Rape and the "Civilized" World

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Mar 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Funnily enough, the women who can and do avoid rape go on to do many things. Making excuses for rapists doesn't appear to be one of them however .....


    just applying Tiassa's standard to his own posts.
    He also seems to display a strong distaste for sloughing through waffle.
    I am simply holding him to his preferred standard


    I find it absurd that you expect the complete suspension of any standards of prevention given that society as a whole is such a long, long, long way away from being socialized around that value.

    As I said, this is more about victim professionalism rather than victim prevention.


    So what is your advice to someone who is in a situation or approaching a situation where they anticipate they might get raped?


    Once again : Its not "somehow".

    Its about looking at the criteria a perpetrator looks for in an "easy victim", recognizing their modus operandi, and translating that data into a preventative model

    the more informed one is on the data of the nature of the offender, the more resources one will have to make a better decision ... much like any other victim orientated crime you care to mention

    Do you want me to start counting how many times you say this again?

    Didn't I say I already knew that?

    Didn't I say that this scenario proves to be the most challenging and in some cases impossible to prevent or prepare for?

    Didn't I say that all this in no way reduces all and any preventative programs? (If you look at the story link I gave at the very start of this post, you can see that Louise Nicholas not only prevented an attempted rape by a known person, but has since gone to strongly recommend and teach others how to do it)

    On the contrary, its you who is saying that its unacceptable to analyze issues of victim prevention, while it is only acceptable to educate men. I never proposed such an idiotic dichotomy. I have reiterated time and time again that these things work in tandem (as exemplified by any victim orientated crime you care to mention) . I did say however that given the current state of affairs, examining issues of prevention is far more practical and self-empowering since it places one in a position to actually deal with the problem and is typical of the initiative any other individual would take for any other victim orientated crime.

    Now compare this to what you are offering ....... nothing except what legal channels to take after you get assaulted .... which hardly sounds like a fabulous negotiation of the prospect of fear ....

    As things stand at the moment, I think its absurd if you expect such education attempts to be of such grand proportion that one can rely on them for protection atthe complete nullification of any preventative measures ... and I think it borders on insanity when you take it a step further and deem all such preventative measures steal away from the potency of engineering this societal shift.


    And quite frankly, as a aside point, I think the chances of this change ever being successfully engineered are close to zero since the issue of attitudes of men towards women are seated within the broader contexts of how individuals see themselves and believe the world exists in relation to them .... which are not only problems of such mammoth proportions but also feeding off a state of mind that contemporary existence makes more rigid at practically every moment.
    IOW conflict of the sexual front is just the tip of a big ugly iceberg that collectively we don't the guts to deal with ... but anyway, thats just a side point


    Totally incorrect.
    Not only have women prevented themselves from getting raped (even by known persons) they have also taught other women who have in turn prevented themselves from getting reaped (some of which were also known persons too) . And not only that, they seem quite healthy and stable without having to live or advocate some sort of man-induced paranoia which seems to be the only solution you can concede .

    You tell me?

    Once again, the main benefit of analyzing the modus operandi of a perpetrator is that one can recognize these things.
    The only ones who can't prevent are the one's who follow your advice of thinking there is no value in analyzing all this and developing a prevention strategy.


    maybe instead of counting the number of times you fall back on this I will just copy paste this:

    Do you want me to start counting how many times you say this again? (2nd time since we started afresh)

    Didn't I say I already knew that?

    Didn't I say that this scenario proves to be the most challenging and in some cases impossible to prevent or prepare for?

    Didn't I say that all this in no way reduces all and any preventative programs? (If you look at the story link I gave at the very start of this post, you can see that Louise Nicholas not only prevented an attempted rape by a known person, but has since gone to strongly recommend and teach others how to do it)


    Tell that to a woman who has successfully applied a prevention strategy against a rapist.
    I dare you.


    Another dud point.

    Anyone who teaches rape prevention strategy, far from encouraging victims not to report it to the police, are linked up with advocacy groups to provide the necessary support to do just that (usually participants receive heaps of legal and health brochures about what to do in a worst case scenario). Its actually women who don't have adequate prevention strategies (ie women who follow your advice) who tend not to report it




    no

    actually the point was

    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


    If the more people know about the nature of a problem, the greater it gets, HOW THE HELL DO YOU PROPOSE TO EDUCATE ANYONE ?


    Just the first thing that turned up on google

    I suggest you attend one of the seminars.

    They have suggestions for all sorts of rapists and scenarios, including the one's you just offered.


    Once again, here we go.

    Do you want me to start counting how many times you say this again? (3rd time, in case you are counting ...)

    Didn't I say I already knew that?

    Didn't I say that this scenario proves to be the most challenging and in some cases impossible to prevent or prepare for?

    Didn't I say that all this in no way reduces all and any preventative programs? (If you look at the story link I gave at the very start of this post, you can see that Louise Nicholas not only prevented an attempted rape by a known person, but has since gone to strongly recommend and teach others how to do it)


    and I will also repeat this again since what you just posed above in no way forms a response to it :

    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.



