Rape and the "Civilized" World

And since the easiest target is a personal acquaintance, someone who has given the rapist trust and opportunity, we have an explanation for the fact that most rape victims know the perp. And we also have an idea of what kinds of precautions your recommended attitude would rationally motivate - a life in which all of one's personal relationships are managed on the assumption that every man one knows is a rapist looking for opportunity, and denying them that opportunity.

That would be the rational approach, based on your recommendations and the facts of rape prevalence - all that stuff about dealing with strangers who might rape would be frills, comparatively minor precautions to handle the lesser risks and unlikely possibilities, and rationally would of course involve much less time and attention than the major hazards and major precautions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree that every man is a rapist . I would not touch a woman if she is not willing and there are many like that among men !!!! So Bells generalization is invalid

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hence the part you conveniently missed out in your response ...

Intelligent people can avail themselves of understanding what these factors are and behave in manner to reduce their chances of being caught up in such scenarios (as time, place and circumstances permit - yes yes yes, you have been talking about how the only viable option is for a woman to strictly avoid any association with men - which of course would only leave her open to rape by another woman which is known to occur btw - ......... however a brief investigation of the web by persons actually interested in presenting information in a practical manner never mention your one and only means of avoiding rape and instead seem to offer a host of viable alternatives ).

:shrug:

 

Sorry I am Slavic.

 

notice how there are no solutions forthcoming from either you or anything you link. I mean at the very lest, its a mixed message ... what are they trying to say? That the streets are now safe because rapists are officially responsible now? Or is it like a calling for women to go on some sort of strike by dismissing whatever precautions they might otherwise take until certain changes are met?
.
I mean they say educate men not to rape. Fine (While you are at it you also might want to educate people to stop stealing or parallel parking or whatever else too ...) However its the nature of being a criminal that one has a sort of intelligence that not only already knows the act is wrong, but also uses that knowledge of the acts wrongness in an attempt to evade coming before the law.

To put it simply, when an individual knowingly does something wrong, that becomes an act that is incredibly difficult to correct.

Aside from saying rape is bad and rapists are bad, how does this attitude actually pave the way for improvement?
I mean its the nature of falling victim to any crime, that the experience violates your rights. That's probably the number one reason we have a justice system.

Which is why I said in my initial response:

IOW if you have a situation where there are individuals with something of value and individuals who covet it (especially in the landscape of the unmitigated pursuit of personal desire) , a generous swath of "practical advice" is about potential victims and prevention.[/I]

All you can do is link articles about people being angry about the state of affairs. You say we need more "education" on the subject as if social engineering is as straight forward as car mechanics.
IOW you have nothing practical offer to offer aside from what to do if you become a victim.

In the total, complete absence of there being any practical model forthcoming from what you advocate, what else can a person do but take recourse to preventative measures?

IOW if you actually want to progress this discussion, try talking about how you plan to make men more responsible or ways you wish to educate them about their responsibility.
(and I don't mean statements so vague they are effectively meaningless eg - "teach them to respect woman's rights").

IOW if you really want to do away with the pre-existing standard of practical measures people utilize in this scenario, you have to actually come to the party.

as I said

And before you go on a tirade about equating a women's body to a car, the similarity is simply when you have a perpetrator looking for an "easy target" (regardless whether the object is rape, theft, fraud or murder) , you also have concomitant factors that establish a "victim".

IOW before you go such a tirade, you should actually explain why ignoring/dismissing the criteria of a victim a perpetrator is actively seeking constitutes an intelligent path.

Nevertheless, if she does get raped, she is the one who bears the consequences ... much like you can also say it is not your responsibility to prevent your car getting stolen

and that's why rapists commonly go to jail ... and even why rapists (or indeed any criminal) act in such a manner to avoid the likelihood of going to jail (which also plays a considerable part in their criteria for an easy target)

You are going to have to explain that.
If active awareness of risk factors for an incident render it more viable/common/acceptable or whatever, then clearly whatever education hopes you have ambitions for are doomed to fail.

IOW if you apply the general principles you are advocating to the broader picture of safety, crime and or injury, you can see how totally absurd you are sounding

​

And the best way to deal with this is to abruptly suspend whatever precautions one might otherwise take to avoid becoming a victim of such persons?

and why is it absurd?

