Easy fear in patterned leaves
Randwolf said:
Tiassa, I hate to annoy you, but I invested a lot of effort in answering your post, could you perhaps return the favor?
My pleasure.
... 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...
The word
appropriately sticks out, and not just because of the boldface. Sometimes dressing
appropriately for the occasion means wearing something someone
might consider arousing, including an evening dress, sexy clothes to a nightclub, or a bikini at the beach, to use your examples. Some people consider certain business attire a turn-on.
Additionally, I would ask you to consider whether or not your advocacy of the exact same thing for males is relevant. Aside from the basic fact of forced or coerced sexual intercourse, how often is dress considered a factor in the rape of males? I would propose that the answer is considerably less than that slender portion in which it might be a deciding factor for the rape of a woman.
To return for a moment to propriety of attire, what of a young boy on a swim team? Quite obviously, a Speedo swimsuit is appropriate attire for a swim meet. And,
quite obviously, some people find that look titillating.
Consider a creepy phrase: "I see you parading around in your tight swimsuit. I know you like it. I know what you want."
Replace "tight swimsuit" with other clothing, like "skimpy dress" or "tight jeans and halter top". Maybe the sexy clothes at a nightclub or theme party—appropriate for the occasion—drew the attention of the rapist. And maybe the rape occurred later, at a time when the victim was wearing baggy jeans and a frumpy sweatshirt.
Regarding your second point: you have identified the problem almost exactly. I would dispute the word
several; it is likely more appropriate to say
many.
However, I'm not sure you're in a position to complain that the extrapolation is reactionary. To revisit a point I've made repeatedly in this discussion:
• The problem is that the current advocacy of precautions seems unwilling to discuss the full range of those precautions, preferring instead to exploit a really cheap men's sexual fantasy about a scantily-clad, innocent woman wandering alone through dark alleyways as the sex-hungry pervert vampires assemble and consider the harm they can do. (
#1878030/90)
• I have attempted repeatedly to address the implications of the excuses put forward according to this scenario, and get nothing in response except a blind repetition of the excuses. (
#1879170/123)
• So why don't you enumerate for us your rape-prevention dress code? (ibid)
• So start with that. As you enumerate your rape-prevention dress code, consider that what you don't think of as overtly sexy will still turn men on. (ibid)
• 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. (
#1884434/244)
• As I said, these precautions are an open-ended proposition. And they fail to address the perpetuation of ideas justifying or even encouraging rape. (
#1884557/253)
• Yeah. People should always take precautions. In this case, however, the open-ended proposition is untenable .... (ibid)
• Maybe, but the precaution advocates don't seem to be up for it. As I noted earlier in the discussion:
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.(
#1884721/262)
• 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? (ibid)
It should be noted that Codanblad
offered a general and, as noted in
#262, unsatisfactory boundary. Indeed, that boundary was more of an anti-response, as it gave a vague suggestion that there are "heaps of clothes" that apparently do not inspire rapists, and is a bit more specific about what does apparently inspire rapists.
You
did, in your reply, present a paragraph pretending to respond; I will address it here, out of order:
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?
In the first place, what you consider "obviously an opinion" seems fairly demonstrable. You even make the point for me. Missing from your response is any suggestion of those boundaries. Rather, you ask
me for ideas.
If you are interested in proscribing the boundaries of your precaution argument, then by all means do so. If not, don't complain that the extrapolation is reactionary.
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.
It's kind of like politics. "Yes, I made a mistake, but everyone is making the same mistake." Except your assignation of hyperbole is disproportionate compared to the record. For instance, as you noted:
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?
What about the phrase "asking for it"
doesn't assign blame for a rape to the victim? How, in blaming the victim, would we not justify the rapist? Oh, they were
equally to blame, maybe? O-
tay. Then let us punish the victim as well. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Saudi Arabia defended on Tuesday a court's decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes of the whip, after the United States described the verdict as "astonishing".
The 19-year-old Shi'ite woman from the town of Qatif in the Eastern Province and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.
Ruling according to Saudi Arabia's strict reading of Islamic law, a court had originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between 10 months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.
Last week the Supreme Judicial Council increased the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison and ordered the rapists to serve between two and nine years in jail.
(
Reuters)
Furthermore, let us consider the evolution of the discussion as relates to the phrase "asked for it". Our neighbor Francois wrote, in the early going:
"
I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it." (
#1869513/13)
And this is where a dying thread suddenly launched into the stratosphere. Accused of attempting to "mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate" rape, he focused on the word
justify and
chose the belligerent response. Yet despite his anger, he chose to
blame victims for being raped.
