Rape and the "Civilized" World

[Bells]

If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.

Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.

IOW the only thing there isn't room to discuss is the idiotic idea that prevention plays no role in negotiating the problem of risk

What behaviours should a woman not exhibit if she wants to make sure her husband does not rape her?

Answer the question.

At what point should a woman not expect to be raped?

Find a quote where I draw a qualitative comparison between rape and auto-theft to suggest that the the loss and immorality of the acts are on par with each other.

Yes, because raping a woman is as immoral as stealing a car...

To rape apologists and peddlers such as yourself, they are on par. Which is why you keep using car theft as a comparison in "risk assessment" when it comes to rape. I mean, why else would you keep bringing up cars and car theft, etc, in discussing rape and your misogynistic versions of rape prevention?

Once again, slobber chops, quote me. I dare you.
You see, there is a big difference between holding people accountable to what they say and holding people accountable to what one imagines they say.

A normal person, if they made such a mistake, would offer an apology.

I'm sorry, you are asking me to apologise to you after you asked me if I would prefer to be right or be raped?

And you have used the car analogy in comparing how people take preventative measures against car theft by locking their doors and comparing it to women taking preventative measures to not be raped. And now you are trying to deny it?

Your big problem here Bells is that you have participated in this thread in a virtual monologue with your nightmare ravished imagination as opposed to pretty much anything anyone has actually said on the topic.

Maybe you just need someone to roleplay out some sort of villainous stereotype for the sake of your own cathartic self-help therapy ... but sorry, I am not going to oblige you by pretending that I said the things you imagine

And you have just asked a woman who has dared to disagree with you in a thread about rape whether I would rather be right or be raped, commented that any sane woman would rather not be raped and then inferred that I was somehow not sane.

Your major problem here, Lightgigantic, is that you are a misogynistic twat and a liar to boot.

Now you can try and paint this anyway you like. This isn't looking good for you at all. Unless of course your delusions stretch beyond the fact that your "everyone else" amounts to about 3 people, Wynn and Scifes (the homophobic individual who doesn't even believe a wife can be raped).. You don't really have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Balerion]

actually they talk about rape occurring to women who jeopardize their opportunity for escape in favor of trying to win the fight

Which is a flawed premise from the start, because that's not how rape occurs. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the situation in which this philosophy is based upon doesn't even involve an actual attack? They're simply perpetuating the myth that the only women who are raped are the ones who mouth off, thereby putting the blame for the rape on the woman. They even make the claim that if women would just shut up, they would lower their risk of being raped to "virtually zero."

Because that's how rape occurs in your mind, isn't it? Bitches who won't keep their damn mouths shut, right?

err ... no.

You say that, yet your idea of "effective rape prevention" is to keep women from arguing with men. In the scenario your website provides, she put herself at risk not by talking to the drunk man in the parking lot, but by confronting him while in class. That was the "dangerous behavior" that earned her a good raping, not her walking out alone at night into a parking lot. The message wasn't one of avoidance of dark and isolated places while alone, but avoidance of talking to men in class while surrounded by friends and classmates. You call that prevention?

But I guess its your mind that is more of a worry .... since you think that there is no way to bring risk assessment to a scenario that precludes violence

Of course there are. But if your "risk assessment" involves not talking to men simply because they're men, then all you're really doing is making it impossible for a woman to avoid blame.

nope

jeopardizing an opportunity for escape from violence has nothing to do with whether the offender is a jilted admirer or even a polar bear for that matter.
:shrug:

What you continually fail to realize is that this is not an accurate depiction of how rape occurs. Women are not being raped because they "jeopardized their opportunity for escape." Much of the time they are raped by someone they know and have no reason to mistrust.

Its difficult to find a single effective example of risk assessment brought to volatile situation where a good opportunity to run is abstained in favour of a prolonging it (regardless whether its through running one's mouth or anything else .... ) particularly if the other party has the upper hand in strength

And you certainly can't find a single example of a woman being raped because she chose to argue rather than run, or a situation in which she had adequate reason to believe a rape was imminent if she didn't run.

Here are some good examples to illustrate this subtle point of failing a bit in terms of risk assessment.

Goes to show how inaccurate your perception of rape is. To you, it's really as obvious and simple as not approaching an elephant or bear. But not only are those woefully poor analogies at face value based on the fact that there isn't any way to identify a rapist before the attack, but if you examine the context of the videos you provided, they actually make my case for me. In both animal videos, the victims had assurances that their actions were reasonably safe. Yet in spite of those assurances, they were attacked. So a risk assessment would have come up clean, yet they suffered anyway. The only way in which they could have avoided attack would have been to completely stay away from the situation, which amounts to, in the real world, completely staying away from men in social situations. You honestly find that to be a realistic or even healthy option?

I've got to ask , can you think of any risk prevention strategies that one could apply to prevent these situations occurring (even though some of them actually involve women ... believe it or not)?
(ps : extra brownie points if you can do it without being misogynistic)

The situations provided in the videos? I've already addressed that above. If you mean can I think of any risk prevention strategies for rape, then no. Nothing outside of perhaps carrying a rape whistle or pepper spray if she has to walk through sketchy areas at night, but neither measure is totally effective. I certainly wouldn't recommend avoiding talking to jocks or people who use nasty language, as your website advises.

Whaddya reckon?

A bit of a tough one to nous out?

I reckon you're a misogynist creep who believes women are ultimately at fault when they are raped.

 

[lightgigantic]

What behaviours should a woman not exhibit if she wants to make sure her husband does not rape her?

sticking around for the sake of "winning" when its apparent he does, for a start ....

plenty more clues in the numerous links I gave (and even some you inadvertently gave) which I am sure you haven't, can't and won't read.

Answer the question.

At what point should a woman not expect to be raped?

risk assessment ... done and dusted ... maybe 47 times already in this thread.

Yet for some funny reason everytime I use an analogy to show how this mechanism works in any other hazard bearing scenarios you seem to think I am equating women with cars, polar bears or detonating atom bombs or something
:shrug:

Yes, because raping a woman is as immoral as stealing a car...
To rape apologists and peddlers such as yourself, they are on par. Which is why you keep using car theft as a comparison in "risk assessment" when it comes to rape. I mean, why else would you keep bringing up cars and car theft, etc, in discussing rape and your misogynistic versions of rape prevention?

well that's a quote from you ... more evidence that you imagine stuff I guess
But what I was actually asking for, slobber chops, was a quote where I say it.

For instance I can say that you are nazi pedophile WW2 war criminal wife-beater who occupies disabled parking spaces at shopping malls.
Or I can ask you why you want to have sex with teenagers but never want to date one.
Or say you are sadistic for thinking thumbtacks should go into skulls, not walls.

I can even say it 200 times.

However it doesn't really matter how many times I say it if I can't actually reference it any meaningful manner outside of my imagination.

I'm sorry, you are asking me to apologise to you after you asked me if I would prefer to be right or be raped?

actually I asked you to apologize for pretending I said stuff.

The only person consistently and repeatedly saying women are on par with cars is you ... which is kind of funny since its apparently an idea you don't agree with.

And you have used the car analogy in comparing how people take preventative measures against car theft by locking their doors and comparing it to women taking preventative measures to not be raped. And now you are trying to deny it?

I also talked about getting attacked by polar bears, getting pummeled by a falling satellite, aggravating and ingrown toenail and also dropping an atom bomb on a country.

In fact I even talked about the nature of negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere.

All for the sake of highlighting the relationship between risk assessment, risk management and incident occurrence ... and all for the sake of explaining the how, when, where and why of risk prevention which you are consistently demanding to be answered yet simultaneously incapable of reading and hence discussing in any form resembling intelligence.
:shrug:

And you have just asked a woman who has dared to disagree with you in a thread about rape whether I would rather be right or be raped, commented that any sane woman would rather not be raped and then inferred that I was somehow not sane.

Just calling you out for your obvious bullshit.

No doubt you also think you are calling me out for my bullshit, but the big difference here is that I can actually work with ideas you represent as opposed to pretending you said stuff.

IOW when you try to call me out for my (apparent) bullshit, it is still simply your own bullshit.

Your major problem here, Lightgigantic, is that you are a misogynistic twat and a liar to boot.

Your major problem here, Bells, is that you can't actually address people on the strength of what they say

Now you can try and paint this anyway you like. This isn't looking good for you at all. Unless of course your delusions stretch beyond the fact that your "everyone else" amounts to about 3 people, Wynn and Scifes (the homophobic individual who doesn't even believe a wife can be raped).. You don't really have much of a leg to stand on.

On the contrary, its you who has the greater reality crisis on their hands.

You are advocating an insane dichotomy, namely establishing risk prevention and victim advocacy as diametric opposites ... a notion that finds no practical precedent in the history of the universe (ok, granted it may occupy a tiny insignificant part of the universe called "bell's imagination when called upon to protect her puffed up ego during online discussions")

On face value, one could say that you are insane.

However since its obvious that not even you standby this moronic take on risk assessment and management (evidenced by you still being alive. Any person actually stupid enough to apply your general principles of risk assessment and management - namely the strict prohibition on anything that changes or affects the action, attitude or appearance of an individual - would be dead in less than 24 hours) , I think its pretty safe to say you are just being overwhelmed by your pride for the sake of saving face on online discussions ...... which is more a weakness of character than an insanity.

 

[Bells]

sticking around for the sake of "winning" when its apparent he does, for a start ....

plenty more clues in the numerous links I gave (and even some you inadvertently gave) which I am sure you haven't, can't and won't read.


risk assessment ... done and dusted ... maybe 47 times already in this thread.

Yet for some funny reason everytime I use an analogy to show how this mechanism works in any other hazard bearing scenarios you seem to think I am equating women with cars, polar bears or detonating atom bombs or something
:shrug:





well that's a quote from you ... more evidence that you imagine stuff I guess
But what I was actually asking for, slobber chops, was a quote where I say it.

For instance I can say that you are nazi pedophile WW2 war criminal wife-beater who occupies disabled parking spaces at shopping malls.
Or I can ask you why you want to have sex with teenagers but never want to date one.
Or say you are sadistic for thinking thumbtacks should go into skulls, not walls.

I can even say it 200 times.

However it doesn't really matter how many times I say it if I can't actually reference it any meaningful manner outside of my imagination.






actually I asked you to apologize for pretending I said stuff.

The only person consistently and repeatedly saying women are on par with cars is you ... which is kind of funny since its apparently an idea you don't agree with.


I also talked about getting attacked by polar bears, getting pummeled by a falling satellite, aggravating and ingrown toenail and also dropping an atom bomb on a country.

In fact I even talked about the nature of negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere.

All for the sake of highlighting the relationship between risk assessment, risk management and incident occurrence ... and all for the sake of explaining the how, when, where and why of risk prevention which you are consistently demanding to be answered yet simultaneously incapable of reading and hence discussing in any form resembling intelligence.
:shrug:





Just calling you out for your obvious bullshit.

No doubt you also think you are calling me out for my bullshit, but the big difference here is that I can actually work with ideas you represent as opposed to pretending you said stuff.

IOW when you try to call me out for my (apparent) bullshit, it is still simply your own bullshit.


Your major problem here, Bells, is that you can't actually address people on the strength of what they say


On the contrary, its you who has the greater reality crisis on their hands.

You are advocating an insane dichotomy, namely establishing risk prevention and victim advocacy as diametric opposites ... a notion that finds no practical precedent in the history of the universe (ok, granted it may occupy a tiny insignificant part of the universe called "bell's imagination when called upon to protect her puffed up ego during online discussions")

On face value, one could say that you are insane.

However since its obvious that not even you standby this moronic take on risk assessment and management (evidenced by you still being alive. Any person actually stupid enough to apply your general principles of risk assessment and management - namely the strict prohibition on anything that changes or affects the action, attitude or appearance of an individual - would be dead in less than 24 hours) , I think its pretty safe to say you are just being overwhelmed by your pride for the sake of saving face on online discussions ...... which is more a weakness of character than an insanity.

So like your train station in the red light district analogy, you are now going to deny you compared rape to car theft and rape prevention to locking up one's car and you are accusing me of going on about it when it has been a central basis of your argument throughout this thread, even after you were advised it was offensive by several participants in this thread?

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling here, LG?

What audience are you peddling to here? Rape apologists and sympathisers like Scifes? Wynn who blamed a 3 year old for being raped and told said rape victim that she shared responsibility for being raped as a 3 year old?

Is this your target audience?

You have effectively asked me if I would prefer to win an argument or be raped and you somehow think this is acceptable and then you had the nerve and the cheek to say that obviously a sane woman would prefer to not be raped, and then alluding to what you believe was my lack of sanity.. This is what you have done.

And you are calling it rape prevention...

So the point remains. You are nothing but a misogynistic rape apologist who blames women for being raped because you believe the onus is on the woman to not be raped. You can try and paint this every way under the sun. It will not hide who and what you are.

 

[billvon]

What audience are you peddling to here? Rape apologists and sympathisers like Scifes? Wynn who blamed a 3 year old for being raped and told said rape victim that she shared responsibility for being raped as a 3 year old?

By the same token, one could ask what audience you are playing to? Women who you hope will be raped, lest someone degrade them by suggesting ways to not be raped?

Internet bravado aside, if you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, I have no doubt that you would do what you could to keep her safer. And that would not make you a "rape apologist" any more than it makes anyone else here a "rape apologist."

 

[lightgigantic]

So like your train station in the red light district analogy,

the train station analogy?

Do you mean the late night scenario after a night of drinking scenario?
Or something else you imagine?

you are now going to deny you compared rape to car theft and rape prevention to locking up one's car and you are accusing me of going on about it when it has been a central basis of your argument throughout this thread, even after you were advised it was offensive by several participants in this thread?

It has been a central basis for a few arguments.
But the somewhat delicate problem is that none of them were qualitative analogies for the moral barometer of rape.
Infact I even went to extreme measures to explain that the moment it became clear you were re-trolling the same tired imaginations.

Hell, I even said it last post

All for the sake of highlighting the relationship between risk assessment, risk management and incident occurrence ... and all for the sake of explaining the how, when, where and why of risk prevention which you are consistently demanding to be answered yet simultaneously incapable of reading and hence discussing in any form resembling intelligence.

The only question is why you not only failed to read that, but also failed to read it about the last 47 times I explained precisely what the analogy does and does not illustrate.
:shrug:

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling here, LG?

Basically Slobber Chops, you are asking how prevention issues are limited. I explain it is due to risk assessment, and proceed to explain how this works not just in the negotiation of rape prevention, but also in negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere. (which includes not only car theft, but also polar bear attacks, getting squashed by space stations or aggravating an ingrown toenail)

Then you pretend that I am equating women with cars, polar bears et al.
When I call you up on this bullshit you then again return to asking how risk assessment is limited.

You are simply being a dickhead.
:shrug:

What audience are you peddling to here? Rape apologists and sympathisers like Scifes? Wynn who blamed a 3 year old for being raped and told said rape victim that she shared responsibility for being raped as a 3 year old?

At the moment I wouldn't trust you to do my laundry, much less provide run-downs on what other people say.
Even having a three year old as a target audience would be an improvement on you at the moment.
They tend to be less self-indulgent in fantasy and make-believe.

:shrug:

Is this your target audience?

You have effectively asked me if I would prefer to win an argument or be raped and you somehow think this is acceptable and then you had the nerve and the cheek to say that obviously a sane woman would prefer to not be raped, and then alluding to what you believe was my lack of sanity.. This is what you have done.

already explained that this is not the case ...... I guess if you bothered to read things before you let rip with your mental diarrhea, I wouldn't have to say it again :

On face value, one could say that you are insane.

However since its obvious that not even you standby this moronic take on risk assessment and management (evidenced by you still being alive. Any person actually stupid enough to apply your general principles of risk assessment and management - namely the strict prohibition on anything that changes or affects the action, attitude or appearance of an individual - would be dead in less than 24 hours) , I think its pretty safe to say you are just being overwhelmed by your pride for the sake of saving face on online discussions ...... which is more a weakness of character than an insanity.

Your problems are not so complex or involved as to require a psychiatrist.
You are just being a dickhead.

And you are calling it rape prevention...

not just me - heaps of other people out there too.

Even you get to wear the hat to since you also inadvertently provided a link about research data that was utilized to the same end.

So the point remains. You are nothing but a misogynistic rape apologist who blames women for being raped because you believe the onus is on the woman to not be raped. You can try and paint this every way under the sun. It will not hide who and what you are.

well slobber chops, you've had plenty of opportunities to provide these so-called quotes where I say these things. You fail every time.
... all you are left with is rehashing the same bullshit that has no source other than what you imagine other people say ... while simultaneously advocating an approach to risk that is so stupid that nobody applies it.

Not even you.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

By the same token, one could ask what audience you are playing to? Women who you hope will be raped, lest someone degrade them by suggesting ways to not be raped?

Internet bravado aside, if you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, I have no doubt that you would do what you could to keep her safer. And that would not make you a "rape apologist" any more than it makes anyone else here a "rape apologist."

The problem isn't with the idea of taking steps to protect oneself, it's the idea that "virtually all" rape can be avoided by behavior change. In the same way you wouldn't suggest that a black person who doesn't like being pulled over simply for being black stops driving, you shouldn't suggest that a woman who doesn't want to be raped stops socializing with men or stops dressing in ways that make her attractive. By making it the woman's responsibility, it becomes the woman's fault. And by making the "irresponsible behavior" something so innocuous as arguing with a male classmate, it becomes impossible for any self-respecting woman to absolve herself of responsibility. It's like saying you got robbed because you own nice things. No one would suggest that it's your fault for being robbed because you have an expensive television, so you shouldn't blame a woman for standing up for herself.

