Dear God. You're still missing the point.
There is nothing a woman, man or child can do to reduce their chances of being raped. No one knows what a potential rapist is thinking or attracted to in an individual. So how in the hell are people supposed to reduce their chances when there are so many variables involved?
Why are there so many books, pamphlets, courses, etc. addressing this issue then? Do a google search on rape prevention - do you think this is all some giant conspiracy to get rich selling books and so forth by feeding on people's fear? Really?
Why are you placing the onus on the potential victim to not be raped?
Onus - what a wonderful word. Ok, you're going to say I
imply onus on the victim, but that's simply not the intent here. With out getting trapped in the whole analogy crap, why is the onus on anyone to protect anything they hold dear? Life, person, freedom, property, anything? The "onus" isn't! The onus is on the perpetrator not to perpetrate! However, people still have a responsibility to protect what they hold near and dear. This precept is common in law, at least here in the US. For example, and OMG, do not say I am comparing a woman and a sign or anything ridiculous like that, I am trying to illustrate a precept of law for you, so here we go: In the US, a real property owner has greater rights, or at least more easily enforceable rights in a court of law, if they put a "No trespassing" sign on the perimeter of their property. This doesn't transfer the onus to the property owner from the trespasser, but it is a reasonable and prudent precaution. Now I am NOT comparing rape to trespassing, I am NOT comparing a woman to a piece of land, what I am saying, again, is that reasonable and prudent precautions are a good idea.
Do you think women (as well as men and children) should live in constant fear of being sexually attacked?
Quite the contrary.
Both men and women have been assaulted where I live as well. I can't speak for Gustav, whose post you quoted, but for me, "living in fear" refers to a state of mind. In other words, it is not an acknowledgement nor a renunciation of the fact that bad things have happened, will continue to happen, and may happen to me or my loved ones.
However, my wife, my two daughters and I do not "choose" to live in a constant state of fear over what might happen tomorrow. We take sensible and prudent precautions, not just against assault, but all other potential crimes and dangers as well. Then we get on with it, knowing we have done the best we can...
This is not meant to "trivialize" fear in any way. Not that anyone takes any notice of this type of disclaimer here, in fact it will probably do just the opposite, and bring on another round of attacks by the fearmongers. So be it.
Reducing your instinctual fear is admitedly an extremely difficult task, but what alternative is there other than to try? Short of eliminating the source of the fear in the first place, of course, which if I understand correctly, according to you can not be done.
That we should somehow alter our lives significantly just in case, when nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?
The first problem I have here is the "nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?" Aren't you kind of "begging the answer here", to paraphrase? I mean isn't this the very question we are so vehemently debating? Furthermore, as I have stated before I am not advocating promulgating laws to
force anyone to do anything, let alone "alter our lives significantly". My problem is solely with the concept that reasonable precautions are not a good idea. If you truly believe that "nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances", and you are not yet persuaded differently, I imagine that when all is said and done we will have to agree to disagree.
I stated "My problem is solely with the concept that reasonable precautions are not a good idea.", and that was absolutely true at the beginning, but I have developed another issue over time. This isn't so bad with you Bells as it some of the others, but why all the vitriol over this seemingly simple concept? I mean if you truly feel nothing can be done, and I truly feel something can be, why does that in and of itself make us mortal enemies? Live your life the way you would like, teach your daughters what you would like etc...
I don't know how to say this without seeming, or even being, insensitive to your situation, believe me, if I knew a way I would use it, but there is this issue that "so and so" took 17 or whatever of these precautions and still got raped, therefore precautions don't work. That is simply a scientific fallacy, akin, if I may to the fallacy in claiming a vaccine doesn't work because Joe caught the flu anyway. Now this
doesn't mean that there is transferance of blame to that victim. I do not disagree with, and have stated repeatedly that their is no "guarantee' against rape except total isolation. You and I agree on this. We simply, and without animosity on my part, disagree over whether "...nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?" is true or not. Period.
