It addresses a significant number of rapes, as opposed to the whole fashion-police thing, which attends to and inflates a mere sliver by comparison. Indeed, the number of rapes that could be prevented by changing one's style is fractional compared to the number of rapes that could be prevented by separating female children from male family members.
Let's see... First of all, I completely agree with everything stated here. However, let's think about the cost/benefit ratio...
1. Dress appropriately - cost: some inconvenience, perhaps even minor
loss of freedom. benefit: oh, I don't know, the prevention of even
one rape?
(Again,
appropriately is stressed, as I have tried to say before, it is not necessarily the
scantiness of clothing at issue here, at least not for me. It is more a matter of simply acknowledging that behavior, in this case choice of attire, can affect outcome. Wear a bikini to the beach, evening clothes to a cocktail party, sexy clothes to the nightclub, conservative clothes to the office, etc.) Now, I don't consider this view misogynist, or even sexist, because I
advocate the exact same thing for males!
2. ...separating female children from male family members - cost: Complete disintegration (for good or bad) of the nuclear family. Loss of many enriching experiences while growing up. Lack of appreciation for others viewpoints. An even larger gap in understanding between the sexes. Perhaps, an even greater occurence of "stranger" rapes later on in life, because we tend to attack that which we do not understand... benefit: The prevention of several rapes.
This part of your argument seems reactionary in its own right. Try this analogy - I will lock my doors at night because it is very easy for me to do, and will
help prevent burglary. I will not surround my house with a moat, a ten foot high brickwall topped with concertina wire, and post armed guards about the grounds. Why not? Isn't it obvious that these measures would probably eliminate a far greater percentage of home invasions than a $2.00 latch? Well, maybe, but at what cost? I hope this clarifies things a little...
Hyperbole, indeed, but your attempt to distribute it so evenly around this argument seems problematic, considering the evolution of this discussion.
Huh? I'm not following this... "Evenly around this argument?" What are you going on about? I draw on whatever I think might aid in conveying a point of view, whatever is expedient.
While the attire and precaution advocates have largely dropped their de facto advocacy of rape
Who here, or anywhere else has "advocated" rape, explicitly or de facto? Isn't this position founded on an implicite
interpretation of a particular post? I highly doubt
anyone is condoning rape. Of course, you can argue that "they don't know they are doing it, it's subconcious", but I just don't buy it. Where is your evidence of this "advocacy of rape", de facto or otherwise?
I'm of the opinion that once we transcend the stereotypes and caricatures and consider what these precautions are, we'll find our lives—even as males—diminished by such outcomes.
Strictly speaking, I suppose you are right, our lives will be diminished to some extent. This does not change the fact that precautions may reduce the chance of sexual assault. Some sort of balance is called for, this aspect of the world is no different than any other - life is a tradeoff.
Hey, I like topless beaches.
Hey, I
love topless beaches. The more the better...
And I think the world is much better off if women aren't expected to be stoic in order to bolster an illusion of safety.
sto·ic:
n.
1. One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.
2. A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness.
Who said anything about women being expected to be stoic? And what does this have to do with anything? Furthermore, I thought the concept of whether precautions and prudence offered anything more than "an illusion of safety" was the whole issue here. What if it is not an illusion? What then? What if it is real in at least some cases? Why would we throw out the idea? Is the cost/benefit ratio too low? Are we simply unable to discuss the topic because of the "de facto" implications? Maybe?
Dressing conservatively would have an infinitesimal effect at best.
Cite your source... Even in your opinion, what does "infintesimal" mean? How "infintesimal" is the effect to the rape victim(s) in question?
The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument.
This is obviously an opinion, and one that I disagree with. If we can gain consensus on the basic idea that
behavior can alter the
likelihood of sexual assault, perhaps we can move on to a discussion of what is
prudent in this area. I have tried to head this debate in that direction several times. Problem is, this line of reasoning gets sidetracked and bogged down in the whole "transferring blame /responsibilty" and "misogyny" issue. That doesn't not seem constructive to me, but I am at loss as how to proceed. Do you have any ideas on how to "move on", so to speak?
People respond harshly to the whole precaution argument because it approaches the question of rape by putting the responsibility onto the women. It certainly didn't help to see phrases like "asking for it".
Personally, I think the choice of the words "asking for it" was certainly not a wise one. However inappropriate those words may have been though, I would hope that people are mature enough to look past this and focus on the actual issue. Can a woman's behavior influence her likelihood of being sexually assaulted / raped? If so, what measures make sense? Could we just try addressing these questions without the inflammator rhetoric prevalent thus far? Like, please?
And look how things have gone. The advocates have gotten frustrated and angry, responding more about their personal pride than anything else.
Tiassa, perhaps we are frustrated, can you blame us? As far as "personal pride" is concerned, I'm afraid you have lost me again. (Not an unheard of state for me...
)
Furthermore, even when prodded to clarify in ways that might defuse people's disgust, they're providing only the most general of outlines. "There are heaps of clothing that ... aren't designed to get male attention." That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it?
No, but neither is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the central issue. Can a woman's behavior (attire if you prefer) alter the
probability of sexual assault? If so, what
sensible steps can be taken to mitigate the risk? Aren't these the real questions? As far as specifics, I can't even seem to get consensus that it is not a good idea to walk
naked down certain city streets, let alone the advisibility of wearing a turleneck sweater to a cocktail party. That's ... well, it's not exactly
helpful, is it?
And there are a couple of things about clothing "designed to get male attention". First, the purpose of accentuating or creating a sense of beauty is not always designed to get male attention. Some appeals to beauty are intended to be internalized.
OK, and...?
To the other, what if the rapist's focus is breast size? It is theoretically possible that if women measuring a C-cup or larger got surgical reductions to a B-cup, some rapes would be averted°.
Theoretically, yes. But, and it is a
big but, is that advisable? What are the costs / benefits?
Thus, the problem with the precaution argument at present is twofold: First, it transfers the responsibility of male behavior onto women.
No, it doesn't "transfer the responsibility". If anything, it would seem to
empower women. Wouldn't you rather have some control of your destiny than simply be told "deal with it, that's life"?
While we might find the temporary appearance of some degree of relief in this assignation, it is regressive, and we would only delay our reckoning of these conflicts.
How does prudence preclude implementation of any other valid methods of preventing rape?
Additionally, as I have already noted, it is at present an open-ended proposition that runs all the way to paranoia.
It seems to me that paranoia is rampant on both sides of this discussion. That's ... well, it's not exactly
helpful, is it?
One way to view the problem is to consider an awful question: If not you, then who? Thankfully, this is not a question most of us have to face, although when we step away from caricatures and stereotypes, we must realize it is a sacrifice many have made.
What exactly are you getting at here? It seems to smack of determinism. Are you proposing that there are a "fixed" number of rapes that are going to occur regardless? That if one person reduces their chances of being sexually assaulted, it
increases someone else's chance? Perhaps I misunderstood your point...
Compared to the immeasurable whole of the rape phenomenon, this argument about a woman's attire is insignificant. What surprises me most about it is that it persists.
It persists because it intuitively seems to have merit. And, if there is any validity to the "precautionary" argument,
it certainly is not going to be "insignificant" to the individual who's destiny is altered by taking those precautions.
Then again, maybe I should not be surprised. I have long lamented the curse of Original Sin. So many people are so predisposed to the notion that we are born into corruption that they have—as with the attire argument—given over to the very darkness they fear.
We are in complete agreement here.