But in the minds of misogynists like LG and scifes, any woman who dares to run her mouth at a larger, stronger male is taking responsibility for her own sexual assault.

 

[billvon]

The problem isn't with the idea of taking steps to protect oneself, it's the idea that "virtually all" rape can be avoided by behavior change.

It almost certainly can. That does not mean that you SHOULD do all those things. It's up to you.

In the same way you wouldn't suggest that a black person who doesn't like being pulled over simply for being black stops driving, you shouldn't suggest that a woman who doesn't want to be raped stops socializing with men or stops dressing in ways that make her attractive.

Exactly. A black person could avoid being ticketed for "driving while black" by never driving. That is a very poor way to deal with the problem; much better to solve the problem at the source, which are bigoted cops. However, if a black man does drive, and is ticketed for doing nothing wrong, it is not his fault; it is the fault of the cops. Likewise, if he decides to avoid one street in Boston because a bigoted cop sits in wait for him there, he is not excusing the cop or "apologizing" for his behavior, and the cop is no less wrong in what he does.

it becomes impossible for any self-respecting woman to absolve herself of responsibility.

Good! No one should. All people are always responsible for their own actions. In your example above, that black man is responsible for the area he chooses to drive. He might choose to avoid the area that the bigoted cop lies in wait. That does NOT mean that the cop is not a bigot, nor does it mean getting pulled over by ANOTHER bigoted cop is the black man's fault.

It's like saying you got robbed because you own nice things. No one would suggest that it's your fault for being robbed because you have an expensive television

Exactly. And if someone says "Sorry to hear that, that sucks. Maybe you should lock your front door next time just in case" he is not saying it was the person's fault that they were robbed; they are just suggesting a way to prevent them from becoming a victim of another crime.

But in the minds of misogynists like LG and scifes, any woman who dares to run her mouth at a larger, stronger male is taking responsibility for her own sexual assault.

That, of course, is not true; "running her mouth off" is in no way permission to be sexually assaulted. But the piece they quoted is also excellent, in that it gives women better weapons to use against rapists. And that is a good thing overall.

 

[Tiassa]

Crazy Sunshine/Last Dinosaur

actually that entire article ... is actually about the pro's and con's of using violence to avoid becoming a victim.

Swing and a miss. To reiterate:

• Sexual bullying, in their opinion, isn't violence.​

And as to advertising, you seem to be operating under some sort of tacit presumption that pitch rhetoric is valid and reliable in an analytic context. It's not, unless the analysis is the psychopathology of advertising.

So, to the one, you're using exaggerations, at best—if not outright caricatures—as if they have some real argumentative value. And, to the other, the caricature you have selected on this occasion includes the presupposition that sexual bullying isn't violence.

• • •​

Cuts a bit close to the bone....

Look at the reiteration to Lightgigantic above. And note his response seemingly requiring such reiteration. See what he did, there? Retreated to his "blog" code words—who knew "blog" was a profane word?—then complains, nearly incomprehensibly, and never actually addresses the point.

And the basic reminder about advertising.

We must ask ourselves: Is it reasonable to presume these points escape him?

The part of me that says yes falls back to my usual quotes from Emir Ali Khan and Norman O. Brown; this is a neurotic dysfunction our neighbor is suffering.

But this sort of acuity of blindness, while certainly real in the world, seems especially caricaturized in the n'ether. It is particularly difficult to discern sometimes if this caricature of dysfunction is calculated or simply accentuated by the two-dimensional nature of bulletin board discussion.

So there is that other part of me that says, no, it is not reasonable to presume he's that thick. At the very least, it is unkind. But there we encounter the classic dilemma of sinister or stupid, because at some point the justification of calculated cruelty is a direct effect of specific ignorance magnified to the point of functional stupidity. It's hard to figure out what he's trolling for.

Flip a coin, I guess. Either way it would seem he is unable to help himself.

 

[Balerion]

It almost certainly can. That does not mean that you SHOULD do all those things. It's up to you.

Short of locking oneself in their house 24/7, there is no behavior that can eliminate all, or even virtually all, chances of being assaulted. Women (and men) are often victimized by their own family members. There is no legitimate behavior change that could reduce the chances to that extent.

Exactly. A black person could avoid being ticketed for "driving while black" by never driving. That is a very poor way to deal with the problem; much better to solve the problem at the source, which are bigoted cops. However, if a black man does drive, and is ticketed for doing nothing wrong, it is not his fault; it is the fault of the cops. Likewise, if he decides to avoid one street in Boston because a bigoted cop sits in wait for him there, he is not excusing the cop or "apologizing" for his behavior, and the cop is no less wrong in what he does.