    Rather than copy/paste it for the fourth time I will ask you a question.

    Why do you take the most challenging scenario as a prototype for dismissing all preventative measures?

    This isn't another opportunity for you to explain what is the most common scenario fro rape (which would simply be another opportunity for me to copy/paste the Louise Nicholas paragraph).

    This is an opportunity for you to explain why one should reject all preventative strategies based on one type of challenging scenario.


    Hence my suggestion :

    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.


    The news articles you present seem to confirm you are more about honing in the legal network for persecution as opposed to doing away with prevention in toto ... just in brief

    Notice how he was admonished.
    Suggestion is that things were amiss because she was rendered submissive by the threat of violence

    even the judge admitted he was stupid
    IOW its clearly an inappropriate standard for law and he couldn't step back fast enough once he spoke the nonsense

    not sure why you included this.
    Maybe you feel he got off lightly ... which again is another push for a higher legal standard etc

    what a mess!
    They were both drunk and she sexually reciprocated with him.
    Even in your wildest dreams I'm pretty sure that if the guy had been educated "no means no" it wouldn't have helped her ... which of course just leaves your ambitions on how it should have turned out legally

    The irony is one could receive information like that in a rape prevention strategy (IOW information about the role drugs play in becoming a victim). The difference is that it becomes empowering. IOW giving the right information in the wrong situation, at the wrong time from the wrong person is wrong.

    But at the same time, if behavior shapes the persona of an ideal victim for a rapist, it doesn't make sense to try and live a life blissfully unaware of that (granted that the format of receiving that information warrants attention - IOW yes, it has an adverse effect coming from the mouth of a judge to a person who was assaulted during a court case against the culprit.)


    If you keep saying this, I will keep saying this :

    Do you want me to start counting how many times you say this again?

    Didn't I say I already knew that?

    Didn't I say that this scenario proves to be the most challenging and in some cases impossible to prevent or prepare for?

    Didn't I say that all this in no way reduces all and any preventative programs? (If you look at the story link I gave at the very start of this post, you can see that Louise Nicholas not only prevented an attempted rape by a known person, but has since gone to strongly recommend and teach others how to do it)


    detailed who is the type of person most likely not to report it and hence contribute to their low persecution rate

    Once again, try telling that to the face of a woman who runs seminars on rape prevention based on her experience as a rape survivor (with the same self conceited, sneering, I -know-better-than-you, smug attitude of course - if you said this in an appreciative manner it would be entirely different) .
    I dare you (she will probably judo throw you across the room).


    In short, you suffer from a poor fund of knowledge and insist on bringing others down to your unsatisfactory level of performance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It's self defense.

    Now tell her that she can avoid being raped if she behaves a certain way or avoids certain things. And that as a woman, she should not expect society to see her any differently and that it is "absurd" to expect rapists to not rape and that it is absurd to even imagine educating boys and men about sexual assault and how to respect women.

    Or better yet, tell her that she is taking the same precautions as you do each time you put a lock on your car. Then let me know how you go.

    So you have gone from your bizarre sexual fantasy of the train station at 1am in the red light district to discussing self defense as a way of rape prevention.

    Interesting.

    I am not going to dismiss self defense. I have taken many courses in it. But it isn't rape prevention and one of the main issues with touting it as that is that it sets an expectation that women can and should fight back. Not all women can and do.

    And that is the issue with the use of "rape prevention". It sets a standard in society which expects women to act a certain way or react a certain way. Like the judge who claimed that the victim didn't really fight back. But this is the standard that rape prevention can set. And it is dangerous because yes, it places the onus on the woman to act or react in a certain way.

    Ms Nicholas states herself, her reaction in her self defense class was merely that, a reaction and a flash back to what had happened to her when she was raped.

    Also, your "rape prevention" article is glaring in that it dealt with stranger rape. And as I linked earlier, women often do not fight back against rapists they know. In other words, not all women will fight back against their rapist if they know them and are intimate with them. This then leads to guilt and shame for not fighting back.

    Run.

    But how can you anticipate you may be raped.

    Ms Nicholas (from your link) was raped by police officers. How do you think she could have anticipated being raped? How about a spouse who out of the blue refuses to take no for an answer?

    So now women are supposed to also know if they might be raped?

    In stranger rape, perhaps. But this also does not take into account that stranger rape is not just about 'easy victim'. Often the victim will be stalked by her rapist. And one can never know who is a rapist and what a rapist is looking for. Rapists rape for power and control. Not because they want an easy 'fuck'.

    But what about the majority of rapes where the victim knows and/or is intimate with her rapist?

    The one who out of the blue, refuses to take 'no' for answer and rapes her? Or the one who rapes his drunk partner/spouse while she is fast asleep?

    So rapists fit a particular criteria or fit into a particular box?

    Not all rapists have the same nature or are the same.

    Your preventative programs teach self defense (the one you linked at least).

    And Nicholas was recounting an episode against her self defense instructor. Not against a rapist. She never prevented her rape. She took self defense classes after she was raped and she discussed how she reacted to her instructor after being trained to. And even she said that she did not want to think about possibly having to face the men who raped her again.

    That is not what I offered at all. And you know it, so stop lying.

    What I have said clearly is that the onus is on men to not rape and women should not bear the brunt or responsibility of not being raped. Ever.

    We will never be able to deal with it so long as there is a prevalence and belief that women must somehow avoid being raped.

    Because what that does is tacitly place the blame on women and society stops viewing them as victims of rape when this belief system is in place. We saw it with Meagher, where so many judged her for having been out alone at that time of the night, as though she was somehow at fault.

    Which is why rape is on the rise and more and more women are afraid to come forward to report it out of fear of being judged or accused and shamed.

    A woman shouldn't be expected to prevent being raped.

    So you go against all literature and experience and say that one can actually know who will rape..

    Wow..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Which one is the rapist?

    One of them is a rapist. Which one do you think it is?

    As for your prevention strategy..

    What about the 3/4 of rapists who the woman knows and trusts? Should women be taking 'recognise a rapist' course? Psychology courses perhaps so they can try to decipher the men around them to determine who could be a rapist?

    I am that woman you dumbass.

    And yet, as I have linked earlier, the majority do not report it because they know and/or are intimate with their rapists and many feel ashamed because they did not do anything to 'prevent' or somehow stop being raped by their loved one's. Many also do not report it because they are afraid of how they will be judged by those around them - ie 'so why didn't you fight back?' brigade.

    While you may think it is a 'dud point', that is the reality.

    Education starts at home.

    Tell me, have you told your son that that 'no means no' and explained rape to him and why rape is bad and why he should not rape? How about to your daughter?

    I mean I guess I could be like you and just say 'it's too hard so we'll expect her to just not be raped'...

    I have attended many such seminars. I have also spoken quite a bit at such seminars.

    And they deal predominantly with stranger rape.

    What they do not deal with is why and how so many rape victims do not fight back or report it because their attacker is an intimate partner or spouse.

    But perhaps you can explain that better?

    Since you appear to be the expert on it and everything?

    The main message that is given at such seminars is that it is not the woman's fault if she is raped and that no matter what she could have done, there is nothing she could have done to foresee it or prevent it or avoid it. We also told women that they are innocent and the only person to blame is the rapist.

    Because those seminars work at ensuring rape victims do not blame themselves. Because the blame is solely the rapists.

    But hey, you seem to believe you know more about it. So you tell me.

    How do you spot a rapist?

    Actually no.

    The news articles clearly show that there is a prevailing belief that women are somehow responsible to not be raped.. That they should somehow prevent it.

    Instead of making men responsible to not rape.

    I mean I get why a rapist apologist might not get that..

    Even when prosecuted, the conviction rate is low. Few rapists actually go to jail.

    Or are you going to dispute the clear facts as well now because you misread an article about 'rape prevention'?

    I have spoken many times at such seminars and I am a survivor of an attempted rape by a trusted male friend.

    And I can tell you from that perspective.. You are wrong.

    But then of course, you know better because you read it on the internet....

    No LG.

    I have experience in such matters and I don't make excuses by saying that women should prevent being raped.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Isn't that standard Islamic doctrine? This is why over there, rape victims are punished whereas nobody even bothers looking for the perp.

    So "rape prevention" becomes covering yourself in a blanket with eye holes and never leaving home without a male relative.

    It seems like Lightgigantic would be right at home in Saudi Arabia. Who wants to pitch in to buy his plane ticket? All the women, for sure!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I believe this information would be pertinent for a female to be cautious .

    Have there been established at what age bracket of the female gets raped ?

    At what time of the day most rape are committed ?

    What location is the more frequent the rape is committed ?

    What part of the year are rape committed ?
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I think we're still so far back in the Dark Ages on this that most rapes are not even reported. So many women have been brainwashed into thinking that they bear a significant portion of the blame, that they don't want to admit that it happened. They might tell a sister or a close friend, but these are crimes the rest of us never even know about.

    Based upon what I have read, and taking my own advice that only a small percentage are reported, I'd guess that:
    • There is no age bracket. Perhaps it happens to elderly women (70+) less often than to those who are younger, but it does happen even to them. Remember: rape is a crime of violence. Sex is just an easy way to do it because the man is allowed to legally carry his weapon everywhere.
    • I would strongly suspect that the most common location is at home. Especially if we include college dormitories. This is because the majority of rapes are committed by people the victims know.
    • Time of day? Probably the same as most activities: The hours when most people are awake and active. Especially, again, because most of them (probably) occur at home.
    • I doubt very much that there's a seasonal factor. I suppose not too many women are raped on the streets of Chicago in February because it's unbearably cold, but if I'm right and most rapes occur at home, that won't have much effect on the statistics.
    I think you'd accomplish more by trying to form a composite description of the rapists, not their victims! What kind of scumbag does this?
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Differences in Effect

    ... rape advocates?

    If the discussion moves to a point where that distinction becomes relevant, then the distinction becomes relevant.

    Misogyny is misogyny. Rape advocacy is rape advocacy. When the difference between those two groups of people has any significance within the discussion, the hair will be measured and split.

    As long as prevention theory is open-ended, it is nothing more than rape advocacy. As I noted last week in a response to Lightgigantic:

    As with prior discussions on the subject of practical prevention advice, the problem is that this is an open-ended proposition:

    • A woman should not be beautiful, or make any real effort to be aesthetically pleasing, because it's her fault for tempting a rapist.​

    • A woman should not drink alcohol, because it's her fault for making the rape possible.​

    • A woman should not walk alone at night, because she's making herself a target for rapists.​

    But at what point does it stop?

    • A woman should not accept a date with a man, because she is tacitly consenting to sex, so it's her fault for calling it rape.​

    We might want to check in with single heterosexual men on that one, to see how they would like that kind of society.

    • A woman should carry a gun, and shoot any man who looks at her wrong, or else she might be inviting him to rape her.​

    Even better?

    • A woman shouldn't answer the door, say, for the FedEx delivery man, because it's her fault for allowing him access to rape her.​

    Of course, that might push an explosion of lesbian and feminist pizza shops who won't deliver to men, because, well, knocking on a door to deliver the pizza means she's exposing herself willfully to the danger of being raped.

    No, really, at what point does this get ridiculous?

    It doesn't matter how many times I ask the question; prevention theory advocates simply won't answer it. And given how often the point comes up, one would think that a prevention theory advocate would at least try to close the gaping hole in the theory. Indeed, take a look at Lightgigantic's macabre effort to dodge the issue.

    The question is phrased simply enough: At what point does the burden of preventative precautions become too great to ask of an in individual?

    Quite obviously, the answer is not simple.

    But your Group B, effectively speaking, is no different than either Type I or II in Group A. As long as they insist on undefined boundaries and burdens, prevention advocates not making any different argument than the rape advocates.

    I would also note what I refer to as the "Square Zero Effect", in which every consideration of a recurring topic within a community apparently must crawl back past Square One in order to re-establish itself from the ground up. This is very convenient for the open-ended prevention theorists, but there comes a point when others grow weary of repeating basic realities that the prevention advocates flatly refuse to acknowledge. That is to say, if everything must start from the beatific ignorance of Square Zero, there comes a point where we need to acknowledge that the ritual sucks. The Square Zero Effect can generally be defined as annoyance that results from the presence of willful, insistent stupidity.
     
  10. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I think this whole thing about stopping Rape discussion is just a spam. There is no way male like female and both have sexual desire . Rape is a violent crime that is t true , no question the female have to be aware . The manner as she dresses and how she walks, might be an invitation for a male to approach her. She should be aware as if I would go to a beach for a swim were are sharks , it will all depend how hungry are the sharks . So I feel there is not much room for prevention .
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I have been posting your advice for such situations, in particular for the major and most common and most significant situations in which a woman in the US is most likely to be accosted by a rapist, and you have been as reluctant to admit them as wynn or arauca or any of your other responsibility assigners.

    What situations do you have in mind, in which women need not anticipate that they might get raped?
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    My advice?

    My advice has been that given the current state of things its more practical and empowering to adopt a preventative strategy, even though both things, preventative strategies for both victims and perpetrators work in tandem (much like any other victim orientated crime you can mention) as opposed to being diametrically opposed in some magical fashion.

    On the contrary, its your advice that you are exclusively positing ... advice that isn't found to be given by any actual advocate of preventative strategies btw.

    However if one insists on radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments, one can also just as easily saythat the only viable outcome of educating men on their responsibility in cases of rape is that they absolutely and entirely avoid any association with women since, as we all (apparently) know, every man is a potential rapist.

    So guess you are still stuck in the same double bind.
    :shrug:
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    which is also a prevention strategy .. in case you haven't noticed

    Try going to one of these sort of seminars and you will see that they not only tell it, they teach it.

    They will probably explain to you that if that precept was adequate for protection, they would have no one to attend seminars.

    Btw as a detail, I didn't say it was absurd to imagine educating boys. I said it was absurd to suggest such imagination is sufficient to disband whatever preventative measures one might otherwise take.

    Given that she is actively teaching the benefit of taking precautions she has already surpassed your advice on "victim professionalism".


    Actually I went to it because you consistently fail to offer any thing for rape incidents where the assailant is not known (aside from saying "but the most common rape incident involves a known person"). Needless to say, it was getting repetitive, and I will continue to copy/paste the statement everytime you try to fall back to it.)

