I'm going to try to go about this in a little different fashion today.
Hypothesis: Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce the likelihood of sexual assault.
Question: Does a woman's behavior, and by extension, her attire, influence in any way the probability of being sexually assaulted?
Arguments:
1. People's behavior influences future events, and
2. Prudence and observing precautions are facets of behavior that can influence future events, and
-- therefore --
A. Future events can be influenced, at least to some extent, by observing precautions.
3. Rape and sexual assault are potential future events, even for those people that have already been unfortunate enough to experience them.
4. These precautions can be discussed without denigrating anyone, including women, without "transferring blame", and without restricting legal rights nor anyone's freedom to engage in risky behavior.
Counterarguments that have been proposed throughout this thread: (most of which are logical fallacies)
1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)
2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)
3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)
4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)
5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)
6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)
7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)
8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)
* Note to the casual reader: Do not be put off by the sheer volume of fallacies discovered in the anti-precautionary counterarguments and listed below. Just skip to the bottom of the post for the conclusion and some suggestions. These are just here to give Tiassa something to do, and I am sure I will receive a point by point, eloquent rebuttal in about five minutes. Don't know how he does it but bless his heart.
Let's define:
From Wikipedia...
the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
From Wikipedia...
[Anectdotal evidence is] evidence which may itself be true and verifiable [but] is used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence.
From dictionary.reference.com...
hy·per·bo·le
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
From dictionary.reference.com...
non se·qui·tur
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.
Now let's illustrate the counter arguments and their fallacies, by way of reference and example:
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)
Wow, three in one paragraph. Nice...
Hypothesis: Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce the likelihood of sexual assault.
Question: Does a woman's behavior, and by extension, her attire, influence in any way the probability of being sexually assaulted?
Arguments:
1. People's behavior influences future events, and
2. Prudence and observing precautions are facets of behavior that can influence future events, and
-- therefore --
A. Future events can be influenced, at least to some extent, by observing precautions.
3. Rape and sexual assault are potential future events, even for those people that have already been unfortunate enough to experience them.
4. These precautions can be discussed without denigrating anyone, including women, without "transferring blame", and without restricting legal rights nor anyone's freedom to engage in risky behavior.
Counterarguments that have been proposed throughout this thread: (most of which are logical fallacies)
1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)
2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)
3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)
4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)
5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)
6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)
7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)
8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)
* Note to the casual reader: Do not be put off by the sheer volume of fallacies discovered in the anti-precautionary counterarguments and listed below. Just skip to the bottom of the post for the conclusion and some suggestions. These are just here to give Tiassa something to do, and I am sure I will receive a point by point, eloquent rebuttal in about five minutes. Don't know how he does it but bless his heart.
Let's define:
From Wikipedia...
the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
From Wikipedia...
[Anectdotal evidence is] evidence which may itself be true and verifiable [but] is used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence.
From dictionary.reference.com...
hy·per·bo·le
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
From dictionary.reference.com...
non se·qui·tur
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.
Now let's illustrate the counter arguments and their fallacies, by way of reference and example:
The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)Post #14
I do agree it [walk down the streest scantily clad] would be a fucking idiotic thing to do ... [but] I would hate to live mine in the manner of a prey animal
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #18 (times 5)
Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:
• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)[/indent]
I mean, really, at some point we'll just have women hiding away in burqas, ...
Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)Post #54
On a given outing a woman may not have been cautious enough, but this has little to do with justifying rape.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Sorry, lost this post # ):
No, you seek to excuse the darker sides of your character and transfer the blame onto women.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #60
This ends up as you say as transferring blame.
My Tiassa, you outdid yourself here...Post #66
So we ought to stop and consider the fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.
So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be seen by men?
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)
Wow, three in one paragraph. Nice...
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #73
You are putting the blame on the victim...
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #75
Because, frankly, I don't see the dignity in pretending a woman is a car or flatscreen television.
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #78
Well, what in a rape is the equivalent of a bank robbery taking place?
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #81
Neither does a Club. Because no matter how much someone wants to blame victims for their suffering, I'm not about to lock down my daughter in such a manner.
The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)Post #81
In other words, when someone says, "Because we refuse to be civilized, you should simply curtail your freedoms so that we don't 'trespass' on them," it's kind of annoying.
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #81
Additionally, the current discussion makes some absurd, completely stupid comparisons: rape and car theft, for instance...
