Are you pretending that it's that easy?
No.
Speaking of obtuse .... The point is that precaution theory does nothing about the general problem of rape.
Are you saying the general problem as a whole is greater than the sum of the parts?
Two words: Civilization. Society.
You are part of them. Get used to this fact.
Exactly. I can best fulfill my duty to civilization by altering my own behavior. Society starts with the interaction of two individuals. We can only change a societal negative by changing individuals' behavior, one person at a time or in groups.
Weren't you recently
whining about hyperbole?
Yes. The sentence you were referencing (starvation) was an analogy, hopefully one with nearly the same "scale" as sexual assault. My, you do have issues with the concept of "analogy", don't you?
Now that is a good argument.
It's not meant to be an argument.
Anything to reduce your obligation to be a civilized human being, eh? Nothing surprising there.
It would seem that I am at least trying to fulfill my obligations by coming up with
something concrete here. As opposed to: There is no guaranteed way to avoid sexual assault, especially not for society as a whole. Therefore, let's not try to mitigate any individual's chances, because that would only
displace the assault somewhere else. Ergo, do nothing.
Is that really helpful in any way?
And, finally, just for fun, let's play analogy 101 again.
There is an old Sufi story about a dervish who came into town to pray. As is the custom, he removed his shoes before entering the mosque. The gadfly old men across the street immediately struck up a debate about this. Someone might steal the shoes he left outside the mosque. Would the dervish contribute to someone's sin if a thief steals the shoes? Is the sin entirely the thief's? The debate continued, even escalated until passers-by were drawn into the discussion. Eventually the dervish emerged from the mosque. He approached the knot of people engaged in this discussion, and they appealed to him for guidance. He said, "You must remember what is important. Should I have taken my shoes inside? Should I have left them outside? And yet the whole time, did any of you stop to think that there are some people who have no shoes at all?"
Nice story, but would you care to do the substitution in this analogy as it applies to women and sexual assault?
Surely you're not saying that women should not take precautions against sexual assault (akin to not taking precautions against getting your shoes stolen) because there are some people who have no sex at all (there are some people who have no shoes at all). Say it isn't so. Also, by your own arguments, this analogy is the most demeaning yet. I mean,
shoes for God's sake?
Please explain the "context" here...