who are healthy", which are not at all exhaustive: you don't have to be in a coma to be unhealthy.

The point here is that "man/woman" are not exhaustive in the same way as "coma/not coma". The category of "woman" is not equivalent to the category of "not man", and you make numerous errors both technical and social when you divide the people of the world that way at the start of your investigation, and it will get you wrong answers. It might work most of the time, but when reality produces exception you will struggle to deal with it, and we have enough real-world tragedies to look to to know how that can go. I'm hoping that this is not as mind-blowing to some of you here as I fear it might be.

Lol.