You've extended the analogy too far. There is no "rape street" for a victim or potential victim to avoid, so the only thing they could do, again, is to lock themselves in their homes and don't have visitors. Or, as the website suggests, avoid confronting men when they've wronged you. This is nonsense. Women have just as much of a right to defend themselves as men do, and suggesting that in doing so they then are putting themselves in a position to be raped is absurd. That's like saying you're putting yourself in position to be shot because you confronted a man, and men sometimes shoot people. That's an asinine suggestion. Just as it's asinine to expect a person to avoid driving down a certain street because they might get pulled over because of the color of their skin. That is unacceptable.

Good! No one should. All people are always responsible for their own actions.

The fallacy is in the claim that it is the woman's actions that lead to the rape, rather than the rapist's. Suggesting that women avoid men so as to not be raped is not advice anyone can reasonably follow, and suggesting that women not confront men who insult them or wrong them in some way is not advice anyone should follow. But by making that (again, fallaciously) the trigger for rape, they are saying that it is the woman who brings it upon themselves. To the prevention advocate, the rapist has no power, therefore the woman who is raped is raped because she made a mistake or misjudgment.

In your example above, that black man is responsible for the area he chooses to drive. He might choose to avoid the area that the bigoted cop lies in wait. That does NOT mean that the cop is not a bigot, nor does it mean getting pulled over by ANOTHER bigoted cop is the black man's fault.

For one, they are suggesting that it's the woman's fault. Note the central proposition: "Would you rather be right, or raped?" The insinuation is that the woman is pressing the issue and provoking the rapist into action. This isn't a case of a person choosing to drive down a street they've been wrongly stopped on before; it's a case of a person poking a bear with a stick.

Secondly, the point of the black motorist analogy was to show the ludicrous nature of "prevention" advice. A black motorist shouldn't be expected to stop driving in a town simply because it has racist police officers, and a woman shouldn't be expected to stop talking to men simply because some men are rapists. Choosing to not drive down a certain street only works after the fact, and is analogous to a woman not speaking to the man who raped her the first time. What the fuck kind of advice is that?

Exactly. And if someone says "Sorry to hear that, that sucks. Maybe you should lock your front door next time just in case" he is not saying it was the person's fault that they were robbed; they are just suggesting a way to prevent them from becoming a victim of another crime.

And the rape prevention equivalent to locking one's doors is...?

The prevention advocates aren't telling women to lock their doors, they're telling them not to buy such nice things.

That, of course, is not true; "running her mouth off" is in no way permission to be sexually assaulted.

It's not an excuse, but it is cited as the behavior that brought about the rape, and therefore a behavior to be avoided.

But the piece they quoted is also excellent, in that it gives women better weapons to use against rapists. And that is a good thing overall.

The piece LG quoted advises women to not talk back to men. How is that a "better weapon" to use against rapists?

 

[billvon]

Short of locking oneself in their house 24/7, there is no behavior that can eliminate all, or even virtually all, chances of being assaulted. Women (and men) are often victimized by their own family members. There is no legitimate behavior change that could reduce the chances to that extent.

Agreed. There is no reasonable behavior change that can reduce the risk to zero. There are a great many behavior changes that can reduce the risk to some degree.

You've extended the analogy too far. There is no "rape street" for a victim or potential victim to avoid

Nor is there no one street that a black person can go to avoid being profiled. They can try (as women can) but will not always be successful.

so the only thing they could do, again, is to lock themselves in their homes and don't have visitors.

Do you honestly think that the only two options are to take any action at all without regard to risk, and "lock themselves in their homes and don't have visitors?"

Or, as the website suggests, avoid confronting men when they've wronged you.

The website does not say that.

The fallacy is in the claim that it is the woman's actions that lead to the rape, rather than the rapist's.

There is only one person responsible for how a woman acts, or dresses, or travels - the woman. Full stop.
There is only one person responsible for a rape - the rapist. Full stop.

Can you agree to that?

Suggesting that women avoid men so as to not be raped is not advice anyone can reasonably follow

No one is suggesting that women avoid all men to avoid being raped.

Note the central proposition: "Would you rather be right, or raped?" The insinuation is that the woman is pressing the issue and provoking the rapist into action.

No, the insinuation is that women have power over men, and they are not hapless victims on the inevitable path to being raped. That power includes the power to recognize that rape is possible and take steps to remove oneself from the situation.

This isn't a case of a person choosing to drive down a street they've been wrongly stopped on before; it's a case of a person poking a bear with a stick.