Of course we can discuss stranger rapes. But your attempts to find a solution for women to take so that they do not get raped is demeaning and insulting in itself. Shouldn't the burden be placed on the rapist or potential rapist to not commit the act in the first place?
I already addressed the burden issue. But I would like to clarify something about this "stranger rape" business. I am not trying to say that is the be all end all of rape preventions or even this so-called precautionary theory. The reasons I seemed so fixated on this were twofold - one, it would seem that if precautionary theory
were to have any merit, it would most easily apply to this type of rape, then to first date rape, then to acquaintance rape and so on, with the hardest to combat being spousal rape, second, it seemed as if everyone, or maybe mostly Tiassa, was trying to dismiss it as "insignificant", a caricature, and that didn't set right with me. I think we all knew in a general fashion that most rapes are committed by people known to the victim, but that's all I knew. A majority, of course, still potentially leaves up to 49%, and I had no idea where the actual number lay, but my gut told me that, caricature or not, the percentage was not "infitesimal."
What of children? Men? What preventative measures should they take so that some stranger in the street does not find them attractive?
Ok, first the easy part, men. Anytime the topic was even broached here in this thread, OMG was that shot down quick. "It's not the same", they wailed. And it's not. If nothing else, there is a least one extra trauma inherent in women's rape than men's and that is the pregnancy possibility. However, to answer your questions, a lot of the same precautions that apply to women would apply to men. It's just, as it has been pointed out here, easier for them to take these precautions, and of course are less likely to be assaulted in the first place.
Children are little trickier, but
if one believed in precautionary measures, would not the "onus" fall on the parents to take those precautions on behalf of the children? I mean that's the way it works for other dangers associated with children, such as drowning, right?
Why do you think Government officials (as one example) and rape counselors and even self defense instructors never attempt to instruct women on how to prevent a rape?
Wasn't aware of this "fact". I'm not disputing your veracity, I am simply saying that I don't know it to be true. The only evidence I have at this point to refute it is the research I've done online since this thread started, and this is by no means exhatsive. However, it would seem from what I have seen, that at least some rape prevention guidelines
are out there, and a couple of sources on point have already been cited in these posts. I will do more research in this are, but meanwhile, what do the other members think? Is there consensus that "Government officials (as one example) and rape counselors and even self defense instructors never attempt to instruct women on how to prevent a rape"
Let us know...
Because doing so is not only impossible, it also places the burden on the women to not be raped. It also puts pressure on women to live in constant fear and if a woman were to take all the preventative measures in the world (an impossibility in itself) and still be raped, that woman should not feel that she has somehow failed and that it is her fault for having been raped. But by placing the burden on the potential victim, you are demanding from her that if she does not want to be raped, she should do this and that.
As a woman and a survivor of a sexual assault, I find your arguments in this thread to be insulting. You basically listed everything I should have done to not be raped or sexually assaulted and I had done all of those things.. I didn't walk in a dark carpark alone, but with someone I knew and trusted.. I wasn't dressed provocatively.. I was in a public place. I was still sexually assaulted. Does that mean I am somehow at fault? That I had failed? No. It does not. But your argument in this thread has placed the burden to not be attacked squarely on my shoulders. There was nothing more I could have done to prevent it. Because I cannot prevent what is completely unknown and unexpected to me personally. I and others cannot factor in every single possibility. If we were to try, we would no longer be free individuals and we would allow the rapists and potential rapists a victory they simply do not deserve.
I believe these issues have already been addressed here (burden, fear, transferance of blame, inability to guarantee success). Again though, Bells, I am sad for your experience; as I said earlier I know women who have been raped, and while I can not begin to comprehend the magnitude of the suffering, I can certainly see that it, in one case at least, dramatically changed her character and outlook on life. Again, I apologise for offending you, that was not my intent.
One last aside, did you used to believe in precautionary tactics and change your mind after what happened? I'm curious because you stated "You basically listed everything I should have done to not be raped or sexually assaulted and I had done all of those things". Oh, remember, you may think it's hair splitting, I think its substantive, that list was compiled from women's suggestions.