Part the First
Randwolf said:
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, you have listed two examples of "rape prevention" measures, no?
Yes and no.
There is part of me that wonders, "Are you serious?" After all, I'm talking about a gay dude walking unescorted into a D/S club in collar and cuffs; I'm just not up for that kind of exposure. Maybe in younger years, but more than being fucked into the ground, my caution has more to do with STD prevention. Barebacking is one thing, but barebacking several strangers in a setting
devoted to risky behavior qualifies as a no-brainer.
Really, it's a different set of considerations.
It's hard to explain just how my years in the closet educate and influence me on these issue, but consider a simple proposition: It turns out I have a more vigorous expectation of sexual congress than, say, my last girlfriend. Or, perhaps, any of them.
I don't know if you recall how I used to bitterly joke that masturbation was a more satisfying experience than congress with my female partner, but I'm not bitter about it anymore. It actually required coming out in order to get a handle on that part of the specific interpersonal issue.
Truth of the matter is, though, I take it harder and larger than she does. But just because I do does not mean she should.
Next, question... Would you advocate to your loved ones that they follow these "fairly easy 'rape prevention' measure{s}"?
No.
There are plenty of things I might tell my daughter when she's old enough to ask and I wouldn't be arrested for answering, but I'll worry about that when it comes up.
My mother? Well, if we ever happen to be standing outside the Cap & Tash and she suggests a drink, would certainly tell her what she's proposing we walk into, but that's mostly so she doesn't stare unduly at the bears in their gladiator straps.
Yes. Yes, we did try. But have you have succeeded where we failed?
No. But I'm still trying. The point is to put this zombie to rest.
Is it clear that the outer boundary lies at any suggestions beyond not visiting "certain D/S clubs" and staying away from the "swinger culture"?
The outer boundary I would suggest, based on observation, is that IPAs stop with their advice when said advice would put them on the list of men women should be wary of.
And what does that mean? Well, look at this advice about the right shoes, and the haircut that doesn't get a woman dragged into an alley and all. As I've noted, this pertains to a slender proportion of reported rapes against women. Yet there really is no good advice for how a woman should protect herself against her husband, save for not marrying a man.
Boyfriend? No, seriously. You're on your first date with a woman, and she puts her nail in her drink and watches it, and explains that she's making sure you're not about to try to rape her. Honestly, how would
you feel? Because if this is what it comes to, what kind of relationship can you build together?
Perhaps by cutting them off at the point where they begin to infringe unduly on one's quality of life... You may say "Ahh, but where is that point, precisely?". I say that it varies based on each individual's comfort level. After all, the very concept of quality of life is subjective, why should the steps each individual takes to achieve such not be? Just because a concept cannot be quantified absolutely does not invalidate the underlying premise.
Well, right, but looking to the counterpoint, at what comfort level does a woman "fail"? (As in,
"If you fail to prepare, you fail".)
Part of it is a general lack of pathos.
Some rape victims apparently fail to meet other people's standards for rape victims, and if that was all there was to it, so what? Except, of course, as you and I are well aware, human psychology, emotions, and behavior are far more complex than that
moralistic excremental pabulum.
With the line you're trying to draw, there comes a point where you'll have to tell a rape survivor to stuff it.
In spite of that, I still find it hard to accept or promote a culture of "take no precautions, because no precautions can absolutely prevent harm". That just sticks in my craw.
As I have said before, there are precautions we can all take against crime in general, and that ought to be sufficient.
Philosophically, it distills down to a question of how much, if any, control we have over avoiding "bad things happening". I don't know the answer but I suspect that you and I may have fundamentally differing attitudes on the subject. Which is fine...
Perhaps for you, but I'm always dubious when, "Which is fine ...", resolves to you have your opinion and I have mine and yours will allow for more people to be hurt, which is fine with you.
It's a functional outcome.
We all "live in fear" to one degree or another Tiassa. I believe that there's some sort of aphorism to the affect that bravery is not defined by lack of fear but rather how you deal with that fear. The whole "rape prevention" thing is just another aspect of that. It is possible to be prudent without allowing fear to cripple us. It is possible to avoid "certain D/S clubs" while still maintaining quality of life. Don't you agree?
Indeed.
But it's far different than dressing for an evening out according to the expectation of being sexually assaulted. I have to ask, is the difference really so confusing?
I'm following the whole "affirmative consent" issue closely. I like it. For numerous reasons. Relative to this discussion, I like it because it sets up a "Dry Foot" policy for defining rape. At the same time, I'm not sure society is quite ready for it. After all, many of us would not be here if our Daddy took our Mommy's first "no" as be all end all gospel. We shall see though...
Two points on this paragraph:
• I'm not sure society is quite ready for it — While I don't disagree, I would propose that this is part of the problem, and, furthermore, that such a condition is no justification for not going forward.
• After all, many of us would not be here if our Daddy took our Mommy's first "no" — Again, while this may be true, I would propose that it is part of the problem and, furthermore, that such a condition is no justification for not dealing with the problem.
I don't know. There may be "tips" for this situation and there may not be. Such tips may be and probably are of dubious worth. Regardless, follow what makes sense to you.
I need to ask about the connection between rhetorical abstraction and practical application. What you say makes a certain amount of sense rhetorically, but exactly
zero sense practically. We live in a country where rapists get light sentences because they didn't "shred" the vagina. Or a rapist can be acquitted because the woman was asking for it according to her clothes. There's a guy running for Congress in Virginia who was a military prosecutor and argues that there is no such thing as marital rape. Perhaps that makes no sense to you, either, but if what a woman did wrong was sleep in a bed with her husband?
Come on, dude.
Really?
Don't let fear run your life - neither fall prey to fool hardiness. Tread the middle road. Just my two cents...
It's a nice literary outlook, but would you really pretend daily life is so easily classified?
And here's a point to consider, please:
Sometimes we can make the point clear to others when those others have to go through the same thing. Nancy Reagan flipped on stem cell research when it was her husband dying of Alzheimer's. Rob Portman, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich all flipped on gay rights when they found out their bigotry hit close family—in order, a son, a daughter, a sister. This is a far cry from someone flipping their attitudes on rape because it was one of their family who got hurt. It shouldn't have to come to that.
You've given us two such tips to start with.
A straightforward question:
Do you presume women so stupid as to require being told that it would be better to not enter a sex club if they're not in the mood to get laid?