I guess we will have to take a look at the bit you conveniently edited out :

IOW if you have a situation where there are individuals with something of value and individuals who covet it (especially in the landscape of the unmitigated pursuit of personal desire) , a generous swath of "practical advice" is about potential victims and prevention.

Your car has value, your children have value, your house has value, your health has value, your job has value, your country has value, your bicycle has value, your pets have value - and all of these people, associates and assets are accompanied by steps individuals take to protect them from harm/misappropriation by third parties ontop of whatever legal penalties an individual accrues from encroaching on the said persons lifestyle.

Yet for some reason when the topic of rape comes up you declare this straight forward forumula of criminology not only fails to work in tandem, but is in fact diametrically opposed. .
You strongly advocate that they dismiss all such precautions because a rapist is bad and its obviously their responsibility not to rape you.

My question is this - if a person is intent to treat you or your property maliciously, why on earth would you rest your well being on their capacity to act responsibly?
IOW the very moment a person engages in a criminal act against you is the moment they have no or a diminished regard for your well being.

Once again, how does advocating taking precautions against falling victim to a crime somehow endear one to the criminal element that is performing the act?

It seems to me that your real gripe is the having stiffer legislation or more severe prosecution of rapists ( I assume that's what you mean by making them more "responsible"). Its as if you believe the act of an individual taking precautions somehow siphons away from the capacity of society to engineer the consequences you want on the criminal element that performs the act.
I can't understand why you think this.

Once again, acknowledging the risk factors of crime, far from making excuses for the criminal, engenders a path of practical prevention.

Your attempt to attribute attitudes and beliefs to my person that i don't have is just a political attempt to sensationalize the topic outside the realms of rational discussion.

In case you haven't noticed, holding car thieves legally accountable and individuals taking precautions works in tandem. There is no sane argument offered by anyone to the effect that anti-car-theft precautions and legal persecution of thieves are incompatible ... what to speak of labeling them as diametrically opposed. ... And once again, its not a case of them "somehow" preventing it. Its about looking at the data surrounding a perpetrator's choice of an "easy target" and forming a preventative model around such information.

If that was the case, he would also respond to people who sort through his posts and respond at the same ratio.

Its clear that he dislikes having to slough through waffle as much as the next person.

It just means I simply didn't read anything he has to say ... much like he also doesn't read what someone says when they respond at the same ratio

which of course he did do ... which of course was the other extreme of ineffective communication

I would prefer that he post like any other person on a forum and not like its his blog.
If it also pains him to attempt a response to long winded posts, he should show a simple courtesy and act like he wishes to be treated

as I said, until he learns to curb this bad habit of his, people in general will just skim whatever he says or ignore it completely

 

The posters that you are attacking here in this thread, and other people who hold such stances.

Will the raping never end ...

It's interesting how sometimes, people who fight against someone, become just like them.
That is, how those who fight against - actual - rapists, become like them.

The terminology might differ from country to country, but you know damn well what I meant, since I keep refering to processing a case in court, in front of a judge and jury. Usually, that's called "litigation." As opposed to the work that lawyers do other than for court purposes, such as drawing up contracts.

It might be that you are afraid that they'd revenge themselves against you, once they are released. That would explain your feisty attitude.

People who actually commit crimes.
Not those you merely accuse of committing crimes or having criminal intent.

 

Like I already said:

Perhaps the range of your ideas (and Tiassa's) of how and why women and men can associate with one another is so narrow that they all fall into the category usually listed as "at risk for rape," which is why you conclude that LG's suggestion for rape prevention means that women should simply avoid all men and live in fear.

It seems like some people cannot come up with ideas for how and why men and women can associate with one another that are not problematic or risky. Which is how they reach the conclusion that any precaution is tantamount to total avoidance and living in fear all the time.

 

Keeping It Simple (and) Stupid

In the end, I think the problem is that the situation is just too complicated to afford general decency. It would seem our neighbor wants both to be seen as contributing to a difficult solution to a complicated problem and wants to do so without putting in too much effort.

The truth is that this is a hard situation to figure out. True, it shouldn't be, but human nature's demands can be stiff. In the end, I think what he wants is for everything to be made clear by a fortune cookie aphorism. That's all the prevention theory is, after all. If only women wouldn't go out of their way to tempt mysterious, ineffable, immutable magic, they wouldn't get raped.