Seriously. Admittedly, the discussion was a mess by the time you joined it. Perhaps you overlooked that part:
"
I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make." (
#1871614/21)
And so on:
"
Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only
reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes." (
#1871793/24)
He even compared what a woman wears to the provocation of assaulting someone:
"
If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid." (
#1876836/56)
And repeated the point:
"
For example, if you walk out of your doorstep and get murdered instantly for no apparent reason, that's different from provoking a thug in a dark alley and getting murdered: there are different levels of culpability here. The same is true for all crimes, including rape." (
#1877762/68)
It is worth pointing out here, also, that as some of us live in a country where asking directions or being a homeless kid looking for food in a trash can is sufficient cause for someone to shoot you to death, it's a hard case to sell that someone who kills you in self-defense is murder.
And all the while, he remained belligerent. In an interesting twist, Francois attempted to assert that the phrase "asking for it" is synonymous with "you should expect a much greater than average probability":
"
Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.
So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are." (
#1878006/87)
And he was emphatic:
"They. Mean. The. Same. Thing." (ibid)
In the face of overwhelming opposition, Francois reconsidered his statement—
"
If I'm to be completely honest, I originally carefully considered whether or not I should have used the phrase "asking for it." I thought about it, and it means the same exact thing. How does it not mean the same exact thing?" (
#1878036/91)
—and reaffirmed himself.
He even claimed that by not blaming the woman, we are insulting rape survivors—
"
All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped. You're not allowing for a difference. How insulting to women who have had rapists break into their homes to rape them! If you're going to be so insulting to those women, why don't you complete the deal by slapping them in the face and calling them whores?" (
#1878120/101)
—and accused people who disagreed with his equivocation of being crazy:
"
Alright man. You see no difference. Fine. I call that crazy, and I believe other rational people would too." (
#1878184/103)
Francois withdrew or temporarily exited the discussion two-hundred posts ago, still holding the line.
Moving on ....
Codanblad's part is a bit shorter. He entered the discussion by picking up Francois' point—
"
a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex ...." (
#1878878/119)
—and even attempted to reduce men to unthinking sex machines:
"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." (ibid)
And while he tried to claim that he was "in no way encouraging or condoning rape", it seems rather fallacious to say that something is the way it is, but he's not encouraging or condoning it; rather, if it is the way it is, there
is no encouraging or condoning it.
Reducing men to unthinking animals or machines—
"... if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (ibid)
—is a mitigating assertion.
Here we return to my
first response to the "asking for it" rhetoric. Acknowledging that rape is a fact, I told Francois to "Stop trying to mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate it".
The counterpoint has been that nobody is trying to justify rape. The response to that has been to focus on the word
justify. But even this approach fails under scrutiny.
The animal and grenade comparisons suggest that while an outcome is bad, it is somehow unavoidable. With an unavoidable outcome, there is no moral or ethical question about it. Removing the moral or ethical question from rape is certainly a form of mitigation. In excusing rape as such, one
does, in fact, justify it:
Because of ____, the rapist bears less culpability. In justifying rapists, one inherently advocates on their behalf, thus advocating the effects of their behavior.
mit·i·gate
2 a: to make less severe or painful : alleviate b: extenuate
• • •
jus·ti·fy
1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
• • •
[sup]2[/sup]ad·vo·cate
: to plead in favor of
(
Merriam-Webster)
The animal or mechanical argument
does, in fact,
make less severe the transgression of the rapist. After all, it's just the way it is. Animals and machines are
amoral. Indeed, a natural process is inherently
reasonable, owing to the fact that it is a natural process. Do you look at a volcanic eruption and say, "Now, that's just not reasonable!" Sure, the event might ruin your day—or even your life—but reasonability
does not enter the discussion. And, certainly, asserting that men are animals or machines is to
plead in their
favor: We should not be so hard on rapists because it is a natural process and consequence without any morality, much like the behavior of animals or machines.
Codanblad even expressed sympathy with the rapists:
"
i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals" (
#1879105/121)
I find that point
particularly unsettling.
But he
did try to distance himself from his statements in the course of a couple of posts (
#130,
#132), and while he would still place the burden of calculating men's minds, intentions, and behavior onto women, he has, over the long run, taken a slightly more moderate approach.
What we are dealing with is more than "position founded on an implicite
interpretation of a particular post". The amount of interpretation involved is minimal, and pertains largely to people's understanding of the definitions of words. Given the record of this topic, I wonder, on the one hand, at your questions about evidence while, to the other, acknowledge that you might simply have missed them by joining the fracas
in media res.
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.
Not all trade-offs are equal. Some would compare women to cars, or rape to getting
hit by a car. What is the dress code? What are the precautions? Are they specific to rape, or applicable to other crimes?
Hey, I love topless beaches. The more the better...