    And as a side point, suddenly when you are talking about the case of Meagher later on, these scenarios are no longer so "bizarre" or so uncommon as to a useless basis for developing a prevention stratgey.
    :shrug:


    so we have a woman who survived rape on account self defense and has since gone forward to teach other women about the nature of self defense and rape prevention strategies .... and despite all this, you say it is not rape prevention.
    :shrug:

    Fighting back is simply the last phase of a preventative strategy (and the first and only other one is not having nothing to do with men, at least if we are to accept the opinions of personal actually teaching this subject as opposed to your ideas).
    IOW becoming more informed grants one a variety of options or planning strategies

    already explained how the medium and situation for receiving this information is simply part of the details.

    quote from the article :

    'Speaking as somebody who has been a victim, to learn these strategies to not to be a victim again – it's vital for every single woman to equip themselves with these skills,' the former New Zealander of the Year explains.

    Although there is no physical component to the two-and-half hour Auckland-based seminar, it aims to enlighten participants on how to better identify and avoid potential violence.

    They'll learn to pinpoint manipulation strategies used against women, examine the stages of self-defence, and understand the psychology of an attacker and how they choose their targets.



    and if that is not a viable option due to environment?

    as I have said heaps of times already, plenty of people already teaching this ... including rape survivors

    plenty of info out there already - try google


    Incorrect

    From the link you gave earlier.

    "2. Rape prevention tips are almost never effective against partners and friends."

    In cases where the assailant is known, perhaps

    Hence there are a range of possible scenarios ranging from the impossible to prevent to the possible to prevent.

    Thats simply an argument for the challenges of implementing a prevention program, not an argument for the nullification of one


    Yet one could easily take the data from that link and incorporate it into a prevention strategy to cover the wider net of possible scenarios.

    For instance, do you think jumping into the bed of a man while naked would increase the likelihood of a sexual encounter (be it rape or otherwise)?



    obviously you didn't read the link

    "Although there is no physical component to the two-and-half hour Auckland-based seminar, it aims to enlighten participants on how to better identify and avoid potential violence."

    So in other words you are of the opinion she is no more empowered to prevent rape and that any woman she teaches is also similarly unempowered ... needless to say, others disagree


    Well if you are of the opinion that there is any value in preventative measures, we are yet to hear it ..... although we have already heard plenty about your ideas on how prevention is obscene and makes excuses for rapists
    eg

    Still making excuses for rapists because you think women can and should avoid rape and prevent themselves from being raped..

    and as I said, holding responsible parties accountable is the business of the justice system... and also as a further detail, given that the ramifications of violating this pact of responsibility entails someone becoming a victim, an intelligent person, on top of this, has recourse to a host of preventative measures.

    The painful obvious flaw with what you are offering is that it absolutely refuses to go beyond "Just wait till a man violates his responsibility and makes you a victim then you can ...."

    IOW your strategy aims at redefining the sexual status of the contemporary world (and as I said, good luck on that one) and not only offers nothing, but actually prohibits anything up until the next point of "and when a man cannot uphold his responsibility and renders you a victim then you can ...".

    IOW you have a cerebral concept that has no real form outside of media releases about angry people and ideas about how the world "should" be and a streamlined course of procedures once one becomes a victim.
    This in itself is not such a bad thing. What takes it to the height of stupidity is your suggestion that one also nullify any preventative measures and proceed on to a more dizzying altitude with the notion that failing to do so will make rape more common.


    Once again, its not -somehow_.

    I think this will have to be another thing I will have to repeatedly copy/paste each time you try and sneak it in.

    Once again : Its not "somehow".

    Its about looking at the criteria a perpetrator looks for in an "easy victim", recognizing their modus operandi, and translating that data into a preventative model


    this dichotomy you are trying to engineer between preventative strategies for victims and social policies for diminishing the capacity of perpetrators borders on insane. Amongst victim orientated crimes, it has absolutely, completely - like never at all in the history of the universe - no other precedent.

    So you think there is a strong possibility that Meagher will not be viewed as a rape victim?
    Or do you think its the nature of something bad happening to someone that people use that information to formulate a prevention strategy so it doesn't happen to them (doing aside with the point whether that strategy will or will not work ... since prevention strategies, being far from static, can be honed, changed and improved ... IOW at the moment we are just talking about the nature of circumstances that give rise to prevention strategies and the role they play in adverse conditions).

    Regardless of all this, obviously the "no means no" idea didn't help her, and being now unfortunately deceased, she has no recourse for further avenues of victim professionalism.

    IOW your system failed her.

    And as a further point, I can't see how your program for the complete nullification of preventative measures is viable in any sane manner.


    because more women prevented themselves from getting raped (even by known persons) and have gone on to teach other women who have in turn prevented themselves from getting reaped (some of which were also known persons too) , we are seeing more rapes?
    What the hell are you talking about?

    (BTW the link is simply in the category of angry people vying for social change, which, while no doubt noble, has no real practical precedent capable of offering protection.)



    perhaps another thing I will have to repeatedly copy/paste since you couldn't really respond to it in an intelligible manner :

    Totally incorrect.
    Not only have women prevented themselves from getting raped (even by known persons) they have also taught other women who have in turn prevented themselves from getting reaped (some of which were also known persons too) . And not only that, they seem quite healthy and stable without having to live or advocate some sort of man-induced paranoia which seems to be the only solution you can concede .


    I'm not aware of any prevention strategies the work solely on photographs.
    (in fact if you ever actually go to one of these prevention seminars, that's one of the things they teach you ... more on that later)


    Once again :

    Its about looking at the criteria a perpetrator looks for in an "easy victim", recognizing their modus operandi, and translating that data into a preventative model.

    I'm not sure what made you think that boils down to examining photos. Criminology tends to a bit more involved to say the least





    -groan-
    I'm pretty sure you couldn't pick out a car thief too.

    You couldn't help yourself, could you?

    Do you want me to start counting how many times you say this again?
    Didn't I say I already knew that?

    Didn't I say that this scenario proves to be the most challenging and in some cases impossible to prevent or prepare for?

    Didn't I say that all this in no way reduces all and any preventative programs? (If you look at the story link I gave at the very start of this post, you can see that Louise Nicholas not only prevented an attempted rape by a known person, but has since gone to strongly recommend and teach others how to do it)



    if you mean develop a prevention strategy based on professional information, well yes, some of them are ... but in your opinion they are actually making excuses for rapists (despite having sent some of them to hospital or going through the full legal process of pressing charges against them)


    lol
    well if you actually have a prevention strategy and can vouch for its effectiveness you sure picked a fine time to breach the subject

    the dud point is that the attitude of not bothering to establish a prevention strategy is what contributes to this.

    IOW its actually women who don't have adequate prevention strategies (ie women who follow your advice) who tend not to report it.

    That is the reality.


    once again:

    actually the point was

    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

    If the more people know about the nature of a problem, the greater it gets, HOW THE HELL DO YOU PROPOSE TO EDUCATE ANYONE ?


    Regardless of where you think education starts or what you want to teach, if you think awareness of the problem causes it, you have a bigger, more immediate pedagogical problem on your hands ....


    Based on what you wrote, I don't think you have been to them (see bits in bold).

    IOW whatever you attended, it wasn't the seminars I have been talking about.

    Sounds more like an advocacy group for rape survivors (which is not to say they are useless or anything - remember I am not the one who insists on discussing things in a radical insane dichotomy of prevention vs responsibility - just that I am actually talking about something different)

    As I said, plenty of seminars out there already teaching this which you can go to ... but with this attitude of yours it would probably be you that gets judo flipped across the room (even if the seminar wasn't originally designed to a "physical" aspect)


    and your concern seems to be that this has legal ramifications (since all of it is about court room proceedings).
    IOW you are mostly about honing the legal framework of the problem

    Are you talking about Louise Nicholas again or are you once again trying to take the topic outside rational discussion?


    again:
    legal issue

    Victim prevention is successful if you prevent becoming a victim. (as evidenced by women doing seminars yada yada ... just to stop you automatically responding to this in a manner that would give me an opportunity to copy/paste something - see, thats an example of a prevention strategy)
    Victim professionalism is successful if the culprit gets penalized according to the victim's expectations



    Due to a type of work I used to be involved in we underwent a type of self protection course run by professionals. It was kind of brief (went for three days - physical component was about 50/50). Granted that it wasn't specifically about rape, however the organization did commonly do those sorts of seminars since a lot of what we were given was pertinent to victim orientated crimes. ... which I found out from speaking to one of the facilitators ( a rape survivor of all people ... surprise, surprise ... and funnily enough, the director of the organization was a woman too ... and also the martial art that they borrowed from was established by a chinese woman about 300 years ago ... but hey, 300 years + of women with successful victim prevention strategies and they never really were smart enough to forget everything and just rely on culprits being responsible ...... ).

    And a brief search of the web shows information about these types of groups and the information they offer is quite easy to come by .. so its not like it is incredibly unique or whatever (although the people who taught us were flown interstate for the seminar on account of their pertinent subject matter and effective teaching methods)

    Its pretty clear to me these are not the sort of seminars/information sessions you have been to


    Its pretty clear you are over-estimating your experience and your knowledge base
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2013
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes, yes, exactly what I have been pointing out.

    But you seem reluctant to repeat your own advice, to recommend such "preventative strategies", in the major, common, most significant situations in which a woman is likely to be at risk of being raped. This is curious.

    So I'm asking: what situations did you have in mind, in which women need not anticipate that they might be raped?
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Once again, already explained this in the part you edited out.

    (con't from where you edited ...) even though both things, preventative strategies for both victims and perpetrators work in tandem (much like any other victim orientated crime you can mention) as opposed to being diametrically opposed in some magical fashion.

    On the contrary, its your advice that you are exclusively positing ... advice that isn't found to be given by any actual advocate of preventative strategies btw.

    However if one insists on radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments, one can also just as easily say that the only viable outcome of educating men on their responsibility in cases of rape is that they absolutely and entirely avoid any association with women since, as we all (apparently) know, every man is a potential rapist.

    So guess you are still stuck in the same double bind.



    Why, all of the time of course (if we are going to play the game of insisting on radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments)

    The next question obviously is :

    "In what situations do you have in mind, in which a man need not anticipate that they might be a rapist".

    :scratchin:
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The part you reposted is of course irrelevant.
    So you aren't going to type your answer. No surprise.

    I don't think you have one that you are willing to admit, and I can't blame you - even a person as dishonest to the core as you are would have trouble avoiding something like that if typed out on a screen.

    In almost all of them, in my world (barring isolated stranger threats, military operations, etc). In none of them, in yours so far (unless you manage to actually answer that question). Yet another penalty for your notion of having the woman take precautions whenever she might anticipate being raped - the man must then recognize the light in which he is being viewed.

    Or as a writer with integrity once put it: There can be no free men without free women.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    this explanation of yours is of course, being bereft of any sort of explanation, meaningless and typical of your inability to deal what people actually say

    you should get your computer screen checked.
    I just gave you an answer.

    Here, let me repeat it again for you :

    Why, all of the time of course (if we are going to play the game of insisting on radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments)

    will the irony never end?

    well that has severe ramifications (since, you know, you want to continue playing this game of insisting on radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments)



    Oh you mean the bit you edited out at the very beginning?

    (con't from where you edited ...) even though both things, preventative strategies for both victims and perpetrators work in tandem (much like any other victim orientated crime you can mention) as opposed to being diametrically opposed in some magical fashion.

    IOW in my world (which actually includes the world of people dealing with any one of many victim orientated crimes you could care to mention), you actually have these two things working together.
    Also in my world, you have a range (ie, more than one) of different means measures to undertake according to time, place and circumstance


    The observation that Iceaura'ss precautionary approach, undertaken rationally and in response to the actual situation of becoming a rapaist as it exists in the real world, would require that men devote their most serious attentions and efforts into avoiding exposure to the most obvious opportunities for rape they face.

    Prominent among Iceaura's recommendations, for example, includes understanding that any man is a potential rapist. That would of course apply in particular - this is my point - to dealing with those targets most likely to be their victims. As the most likely rapists are the woman's male acquaintances, that would require the man to devote most of his prevention effort and behavioral precautions to the avoidance of being provided with easy opportunities to rape his associates.


    so get yourself in a room, lock the door, and throw away the key ... much like a woman's only preventative option is to retreat from the world of male rapists . I mean its not like there is any other viable alternative ...... is there?
    :scratchin:


    If you are trying to sell freedom as an inability to intelligently negotiate the prospect of danger or misfortune in one's life, and infact invest the responsibility of one's well being in the hands of individuals who are intent to act maliciously towards one, you won't have many buyers
    :shrug:
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You're right, I should have included an explanation of its meaning for the casual reader unfamiliar with your style.

    What it means is that you were lying, when you claimed I had edited out the answer to my question.

    And that means the question stands. Here it is, still unanswered:
    It's a normal, obvious, central question for any society in which women are held responsible for managing their vulnerability to rape, avoiding the attraction of rapists, keeping themselves safe by taking precautions whenever "anticipating that they might be raped" , and so forth - as laid out by LG and wynn and arauca and the rest of that crowd here.

    The context for it is a society in which most rapes are committed by male acquaintances of the victims - family, friend, social, casual. The objection to the obvious answer is that it seems uncomfortably close to (indistinguishable from, in practice) a recommendation that women live radically constrained and oppressed lives of public fear and private continual wariness of essentially all men, and that is vehemently denied by the aforementioned crowd. So we need another answer, not so obvious.

    Instead, we get this kind of bs:
    I'll pass on your game there. I'm going to leave my simple, straightforward question posted, and note the obvious implications of your inability to answer it as well as your recourse to dishonesty (we are long past stupidity, as an explanation of your tactics). And in that vein:
    You find your approach so uncomfortable to consider that you attempt to assign it to me? So you do know what you're doing - interesting.
    Your approach requires nothing from men whatsoever, of course, which was the issue there; your question was addressed to me, about my actual approach, not the mirror, about yours - however you dress it in other people's nicks.
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Instead we are just left with open ended terse statements that are nothing more than opinions of yours bereft of context, explanation or even comprehension of what you are responding to.
    :shrug:

    and you still don't get it ....

    In the "real world", people adopt a variety of preventative measures according to time, place and circumstance.
    IOW in some circumstances, they would be hyper vigilant due to the risk factors involved and in some circumstances they would be quite relaxed.
    Also in those situations where it is "sprung" on them, there is also a range of responses according to the same line of thinking. All of these responses are based on engineering a course of action given a particular scenario or recognizing the nature of the culprit.

    At this point, we could not only be talking about rape, but any one of a number of victim orientated crimes, eg auto theft, assault, etc

    I say "in the real world", because this is essentially what people do for any one of a number of victim orientated crimes. IOW its the "natural response" to adopt some sort of preventative program to becoming a victim (unless one is adopting some sort of neo-buddhist philosophy of being a human punching bag or something). The only question that then arises is if a preventative program is effective or not (ie based on data actually surrounding a perpetrator's modus operandi or what they look for in an easy target) or if it could be improved any.