OK. Is poking a bear with a stick a reasonable thing to do? If someone said they were going to do that, would you tell them that maybe that wasn't such a good idea? Or would you let them do it, fearing that if you told them not to poke the bear with the stick you'd be a "bear attack apologist?"

Secondly, the point of the black motorist analogy was to show the ludicrous nature of "prevention" advice. A black motorist shouldn't be expected to stop driving in a town simply because it has racist police officers, and a woman shouldn't be expected to stop talking to men simply because some men are rapists.

Exactly correct. And if that black motorist avoids parts of town where blacks are ticketed - and the woman avoids parts of town where rapes are common - neither is an "apologist."

And the rape prevention equivalent to locking one's doors is...?

Locking one's door would be a good equivalent. (I am assuming that even you would not equate locking a woman's door to being a "rape apologist.")

It's not an excuse, but it is cited as the behavior that brought about the rape, and therefore a behavior to be avoided.

That behavior did not "bring about" the rape; it was one of many factors that led to an escalation of the situation. Knowing that the situation is escalating - and knowing when to leave - is a good tool to use to prevent rape.

The piece LG quoted advises women to not talk back to men. How is that a "better weapon" to use against rapists?

Getting away from a rapist safely is as good a "weapon" as self defense training.

 

[iceaura]

Internet bravado aside, if you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, I have no doubt that you would do what you could to keep her safer. And that would not make you a "rape apologist" any more than it makes anyone else here a "rape apologist."

That's not what you, lg, wellwisher, or any of the other precaution advocates here are doing.

The question at hand is not whether women should sometimes take precautions against the chance of harm. The question is whether you, or any of the others here, are capable of restricting that "sometimes" to not be "all the time". So far, there is no evidence of that capability - in lightg's case, we see a rejection of any such possibility and an advocacy of genuinely oppressive social norms enforced by tolerated opportunistic rapists, such as are found in many countries and cultures. In your case, you simply object to the extrapolation without so obviously rejecting the possibility of cutting it short. But your refusal to acknowledge that no one here is opposed to taking well-considered precautions, your insistence that the people here who object to an unlimited advocacy of precaution are objecting to precautions themselves on principle, is not a good sign. Are you sure you want to make that accusation?

There is only one person responsible for how a woman acts, or dresses, or travels - the woman. Full stop.
There is only one person responsible for a rape - the rapist. Full stop.

Can you agree to that?

In the first place that is not true in, say, Yemen or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It has been legally found otherwise in the US - in cases in which women have in public court been found partly responsible for the act they have pressed charges concerning (which is then defined to be not rape, making your statements there true by definition - not what you intended, I hope.)

In the second place, it begs the question here. The problem is that without limits on the norms or expectations of precaution by "responsible adults" the woman is then - according to your two "full stop" assertions - responsible for dressing like a slut or walking alone at night or leaving her bedroom window unlocked or getting drunk in the presence of schoolmates, and therefore responsible for the consequences of her behavior as any adult is expected to be. That makes the act not a "legitimate rape", "extreme rape", or whatever the latest ugly little symptomatic term is now on this thread, and so

in perfect accordance with your two assertions there

the man is not responsible for a rape, and is therefore not a rapist by definition. (See wellwisher's complaint about the "liberals" redefining rape to include such events, in this thread).

This does not deal with the issues at hand - do you agree?

Suggesting that women avoid men so as to not be raped is not advice anyone can reasonably follow
No one is suggesting that women avoid all men to avoid being raped.

That hasn't been established. No one here advocating precaution has been willing, as yet, to put any limits on the avoidance of men - the working criterion so far unmodified here is that the woman should take all recommended precautions whenever she "anticipates that she might be raped".

 

[billvon]

That's not what you, lg, wellwisher, or any of the other precaution advocates here are doing.

Wait a minute. I posed that as a rhetorical question but perhaps that was a mistake.

If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

 

[iceaura]

If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?

Of course.

And the fact that you think that is a relevant question, rhetorical or otherwise, is something you need to reconsider - you say you are not a rape apologist? Time to show, not tell.

 

[billvon]

Of course.

Good! We agree.

And the fact that you think that is a relevant question, rhetorical or otherwise, is something you need to reconsider

It is indeed a relevant question. Several people here have used labels - from "precaution advocates" to "rape apologists" - to categorize anyone who advocates that women should change their behavior to try to prevent rape; indeed, it has been suggested that advocating precautions is tantamount to placing some of the blame on the victim.

Per your answer to the question above, you certainly fall into the above category.