And yet we find all those women, apparently encouraging rapists. Or, as the arguments have them, "asking for it", attacking people, or pulling the pin on a grenade.
Who said anything about women being expected to be stoic?
It is the eventual result of the open-ended precaution argument.
[sup]2[/sup]stoic
2: not affected by or showing passion or feeling; especially : firmly restraining response to pain or distress <a stoic indifference to cold>
(
Merriam-Webster)
Stoicism in this form is the alternative to going absolutely fucking bonkers while hiding away in fear as a precaution; it is the alternative to expressing one's passions or feelings, especially, as the present consideration has it, when those expressions might somehow "ask" for rape.
And what does this have to do with anything?
Consider your declaration that you are not being misogynist because you would expect the exact same thing from men. While men undoubtedly are raped, the threat and fear are considerably less pervasive.
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?
We cannot assess the costs or benefits of precaution and prudence until its advocates provide some sense of the dimensions. Some would compare the precautions against rape to locking your car door or looking both ways before crossing the street. Such analogies are ludicrously understated.
I'm still looking for specific enough numbers. However, given that we have thus far been expected to consider a hyperexaggerated caricature, a couple of things on the part of the precaution advocates would help:
• Realistic and genuine acknowledgment of the diversity of what stimulates people.
• Again, it would be helpful if the precaution advocates would offer some realistic and genuine suggestion of precautions; on this particular point, we should explore what constitutes conservative dress, and whether or not it is possible that one still might find that appearance stimulating.
Even in your opinion, what does "infintesimal" mean? How "infintesimal" is the effect to the rape victim(s) in question?
Given that, compared to the overall phenomenon of rape, the hyperexaggerated caricature of stimulating dress and conduct we've been repeatedly asked to work with, the number of rapes we are arguing about is a
mere fraction of the total, and furthermore considering that a rape "prevented", in this case, can also mean "displaced to another victim", the number of rapes
truly prevented—e.g., to rape this woman or nobody at all—is, it would seem,
[sup]2[/sup]infinitesimal
1 : taking on values arbitrarily close to but greater than zero
2 : immeasurably or incalculably small <an infinitesimal difference>
(
Merriam-Webster)
The appeal to emotion—"
How 'infintesimal' is the effect to the rape victim(s) in question?"—is a valid question, but in a different discussion. In the present context, you are attempting to address rape on a case-by-case basis, which leads to this open-ended theory of precaution, which leads to a choice for women between two forms of injustice.
And while you seem to consider a broader address of rape a "
great idea", here we find ourselves cycling back to simply asking women to choose between two forms of injustice.
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?
Some would say the actual issue is the broader question of the rape phenomenon. Quite clearly, the injection of "asking for it" caught a number of people off-guard. After all, the topic post dealt with arguments of sexual harassment, and the obligations of women to suppress themselves in order to avoid such treatment. Indeed, the arguments in the prior topic were much the same: Men can't help themselves, so it's up to women to figure out what the hell titillates this or that individual man and take necessary precautions to avoid inciting harassment.
The reality is that the
vast majority of men who behave in such manner have no excuse. They ought to be able to control themselves. A complicating factor, as
noted earlier in the discussion, is how these men are educated regarding human respect. In this sense, we might propose four general categories of rapist to serve our purpose:
(1) Ignorant — These are the vast majority, the date rapists and such who justify themselves by falling back onto the very principles they were taught. Theoretically, we can educate future generations to eliminate (maybe) or greatly reduce (likely) the number of these rapists. The failures of this approach fall into the other categories.
(2) Criminally Stupid — There are some out there who are simply too stupid to understand concepts of human respect. They would be, as such, the ignorant who just don't get it.
(3) Dysfunctional — These need specific, possibly inpatient, help; they are unable to control themselves.
(4) Sociopathic — These are beyond reach.
The goal is to eliminate ignorance. Unfortunately, it might be that the only way to separate the stupid from the ignorant is when the failure to understand is manifested in a rape. Given that these rapes will include dramatic proportions that have nothing to do with a woman's dress—e.g. marital and date rape, and, also, as
Deep Thought has noted, assertions of vengeance and propriety—we still have before us the questions of the significance of appearance and the diversity of stimulation. We might also include under the rubric of stupidity rapes attributed to superstition, such as the
HIV/virgin myth. It is worth noting that, while Africa is the most common focus about this myth, it also persists in places many consider more modern and civilized:
A recent survey conducted by UNISA at the Daimler Chrysler plant in East London, found that 18 percent of the 498 workers questioned believed that having sex with a virgin would cure HIV/AIDS.
(
IRIN)
While some of the dysfunctional are capable of seeking help, the majority of these, along with the sociopaths, will likely only emerge when they commit a rape. In these cases, while appearance may be offered as an excuse or defense, the reality is—especially in the case of sociopaths—that such an argument is merely exploitative and not genuine.
Even with the ignorant and stupid, we are presuming that the justification put forth after the fact is, in fact, genuine, and not merely an excuse; we cannot presume that these rapes would not have occurred anyway.
Few precautions beyond total lifetime sequestration of women will have even
remotely significant impact compared to the scale of the general rape phenomenon.
Tiassa, perhaps we are frustrated, can you blame us?
It would probably be useless to turn the question back at you. And yes, you do bear a heavy element of culpability. Between the proposal itself and the ongoing lack of definition suggests that the argument is, to a significant degree, thoughtless. Certainly, it
seems a convenient argument, but placing on women the burden of calculating the desires, intentions, and behavior of men is something akin to treating cancer with a Band-Aid.
As far as "personal pride" is concerned, I'm afraid you have lost me again.
The most ferocious part of the argument put forth by the precaution advocates, and certainly no small portion of the words they have spent, has had to do with defense of their character. While they want to believe and advocate a certain position, they do not want or appreciate its implications.
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?
Depends on the behavior. As I noted above, we cannot presume that an attire defense put forth by any given rapist is necessarily genuine.
If so, what sensible steps can be taken to mitigate the risk?
It depends entirely on what one considers sensible. We return to the point that the precaution advocates have yet to outline the range of sensible, reasonable, or effective measures.
Aren't these the real questions?
They are the real questions if we are to assign women the burden of calculating or predicting the desires, intentions, and behavior of any given male.
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?
What is wrong with a turtleneck at a cocktail party?
Walking naked down certain city streets? Come on, man, we're back to caricatures on that one.
And?
Okay, I'll take a chance on what you mean and reiterate:
Anyone should be able to feel sexy without inviting anyone and everyone to hop on. (
#1884434/244)
Theoretically, yes. But, and it is a big but, is that advisable? What are the costs / benefits?
At some point, this whole open-ended precaution theory gets ridiculous, doesn't it?
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"?
That is
absurd. You are proposing that the
obligation to live in fear is
empowering. Let's try out that approach: "Hmm ... it's a really cute blouse, but someone might rape me for wearing it. Okay, I won't buy it. How
empowering it is to be afraid!"
How does prudence preclude implementation of any other valid methods of preventing rape?
The insistence on open-ended precaution theory instead of finding ways to help men account for their behavior before things come to such a drastic point as rape only precludes the latter because its advocates (A) insist on the one instead of the other, and (B) refuse to delineate
any boundaries.
It seems to me that paranoia is rampant on both sides of this discussion. That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it?
Neither was that.
Where you have missed the point here is that the open-ended precaution argument at present ranges all the way to paranoia. Without boundaries, it includes things like burqas and sequestration.
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.
To revisit the footnote from the post you are responding to:
While taking certain precautions might bring certain benefits, all one has accomplished is individual protection. This result cannot be dismissed as unimportant, but it does nothing about the general problem. And history suggests quite clearly that broad sexual repression within a culture doesn't do much about rape itself. If all women became stoics, the culture would adjust. An ankle? A knee? An exposed forearm? The definition of suggestive, provocative, slutty, ill-repute, &c., is not static. (
#1884721/262)
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.
Destiny. That's a powerful word, isn't it?
And it's a fairly strong appeal to emotion. That a woman's daily affirmation might be, "Hooray! I didn't get raped today! Good for me! I'm such a good girl!" is just a bit sickening. Furthermore, "destiny" is not guaranteed by precautions.
We return again to the question of what precautions you advocate:
I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify. (
#1884434/244)
Look, I'm aware that it's a difficult list to conceive. But you're pushing an amorphous theory on fallacious appeals to emotion. One wonders why the precaution advocates are so unwilling to even try.
We are in complete agreement here.
And yet you seem to be giving over to the darkness. What seems so obvious to you, left without any form or boundary, cascades into a tragic and ghastly condition. Asking women to blindly leap into such a fearful abyss is simply unkind. As long as we concentrate so exclusively on individual avoidance, we do
nothing to address the general rape phenomenon. This is beyond unkind. It is
vicious.
____________________
Notes:
Reid, Scott M. and Dan Albano. "Secret snapshots". OCVarsity.com. January 19, 2008. http://www.ocvarsity.com/ocvarsity/homepage/article_1962662.php
Hammond, Andrew. "Saudi defends verdict against gang-rape victim". Reuters. November 20, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2057524920071120
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/
IRIN. "SOUTH AFRICA: Focus on the virgin myth and HIV/AIDS". April 25, 2002. http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=39838