    So this is where victim prevention seminars and the like come in. Far from reducing the range of responses, these seminars tend to increase them. IOW one develops a broader range of tools for negotiating the problem as it exists.

    (and as a side point, all these efforts work in tandem with justice issues for perpetrators ... but that's kind of a side point atm, but I would just throw that in there since it seems you are also one of these weird people who insist on establishing such things in a dichotomy with preventative measures .... In the real world you don't find that there is one set of criteria for dealing with the issue of being a victim and another diametrically opposed set of criteria for dealing with the perpetrator. IOW both these sets of criteria can be honed or changed independently as information or social changes come to hand, and used together simultaneously )

    Now, along you come and advocate, in light of all this, that the only doable option is for a victim to exist in a state of hyper alert prevention all of the time against everyone... which, funnily enough, is something you don't find in the "real world" neither by individuals (unless of course the individual is so heavily immersed in indicators that it would suggest they have made some bad lifestyle choices or something) or as taught by groups advocating preventative strategies. And of course you say this in an attempt to draw the line at "men being responsible for rape" as the final and only preventative response to this problem (IOW you switch the preventative program from the victim to the perpetrator .... which, again, is a noble concept and no problem, but if you do it at the expense of anything a potential victim might do to protect themselves, its bad advice)

    IOW, in discussing preventative measures a victim might take,you are insisting on playing the game of radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments.
    And of course the problem with you playing that game is that you are also a loser as much as anyone else.
    Why?
    Because if we also look at the preventative measures a perpetrator might take (with the same rules of playing the game of radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments) we are left with an identical scenario.

    Namely Lock yourself in a room and throw away the key.

    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2013
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Why yes. And so we ask: given your repeated assertion that women are the ones responsible for taking precautions whenever they "anticipate they might be raped", what in your reality would be the situations in which they need not take such precautions?

    You again insist, in the abstract, that such situations exist. So you must have some idea of what these situations are, in which women do not need to "anticipate they might be raped", in which women are not responsible for taking precautions against the threat of rape. So, for the fourth or fifth time: what are they?
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I thought it would be pretty obvious : a person doesn't take precautions when they are not "reading" any signs of danger.
    Hence being unable, uninformed or simply, as in the case you advocate, refusing to read the danger signs is not a very admirable state to be in.
    That's why part of the information these seminars give are not only about "reading" an environment but also "reading" one's own personal state ... which of course is the preliminary step before determining which preventative measure to take (as opposed to being in a constant state of some sort of charlie's angel ninja assassin that you seem to vouch for as being the only doable standard)

    As far as not being responsible for one's personal safety or well being, that is never really an option for any normal functioning adult ... unless of course you want to start talking about victim professionalism.

    IOW the very proximity of danger automatically calls for an individual to adopt some sort of preventative strategy. The details are simply in things like effect, capacity, application etc.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So obviously you would have no problem answering this question:
    -
    So an adult woman is never free of the responsibility of taking precautions against the threat of rape? Or are you bored and changing the subject?
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    of course not
    let me say it again: a person doesn't take precautions when they are not "reading" any signs of danger. There are a range of terms used to explain how one assesses the presence of danger in one's environment.

    Unless you are in the habit, say, of wearing one of these when you go to bed :

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .... you also abide a similar standard.


    That aside, I am guessing you are having problems because of your determination requiring women to adopt precautions all of the time in all circumstances, ie , constant paranoia, or, technically speaking, advocating that life itself is technically a "dangerous occurrence" for a woman involved in any sort of association with men (aka : playing the game of radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments). Its like you are trying to pretend that risk control occurs in the complete absence of risk assessment.
    And, as far spurious discussion goes, that's fair enough, but you should realize that, by the same standard, any other mitigation program you can offer, either real (ie systematically in place at the time we speak) or imagined, suffers the same fate.

    IOW if you want to talk about risk control in the complete absence of risk assessment, everything starts to sound pretty silly ... which is of course a fine tool if humor is your aim.
    :roflmao:




    Or car theft, or dodgy pyramid schemes or slipping over in the bath tub either. The notion of being responsible for one's personal safety is not a new phenoemena, with a recorded history in human civilization for at lest 10 000 years.

    And its not just a thing for women - It goes for men too. In fact you could even say much the same for children too, although given that a child is generally held to have others looking after them in quite a few matters, they tend to have a broader network of individuals to be responsible for them (which, funnily enough, usually takes the form of adults teaching children how to be personally responsible for themselves) as far as personal safety goes.

    I find it ironic that you talk of freedom for women yet simultaneously insist on granting them a status on lower than children, since you refuse to concede they have the capacity to be personally responsible for themselves.

    :shrug:

    No, I don't mind having to repeat myself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page