Now that you've established that you are also one of those "precaution advocates" I am hoping some of the name-calling will cease, and the conversation can proceed at a higher level.

 

[iceaura]

It is indeed a relevant question.

Like I said, you want to reconsider that. You are asserting that you are not a rape apologist - but the evidence is accumulating to the contrary.

Several people here have used labels - from "precaution advocates" to "rape apologists" - to categorize anyone who advocates that women should change their behavior to try to prevent rape;

Those aren't the same labels - you do realize that?

indeed, it has been suggested that advocating precautions is tantamount to placing some of the blame on the victim.

No, it hasn't. It has been asserted that advocating oppressive and unrealistic precautions, refusing to limit the advocacy of precaution, refusing to advocate for comparable or concomitant behavioral limitations on potential perps, refusing to assign potential perps responsibility for any of their contributing behaviors or their consequences, and so forth, is an advocacy of oppression and misogynistic societal norms, and a shrugging of responsibility off the rapist as well as the rapists supporting cultural milieu. And yes, that would place "some of the blame" on the victim - a deduced consequence which is an observable fact, btw: look around, you can see it happen in US culture.

 

[billvon]

Those aren't the same labels - you do realize that?

Good! Progress.

No, it hasn't. It has been asserted that advocating oppressive and unrealistic precautions

Advocating oppressive and unrealistic precautions - bad

refusing to limit the advocacy of precaution

Refusing to put limits on what precautions people can take, or what precautions people can suggest - good

refusing to advocate for comparable or concomitant behavioral limitations on potential perps

Refusing to punish rapists - bad
Refusing to punish people you view as _potential_ rapists - good

refusing to assign potential perps responsibility for any of their contributing behaviors or their consequences

See above. If anyone commits a crime, throw the book at them. If they directly enable others to commit crimes, same thing. If you think "their behavior might contribute to an unsafe situation!" then you're on much shakier ground.

And yes, that would place "some of the blame" on the victim

100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

 

[iceaura]

Those aren't the same labels - you do realize that?
Good! Progress.

Really? I can't tell. You appeared confused - have you rethought?

Advocating oppressive and unrealistic precautions - bad

Being unable to tell when one is doing that - likewise bad?

Refusing to put limits on what precautions people can take, or what precautions people can suggest - good

Misses the point.

You can suggest what you want, assign the label "responsible adult" as you choose, sure - but if it's oppressive and misogynistic, you are recommending oppression and misogyny. That's not "good".

"efusing to advocate for comparable or concomitant behavioral limitations on potential perps"
Refusing to punish rapists - bad
Refusing to punish people you view as _potential_ rapists - good

So advocacy of precautionary limitations on the behavior of potential rapists, but not potential victims, is "punishment" - you are saying that on purpose?

And yes, that would place "some of the blame" on the victim
100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that?

I don't know - it agrees with me and my posting, not so much with yours. You still haven't established any limits on your advocacy of precaution, and that's a direct slope to victim blaming and rapist - I guess you don't like apologetics, how about "redefinition"?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know - it agrees with me and my posting, not so much with yours. You still haven't established any limits on your advocacy of precaution, and that's a direct slope to victim blaming and rapist - I guess you don't like apologetics, how about "redefinition"?

You've already joined the club with :

B : If you had a 16 year old daughter and she was going into a situation where you thought she might be raped, would you do what you could to keep her safer?


I : Of course.

The bit in bold establishes the limit (IOW it dictates the threshold where risk management begins)

So you can not only advocate a preventative model, but you can limit it (since apparently you wouldn't act in that manner if she wasn't going into such a situation).

You've already done all the hard work in answering your question.

:shrug:

 

[billvon]

Really? I can't tell. You appeared confused - have you rethought?

Nope, not confused at all.

Misses the point.

OK. If you agree that we should not put limits on what precautions people should take or suggest, then we agree.

You can suggest what you want, assign the label "responsible adult" as you choose, sure - but if it's oppressive and misogynistic, you are recommending oppression and misogyny. That's not "good"

I agree that recommending misogyny and oppression is not good. "Maybe you should go to the mall instead of that rave" does not equal "recommending misogyny and oppression."

So advocacy of precautionary limitations on the behavior of potential rapists, but not potential victims, is "punishment" - you are saying that on purpose?

You cannot put "precautionary limitations" (i.e. restrict someone's freedom) based on what someone like yourself thinks they will do. You can, of course, give them (or the people you think will be their victims) advice.

I don't know -

Lets try this again.
100% of the blame is on the rapist. Period. Can you agree with me on that? If you can't you have some very serious problems.