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #81
Bells and I have already put the issue of the burqua in front of you.
To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)Post #86
My expectation is that people should be able to go about their business unmolested.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #90
The best thing, then, is for women to simply never be alone with men.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #93
... using that as an excuse, and transferring the blame onto the victim.
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #97
Amazing. You are comparing the theft of an unlocked car, its stereo and not taking an umbrella on a cloudy day as being akin to a woman wearing "slutty" clothes attracting rape.
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)Post #97
What you keep failing to understand is that the greater majority of rapes are classified as acquaintance rape, in that the victim knows the assailant. It has nothing to do with what the victim happens to be wearing.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #97
Most importantly, you are placing the onus to not be raped on the woman...
Hey, a valid argument! Where's the evidence?Post #97
At the end of the day, there is nothing a woman (or man) can do or not do to minimise her (or his) chances of being raped.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #97
...the only way for the victim to not be raped for the individual to never leave their house or be alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex.
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)Post #97
Because again, women will more likely be raped by someone in their acquaintance than be raped by a total stranger.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #109
If she wears iron underwear.
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)Post #109
Keep in mind that the majority of women who become rape victims are raped by people they know, and that very few rape cases actually involve complete strangers.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #109
You are still placing the onus on the victim to not be raped. And you don't see anything wrong in that?
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #113
The thing is that a woman is not a car, and a man is not the weather.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #113
... chaining your wife or daughter to the radiator.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #120
So we're back to putting our women in burquas?
Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)Post #123
In truth, something that surprises me is the number of people who say, "I'm not encouraging or condoning rape," turn around and do just that...
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)Post #123
Again: the vast majority of women raped are assaulted by someone known to them.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #124
... objectifiying them and denigrating them...
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #124
Oh dear, that really is blame transference, and sounds like some throwback religious belief.
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #128
... we should all wear burqas ...
Post #149
You are also ignoring the fact that the greater majority of rape victims know their rapists, in that the rapist is either a relative, spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, workmate, etc. [/QUOTE
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #149
So the only way of reducing rape numbers or reducing the chance of being raped is to simply never meet with anyone of the opposite sex or of the same sex as well (men do rape other men, as to women rape other women).
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)Post #156
Lastly bells and tiassa are right in there comments that a) rape is MOST common by someone you know (ie a partner, date rape, a family member or a close friend). Random rapes are quite uncommon and though i dont have exact statistics i would guess they are probably around the same level as random murders (ie VERY low)
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #156
... we shouldnt be blaming the victom.
Post #179
So statistically speaking, 70% of women who have reported being raped know their attacker...
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #218
Attempts to blame women (oh if only were they to behave differently they wouldn't get raped!) are the bleatings of cowards...
To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)Post #219
You don't think women have rights then?
Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)Post #219
I think your sympathies lie with rapists, and not the victims, if that makes my position any clearer for you?
I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)Post #220
what about girls who were raped in the 20's and they were wearing a few layers of clothing, and they didnt show anything?
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #222
Women who are raped could only "avoid it somehow" if they never left the house and cut off contact with people in close situations.
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #222
Are you actually suggesting it's womens fault for knowing a rapist, marrying one or simple for leaving the house?
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #222
The only clothing that would make them less of a target is a fucking harry potter magical invisibility cloak
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #225
Your analogy I pulled not on the point it's equating rape with theft
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #244
• Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now.
And now, as runner up to Tiassa, we have three in one post... Yay team!
Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)Post #248
Violence on males based on attire (which I would assume is associated with either gang 'culture' or with intent to rob) is not the same as rape
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #248
Or lets put it another way. If all women donned a burkha and stood stock still in only in brightly lit places that rapes would go down statistically?
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)Post #248
Nor does it alter the fact that the largest % of rapes are not committed by strangers out in the dark...
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #253
Dress conservatively, don't be alone with males, don't go on dates. In other words, get frumpy and hide in your room.
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)Post #262
Indeed, the number of rapes that could be prevented by changing one's style is fractional...
Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)Post #262
Blaming women for the actions of men
Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)Post #277
Maybe I should hack off my hair to avoid being grabbed by a rapist...
I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)Post #296
Hey! I lived in the city so I took the 'precautions'. I was fit and could run fast and I never wore shoes that would stop me from running. Anyway if ever i did wear shoes that would make it difficult to run I figured I could kick them off and run like hell or even use them as a weapon.