The problem he's running into is that the discussion cannot follow his preferred template. It is a conundrum; he wants to be morally proper, but at some point we must acknowledge the possibility that such an outcome outstrips his faculties.

Pity would suffice, instead of outrage, except that What He Wants demands a human toll too great to be negotiatiable.

 

This was my response, as was addressed to a central problem with your posts and approach, and apparently did not miss:

Have you a reply to that observation?

The observation that LG's precautionary approach, undertaken rationally and in response to the actual threat of rape as it exists in the real world, would require that women devote their most serious attentions and efforts into avoiding exposure to the most serious and prevalent threats of rape they face.

Prominent among LG's recommendations, for example, is avoiding behaviors that provide rapists with easy opportunities. That would of course apply in particular - this is my point - to dealing with those men most likely to be rapists. As the most likely rapists are the woman's male acquaintances, that would require the woman to devote most of her prevention effort and behavioral precautions to the avoidance of providing her male acquaintances with easy opportunities to rape her.

So you see I merely described the obvious physical situation and application of LG's recommendations. Your projection of LG's recommendations, your claim that according to LG all women should avoid all men and live in fear, goes beyond anything I posted.

 

not in the slightest ....

If you also tend to not respond to 3000 word posts made in response to a 400 word contribution, why do you expect others to?

If you actually want to contribute to the discussion, curb your word count. Its not an extraneous demand. Its the general standard of the forum community.

If you feel the need to break that standard on practically every occasion, you are better off blogging.

A lot of effective communication is simply about the author making the right effort in the right medium.

:shrug:

 

I already gave it.

the bit you edited out explains precisely why your conclusion about the singular, rational standard preventative measure to adopt is neither singular, rational or a standard.

:shrug:

 

Bells, Tiassa, Iceaura -


Why do you not distinguish between

A. People who blame victims of rape and who believe that the perpetrators of rape are innocent. (People who hold this stance don't post here.)

and

B. People who advocate a more cautious behavior for women (and men) and who don't exonerate perpetrators.

-?

 

How low can I go?

Here, let's try this:

"In case you haven't noticed, holding car thieves legally accountable and individuals taking precautions works in tandem. There is no sane argument offered by anyone to the effect that anti-car-theft precautions and legal persecution of thieves are incompatible ... what to speak of labeling them as diametrically opposed. ... And once again, its not a case of them "somehow" preventing it. Its about looking at the data surrounding a perpetrator's choice of an "easy target" and forming a preventative model around such information."​

For all you whine about word counts, it's all just a pathetic excuse. Let's see, what was that ... March 31, at 20:49 Pacific Time?

Okay, so let's try this, in response:

That is, everyone can contribute to their own safety, as such. But, as a male, my prevention "obligations"—such as they are—don't compare to a woman's. Indeed, I'm more likely to skip a club or tavern because I don't like the music than any perception of threat.​

Oh, did I say "response"? I'm sorry, I don't know what else to call it, though it precedes your point by two days. Here's another way of putitng it:

Sure, we might all carry our crosses, so to speak. But for men, it's a little gold charm on a necklace. For women, it's an eight foot beam with a five foot crosspiece. Yeah, we all have our crosses to bear, but that doesn't mean they're remotely the same.​

Same post. But maybe that's unfair. You know, stacking you two to one while relying on a post that is too long for you to comprehend.

Here, though, from a shorter post that same day:

Certes, we all take precautions under certain circumstances, but it is apparent that no male understands the difference in magnitude of that burden prescribed to women. As I noted, when people say that we all have to take precautions, well, sure, this is true, but it's a vastly different context for men than women.​

Or were those sentences too long? Here, try this:

• I don't think you have the merest speck of a clue how stupid and offensive it is to compare putting a Club lock on my steering wheel to the insane, open-ended prevention theory that puts the burden of men's behavior onto women.

• And then listen to somebody compare her burden, what she should have done to prevent all this, to putting a steering wheel lock on their car.​

I know, though. A 980 word post is just too long to reasonably ask anyone to pay attention to.

(By the way, what is your maximum acceptable word count? I can certainly attempt to tailor and shorten up my posts in order to accommodate your special needs.)

There are simple enough questions littered throughout this thread that you seem desperate to avoid. Of course, questions like, "Is this the sort of society you want?" or, "At what point does this get ridiculous?" can certainly get complicated, I guess, if they're stuck into a 1,500 word post. (You were only off by a hundred percent.)

So, hey. Why don't you try being a decent fellow, for a change:

• Is that really the sort of society you want?

• At what point does your rape advocacy get ridiculous?​

Easy enough? Or too complicated for you?

It would have been easy enough to address the questions. Hell, take a wild guess and you'll be doing as good as most people engaging this issue.

But, no. You chose a different route. And that choice is telling.

Get honest, or don't bother. Your advocacy of rape is what it is. The only remarkable thing about it is how desperately you want to fool everyone into believing that it's something else.

You've had enough chances. Answer up. Quit crying. You are not the victim, here.

 

When even you, the advocate of this solution, refuse to implement it in the way you treat people, it makes your whole stance look spurious.


A person tells you "No, Bells, you didn't interpret me correctly" and you reply "Yes, I did, you're just lying!"

And so from the beginning on.

Talk about rape!

 

Have you noticed that the same line of argument is used when defending a robber, a thief, an assaulter? It has nothing to do with the nature of the crime.

It's about winning the case, at all costs. Because this is what the practice of law in the courtroom has deteriorated into.

You do the same thing - you try to win at all costs, even if this means abusing, misinterpreting the other party.

 

I am only replying to the posts here. As you observe, posts from category A are not found here, and so I don't bother dealing with them at all, to distinguish them or for any other reason.

So you needn't bother mentioning the nonexistent A kind, and can concentrate on responding to my posts if you mention me, or the others you mentioned as you may select.

LG has advocated that women take precautions against rape, in particular that they deny rapists easy targeting. I then repeat his recommendations and approach in relation to the major and most likely rapist threats in US women's lives. You seem to find LG's approach objectionable, for the major and more likely threats of rape, but acceptable for the minor and less likely ones. Why?

 

You forget that you also commonly fail to respond to long winded posts too.
We can only assume that you dislike sloughing through another's waffle as much as anyone else.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that your overly long posts make you sound more sophisticated .... especially when you come across far from impressed when its you who is on the receiving end of them

:shrug:

once again, its not about being too long to comprehend.

Its about you acting like this is your personal blog as opposed to a public discussion forum.

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean since you also display a strong tendency to not respond to overly long posts that tend to favour quantity over quality.

then fine.

If you are willing to concede that the notion of taking precautions, far from feeding the problem, is actual normal and beneficial (to what ever degree) in avoiding the problem, then we don't really have any qualms.

See how easy concise communication is?

since you managed to keep it under 3000 words, its more than adequate.

If you continue to have difficulty discerning whether your posts are exceeding the norm, just analyze whether you are in the habit of responding to similarly sized contributions from others.

Given that I gave the analogy to present how on most basic level its not only normal and acceptable, but in fact recommended, to take precautions against any sort of criminal intrusion on one's liberty, I can't understand why you have problems with it.

Have you changed your tune from you posited above, about how its the normal standard to take precautions?
Or are you simply not comprehending Bell's stance on the issue and why I supplied the analogy?

the important questions you are not addressing is "did I use the analogy to show a quantitative parallel of burden or damage or loss?" or "did I use the analogy to show how taking precautions is a natural consequence of any crime that entails having a victim?"

Concentrating on what is being said and what one says is of prime importance in concise communication.

If you miss essential points all your quantity is simply grist for the mill

I find that a good tool is to split your response into several paragraphs amongst what you are responding to.

This enables you to focus on what is actually being said and tends to focus what what one says to a few essential points.

As a general rule, if a post has x amount of words and you are responding 7 or more times that, it tends to indicate you have lost focus. Another possible formula is to do X + 400 'ish words if you are responding to a short post. Of course there may be exceptions, but if one is consistently going over the top it could well be that one is communicating ineffectively.

you should probably paraphrase those questions since atm they have no context (or at least its not clear if they have a context based on something other than your misunderstanding of the analogy given).

Excessive and abrupt word length are the two extremes of ineffective communication

Once again, if you can paraphrase these questions in a reasonable format (ie not a word length that even you wouldn't read ...... unless of course it came from your keyboard I guess) it would more than likely pave the way for a response.