...
So I get's in the taxi.
...
Just out of interest. What do you think happened next?
Every one of these anti-precautionary posts was based, at least in part, around one or more of the fallacies described in the "counterarguments" section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's set aside, for the moment, the counterargument that possibly the percentage of sexual assaults that could be reduced by reasonable precautions is so small as to preclude any need for precautions in the first place.
There has been little or no evidence presented to actually refute the hypothesis, which seems intuitively self-evident. Also, except for the "deterministic" school of thought, most people would agree that you can influence your future, in general, through your behavior.
Therefore, it would seem to follow that...
Conclusion:
Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults.
These precautions must be defined and applied in ways that do not denigrate women or infringe on their legal rights. As it should be, it is left up to the individual's discretion as to what extent they choose to take these precautions, i.e. the risk versus freedom argument.
Post #78
There is a difference between risk management and living in fear.
Thank you Tiassa!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for something, hopefully, useful...
I find it ironic that the best suggestions for sensible precautions came from the anti-precautionary camp!
Suggestions for evaluation:
Post #296
1. I was fit and could run fast and I never wore shoes that would stop me from running.
2. Anyway if ever i did wear shoes that would make it difficult to run I figured I could kick them off and run like hell or even use them as a weapon.
3....we never hung around with the drunks cos we knew it could easily 'kick off' usually over some trivial matter.
4. We didn't drink too much
5. I always did was wear a long double-breasted coat which buttoned up the front.
6. I tucked the hair in so in the dim night it just looked like short hair.
7. Ok now another thing I've always hated handbags and would NEVER carry one cos they were an easy target for theft and identified you as a bit girlie (feminazi!).
8. I would only ever take out money stashed in pockets , door keys and a comb - the latter two of course that any self respecting self defence teacher would tell you can be used as weapons. So whenever I walked along I always kept a hand on my keys with one of them primed for a good eye gouging.
9. Keep to well lit areas and main roads where possible;
10. don't take short cuts;
11. walk tough and swiftly as if you are have somewhere to get to.
12. Don't engage anyone in eye contact as eye contact can act as a trigger.
13. If you hear footsteps behind you cross to the other side of the road,
14. if footsteps persist and you feel threatened go to a brightly lit house and hammer on the door;
15. shout, scream, shout "no" or "help", although bear in mind that this can agitate a potential assailant and actually precipitate an attack.
Post #156
Now we all know there are cirtan things ANYONE can do to protect themselves in SOME situations.
16. For instance making sure you buy your OWN drinks and that no one else every touches them,
Post #159
17. & 18.learn self defense or learn how to wield and carry a weapon, I've managed to do both. Its worked so far... *knock on wood*
Post #231
19. Trust your gut. If you do not feel comfortable in a situation, leave.
20. Be in charge of your own life. Do not put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on other people to take care of you. Also, when on a date, do not feel you owe that person anything.
21. Be cautious inviting someone into your home or going to some else’s home. Three out of five sexual assaults occur in the victim’s home or the home of an acquaintance.
22. Do not mix sexual decisions with drugs and alcohol. Your ability to make smart decisions is hampered when you are high or drunk.
23. When going out with someone new, do not feel you have to go alone. Go on a group date or meet in a public place.
24. Be aware of date rape drugs. Do not accept beverages from open containers and do not leave your drink unattended.
25. Walk near the curb. Avoid passing close shrubbery. Dark doorways or other places of concealment.
26. Avoid falling for lines such as “If you loved me…” if your partner loved you, he/she would respect your feeling and wait until you are ready.
Source: http://www.woar.org/campus_rape.asp
Now, these are definitely potential precautions one can take.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If every woman followed every one of these precautions every time, would one or more sexual assaults be prevented or avoided? Probably.
Is it reasonable to expect anyone to be this consistent, all the time? Probably not.
Does this negate the entire hypothesis? I think not.
It is up to each individual to be prudent to whatever degree they choose. Their rights and freedoms are preserved.
However, there are a lot of very smart people on this forum, and I'm sure we could come up with some more suggestions to add to this laundry list.
If even one person incorporates some of these precautions and it does prevent or avoid even one sexual assault, wasn't all our time worth it?
Wouldn't this, like actually be productive?
Last edited: