Rape and the "Civilized" World

[Bells]

Cherry picking. Ring a bell?

Well it is easier for him to blame the victim than the man who rapes her.

After all, he is male and perhaps can understand and sympathise with male urges that lead men to rape? Or it's just easier to assume that it is her fault for being raped and for not preventing it. So if she is dressed a certain way, is walking in a particular place at a particular time, if she has done anything that has attracted the attention of her rapist, then it is clearly her fault and so, it is her behaviour which "crops up"... People like LG and other rape defenders in this thread point one thing out very clearly. It is never the behaviour of the rapist that matters, but the behaviour of the victim.

Billvon suggested that women not walk down the street naked or wear 'do me' t-shirts (because apparently this is a common cause of rape? and women do this often enough to factor into this discussion) and LG kept obsessing about the women who catch the train alone in the dark at 1am in red light districts... So for them and others of their ilk, it is the woman's behaviour that would lead to her own rape. And if she cannot prevent it.. well.. As Billvon commented earlier, that there are apparently extreme cases where a woman can say no and fight back where it is not rape (not one - as one would associate with a pre-planned rape fantasy - he seem to suggest that there were also other instances where a woman could say no and fight back and it's not rape).. Wynn commented that women should merely look out for what she deems to be obvious signs for intimacy rapes before it happens.... Yes, apparently there are signs.. So women who apparently ignore these supposed signs are at fault for not having prevented it.

So for these people, it is always her fault.

And if she didn't prevent it, then for them, don't be surprised if they even question if it is rape and for some, even if she said no and fought back, it may not be rape for them (even in cases where it was not a pre-arranged rape fantasy)..

 

[billvon]

The assumption in both these examples is that it is up to the victim to prevent the crime.

Incorrect. It is your responsibility to decide how safe you want to be vs how much risk you want to take. That is your responsibility and no one else's. Other people can give you advice - but you are the final person to decide. You may not be able to prevent the crime - but you can decide how to skew the odds in your favor, or even whether you want to.

If the victim does not take the recommended precautions, then what? Is the victim then partly responsible?

You are responsible for how much safety you want vs. how much risk you take. Period.

A criminal is responsible for the crimes he commits, and the results of those crimes. Period.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Are you comfortable that the status quo in the society in which you live says that women who walk around topless should expect to be raped by men?

No, a woman who walks around topless should not be "expecting" rape. Only a fool, however, would think that that decreases her chances of being raped.

 

[billvon]

Billvon suggested that women not walk down the street naked or wear 'do me' t-shirts

No, I didn't. I said that in SOME CASES that might be a bad idea. Party of your friends? Might be a fine idea. Late night in an almost deserted part of the city while you are drunk? Might not be such a good idea.

Do you have any kids? If you do, then you'll reach a point where you will be the one recommending your daughter not walk down the street naked. At that point will you be supporting rapists?

As Billvon commented earlier, that there are apparently extreme cases where a woman can say no and fight back where it is not rape (not one - as one would associate with a pre-planned rape fantasy - he seem to suggest that there were also other instances where a woman could say no and fight back and it's not rape)..

Google "power exchange." The critical factor here is consent.

So for these people, it is always her fault.

Crimes are always the criminal's fault.

 

[Bells]

No, I didn't. I said that in SOME CASES that might be a bad idea. Party of your friends? Might be a fine idea. Late night in an almost deserted part of the city while you are drunk? Might not be such a good idea.

Do you have any kids? If you do, then you'll reach a point where you will be the one recommending your daughter not walk down the street naked. At that point will you be supporting rapists?

I need to ask, where do you live?

Do people often walk down the street naked where you live?

And since when did nudity = invitation to rape? I mean sure, if you want to go down the line that men are somehow incapable of controlling themselves when confronted with female genitalia and they must then always rape?

And would you tell your daughter that she should never appear naked in front of her spouse as he is more likely to rape her than a stranger?

Google "power exchange." The critical factor here is consent.

Again, rape fantasy.

Outside of that, if she says no and she fights back and it is not something that is pre-arranged (as per your bdsm suggestion), it is rape.

Crimes are always the criminal's fault.

Except of course if she didn't secure herself like you lock up your car or if she walks down the street naked. Then she is just asking for it...

 

[Tiassa]

Victim as Perpetrator: If Only They'd Stayed Home, None of This Would Have Happened

Way to prove iceaura's point about the inability to comprehend straightforward declarative sentences.

Not only that, but I would point out a fundamental problem: LG is comparing drunk driving, in which one's own behavior puts other people in danger with rape prevention, in which a woman's behavior is supposed to prevent other people from endangering her.

The morbidly funny thing is that the numbers around Seattle, depending on the night in question, suggest that between one in seven and one in three cars on the road are piloted by drivers suffering alcohol impairment.

Yep. One in three drivers in Seattle on a Friday or Saturday night might be drunk.

Yet, strangely, you only notice when it's the car in front of you weaving, or when you drive by an accident like we saw last night, in which a '90s Jeep Grand Cherokee appears to have run a red light and gotten t-boned by a taxi, flipping the Jeep onto its roof. Pretty spectacular, especially when it turns out nobody was seriously injured. But other than that, the roads feel more dangerous on a Saturday afternoon, when the DUI projections are lower, but there are more stupid people out driving around.

Or I might consider the black Mercedes that ran a red light and crosswalk last night. How nobody was injured is beyond me, except perhaps to suggest that pedestrians are more agile than a Mercedes. I'm pretty sure that guy was drunk.

Preventative measures for the pedestrians? Stay off the streets. Not realistic.

Preventative measures for the driver? Don't drink and drive.

But the problem with the analogy—

"Or can any behavior that can be interpreted with some sort of moral imperative automatically be disregarded in any assessment of a hazard bearing scenario (so we can suddenly disband the role alcohol plays in car accidents, since its obviously a ruse from a bunch of teetotalers) ?"​

—is that it compares risk assessment of being a perpetrator against that of being a victim.

Or, if we continue along a Freudian or MacLeanean path, he's comparing a raped woman to a drunk driver—a crime victim to a perpetrator.

And, well, I don't suppose we should be surprised.

But if we want to apply his prevention techniques to drunk driving appropriately, the best precautions against being a DUI victim are to live on the second floor of your building, and never go out on the streets.

I mean, we know there are drunk drivers out there, right? And that's not changing anytime soon.

So why take the risk? Just stay off the roads.

For the next drunk driving death in the area, then—which will most likely be sometime this week—I shall raise a glass in our neighbor's honor, and remind all that the dead could have prevented this tragic outcome by simply staying the hell off the roads.

 

[billvon]

Do people often walk down the street naked where you live?

Never. But I have been to Burning Man, and it is not uncommon at all for people to walk down the avenues naked. Different places, different decisions.

And since when did nudity = invitation to rape?

It doesn't, any more than leaving your car unlocked with the keys on the seat is an invitation to theft. But if your goal is to avoid either, you might want to make different choices.

I mean sure, if you want to go down the line that men are somehow incapable of controlling themselves when confronted with female genitalia and they must then always rape?

?? Not at all. I am sure you could walk buy an unlocked car with the keys on the seat and not steal it. 99.99% of people out there probably could.

And would you tell your daughter that she should never appear naked in front of her spouse as he is more likely to rape her than a stranger?

?? No. See first example. Different places, different decisions.

Outside of that, if she says no and she fights back and it is not something that is pre-arranged (as per your bdsm suggestion), it is rape.

Agreed. Consent is ALWAYS needed.

Except of course if she didn't secure herself like you lock up your car or if she walks down the street naked. Then she is just asking for it...

No. Again, crimes are always the criminal's fault. Period.

You are responsible for what you do and the decisions you make. Other people are responsible for what they do and the decisions they make. Really pretty simple.

 

[Tiassa]

Huh?

Do you have any kids? If you do, then you'll reach a point where you will be the one recommending your daughter not walk down the street naked. At that point will you be supporting rapists?

Really? Do you have kids? Under what circumstances did you need to give them that advice? And how did you broach the subject?

In truth, of all the strange parental conversations my peers have related to me over the years, I cannot recall any female ever telling me about the time her parents told her to prevent rape by not walking down the street naked.

And the reason for that? I don't know, maybe they were just bad parents?

 

[billvon]

Really? Do you have kids? Under what circumstances did you need to give them that advice? And how did you broach the subject?

Yes, but he's young enough (not yet two) to need such advice. My experience with older kids comes from six nieces and nephews age 7 to 16.

In truth, of all the strange parental conversations my peers have related to me over the years, I cannot recall any female ever telling me about the time her parents told her to prevent rape by not walking down the street naked.

"You are NOT going to that party dressed like that!" - a nearly constant refrain in the summer. And that was for bikini tops.

 

[parmalee]

But the problem with the analogy—

"Or can any behavior that can be interpreted with some sort of moral imperative automatically be disregarded in any assessment of a hazard bearing scenario (so we can suddenly disband the role alcohol plays in car accidents, since its obviously a ruse from a bunch of teetotalers) ?"​

—is that it compares risk assessment of being a perpetrator against that of being a victim.

The more I think about that response ("Or can any behavior...")... well, sheesh, just look at what he was responding to:

me
is it merely a coincidence that his strategies parallel certain moralistic convictions about how persons (rather, women in particular) "ought" to behave?

With informal writing, I seriously waayyy overdo the adverbs, not because I'm flagrantly disregarding proper writing conventions or anything, nor because I'm trying to be slippery and non-commital; rather, I do so because I anticipate ... "strangeness" from some/many a respondent. It's like all or nothing with some people.

Yes, the response is bizarre on so many levels:

I oughn't drink and drive 'cuz I might kill someone.

I oughtn't drink and walk about because I might cause someone to rape me, and consequently ruin some poor young man's future.

Exactly the same thing.

 

[iceaura]

Of course not. Nor have I said anything remotely resembling such nonsense.
Good! Then stop accusing others of equally absurd and contrived things.

I have never said anything "equally absurd and contrived", not to mention just plain stupid, about anything you've posted,

and for a continuation of the bemusement, note the term "others", which I am perforce to reply to - contrast not only with your record of posting on this thread, but with your very next segment: " And your failure is in being unable to respond to individuals. I am not part of a faction, or a group, or a movement, and my opinions are my own - - - "

Your claim is false for all US police departments (let alone the one in my town) as far as I have ever heard.
====================
National Criminal Justice Reference System

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

NCJ Number: NCJ 056335
Date Published: 1978

In the wake of a series of rapes at San Jose State University, the local law enforcement community was forced to gear up its response to rape and especially to its victims.
. . .
However, perhaps the most successful of the several efforts by the rape unit was a decoy program; police women, working with undercover male counterparts, regularly patrolled areas with the highest incidence of rape.

That would be an interesting example, and new to me, and relevant here, if the details matched up with the bait car programs so common everywhere ( and especially if it were not a temporary and emergency one-off, but a new part of the standard kit of police tactics somewhere). I can't tell from that. The qualification "areas with the highest incidence of rape", for example, is slippery, as is the use of official police women as "decoys" - immediately that restricts the program to stranger/stranger rapes attempted against women not stereotypically vulnerable, hardly the most common type as claimed. So it seems, lacking better information, that the operation was not yet equivalent to the routine programs of bait cars, online solicitations, fish and game violator entrapments, and such, that we find in continual use all over the country against crimes in which victims are not assigned unlimited responsibility for precautions and preventative measures.

But pretty close. The situation is not hopeless, even if it does require an epidemic of forcible stranger rapes in a defined and public location ( that is: a dramatic and undeniable contradiction to the routine assignment of responsibility you advocate) to bring in even a baby step emergency one time approximation of what in other crimes are ordinary and continual enforcement tactics.

And note that it is claimed to have been effective in its limited way - far more effective than the regular program of advocating precaution and assigning responsibility to targeted women, which did not even prevent an onslaught of public domain stranger rapes in the middle of a dense and active population.

I would strongly suggest you NOT make such comparisons to people who have actually been raped. They would most likely react . . . . poorly to your choice of comparison.

And I would strongly suggest you read back in this thread, notice who has actually been making that comparison you misread into my posts, and direct your badly confused and uncomprehendingly judgmental ire towards them.

After all, you are not one of them, and you have your own opinions which do not align with theirs, right? So (for the first time) express your disagreement, in this matter that rouses your anger.

 

[billvon]

I have never said anything "equally absurd and contrived"

Your linking "women are ultimately responsible for their tradeoffs between safety and risk" to "rape apologists" is indeed both absurd and contrived.

That would be an interesting example, and new to me, and relevant here, if the details matched up with the bait car programs

They will tend not to. Rape really isn't similar to stealing a car.

And I would strongly suggest you read back in this thread, notice who has actually been making that comparison you misread into my posts.

Good! Glad to see you aren't comparing the two.

 

[Tiassa]

Uganda Friend in Lokodo

Prevention Advocates: Uganda Friend in Lokodo

Rape-prevention theory advocates got a major boost this week when a national government announced a policy that focuses on preventing sexual assault by holding women accountable:

Uganda is considering extraordinary measures against women's rights that would see arrests for wearing skirts above the knee in public.

The proposed law would mark a return to the era of dictator Idi Amin, who banned short skirts by decree. Many Ugandans are opposed to the idea and it has spawned a Twitter hashtag, #SaveMiniSkirt ....

.... Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics and integrity minister, defended the plans. "It's outlawing any indecent dressing including miniskirts," he said.

"Any attire which exposes intimate parts of the human body, especially areas that are of erotic function, are outlawed. Anything above the knee is outlawed. If a woman wears a miniskirt, we will arrest her."

Lokodo, a former Catholic priest, went on to suggest that victims of sexual violence invited trouble because of how they dressed. "One can wear what one wants, but please do not be provocative," he continued. "We know people who are indecently dressed: they do it provocatively and sometimes they are attacked. An onlooker is moved to attack her and we want to avoid those areas. He is a criminal but he was also provoked and enticed."

Asked if men would be banned from wearing shorts, the minister replied: "Men are normally not the object of attraction; they are the ones who are provoked. They can go bare-chested on the beach, but would you allow your daughter to go bare-chested?"

(Mail & Guardian)​

And, yes, that would be the same Simon Lokodo who advocates killing homosexuals, and is working, with the aid of American evangelicals, to pass such a law.

It would seem prevention advocates are in good company.
____________________

Notes:

Guardian Reporter. "Uganda Bill criminalises miniskirts". Mail & Guardian. April 8, 2013. MG.co.za. April 9, 2013. http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-08-uganda-proposes-ban-on-miniskirts-in-move-against-womens-rights

 

[iceaura]

Your linking "women are ultimately responsible for their tradeoffs between safety and risk" to "rape apologists" is indeed both absurd and contrived.

? Better to quote the post. You have trouble with these paraphrases, and it kind of takes the edge off your claims of absurdity when you haven't followed the argument.

They will tend not to. Rape really isn't similar to stealing a car.

So bitch at the people who compared rape to stealing a car. Or the people who compared rape precautions to precautions against backpack theft (post 126). Not me. I'm comparing police tactics in two different arenas of crime, as an example of the consequences of precaution advocacy for crime prevention in real life. The mechanisms of oppression are occasionally made unusually visible in such circumstances.

That would be an interesting example, and new to me, and relevant here, if the details matched up with the bait car programs
They will tend not to. Rape really isn't similar to stealing a car.

And the difference in the police tactics informs us of what some of the differences are. For one, there are much different limits on the prior and precautionary responsibilities assigned to the victims.

Good! Glad to see you aren't comparing the two.

So go back and edit the bs out of your posts to me, and then apologize and start over.

 

[billvon]

So bitch at the people who compared rape to stealing a car.

I've been doing so. Your words: "You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft." That's a horrible comparison and I am glad you have changed your mind.

So go back and edit the bs out of your posts to me, and then apologize and start over.

Sure - as soon as you edit out your previous BS comparison.

 

[iceaura]

So bitch at the people who compared rape to stealing a car.
I've been doing so. Your words: "You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft." That's a horrible comparison and I am glad you have changed your mind.

? That is not an example of me comparing rape to stealing a car, of course. Did you read it carefully, in its context of - whoa - probably a couple of dozen words and a reference to another post? Take it slow - I didn't realize the situation.

It's an observation about your horrible ethical blunder of advocating unlimited precautions by women under the threat of rape, even as a condition of responsible adulthood, apparently (you have not separated yourself, given multiple opportunities) whenever a woman "anticipates that she might be raped". The observation was that you are capable of better reasoning and comprehension in other situations of criminal threat, including the one you precautionary advocates introduced to this thread by directly and offensively and repeatedly comparing it, as an act, to forcible rape: car theft.

I may have to review that observation. It may be poorly founded. That's going to be a chore. Maybe tomorrow. Sheesh.

Sure - as soon as you edit out your previous BS comparison.

You've made several. I haven't made any. The situation would appear to be jammed.

 

[billvon]

It's an observation about your horrible ethical blunder of advocating unlimited precautions by women under the threat of rape

Ah, I see. You haven't been reading my posts, and instead have just made assumptions; this explains much of your confusion.

I do not advocate "unlimited precautions." I advocate that everyone make their own decisions on how safe they want to be vs. how much risk they want to take in every part of their lives. Want to live life on the edge? Do do. Want to be more careful? Do so. I also strongly advocate making _informed_ decisions on such tradeoffs. And then take responsibility for your own decisions.

Nothing about "unlimited" in there. Indeed, most people have plenty of limits that they put on themselves. You might decide to not walk around naked (or topless or whatever) - and that's probably a good decision. It does not mean that you are in any way "guilty" of a crime that someone else might commit against you.

 

[Tiassa]

A Note on Sympathy

After all, he is male and perhaps can understand and sympathise with male urges that lead men to rape?

Yes, no, and somewhere in between, but only so to speak.

Is that vague enough?

Okay, to wit: Do you have any idea how hard it was, yesterday to not wander around singing to myself, "Ding-dong, the Bitch is dead, the Bitch ol' Bitch, the Bitchy Bitch!"

I know, I know. Cry a river. Actually, in truth it wasn't that tough, no matter how much I enjoyed the sentiment. And it's easy enough to explain why it wasn't particularly hard:

(1) I'm one who believes I get it. That is to say, while the word works specifically for its cruel ferocity, there are too many people who will think it's about a woman achieving power. And, no, I'm not blaming them; this is the world we've made, all of us together, from the beginnings of humanity. The reasons why many in the broader culture whose outlooks I respect would hold that concern are what we need to change, not the fact that they might focus on that aspect.

(2) It's really none of my business, anyway. It was twenty to thirty years ago, and only affected me in peripheral ways that exceeded my grasp at the time; my perceptions and understandings since have been rooted in political myth.

(3) Mark Steel won the cruel scorn award yesterday, at 4:56 AM Pacific Time—i.e., before I was even aware of the situation—without actually using the word: "What a terrible shame—that it wasn't 87 years earlier". Ouch. 'Nuff said. No point in even going there.​

But that's the thing. There are people I respect who would look at point one above and, ironically, call me a pussy for letting those assholes so obsessed with finding the evil in everything make me skip out on ephemeral gratification.

Roger Waters had a softer way of putting it in terms no less damning: "Maggie, what have you done?" Which, of course, reminds that there are plenty of ways to say it.

On the other hand, I think of a very common masculine instinct toward (ahem!) "passionate" sexual intercourse. You know, thrust deep, hard, and with all his Manly Might. Hell, even I'm not immune to the instinct, though it seems more often than not I'd much rather receive ... er ... um ... right.

Y'know?

Where the violence of abstraction—i.e., words and ideas—intersects with the violence of (ahem!) "passionate" sexual congress is something of a mystery plot on an invisible graph buried in an unknown drawer in a pitch-dark warehouse of unknown dimensions. That is, just how the various human proclivities come together and intereact with psyches of potentially infinite diversity to produce an effect that includes such a prominent rape phenomenon is like finding a needle in Andromeda.

And as you're seeing in these arguments, how people respond to the challenge ranges, to put it mildly, a broad spectrum.

The comfort of sloth. A metathesiophobic tendency. The spectre of self-indictment.

I'm aware of the instincts. I'm subject to them sometimes. I'm also aware of the burning rage some people feel when they wonder what it would be like if someone set off a bomb in the crowded stadium. That, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", feeling. But, you know, shit, like I'm really going to give in. It's not even, really, a temptation, just a burning sentiment that you understand what a cinematic supervillain feels like. It's a tapping of myth.

Sexual issues, though, even when they loom so large as to be an abstraction, strike much more (er ... ahem?) "intimately" than other forms of atrocity in our society. Most men in our societies do not see the worst effects of broader paradigms in society, be they economic, political, religious, &c. But most men in our societies know at least one woman.

This comes close because they can see the evil. It is exceptionally proximal compared to the distally-viewed phenomenon of, say, sexual violence as a weapon of war in the third world. Or warfare in general. Or economic inequality and the injustice of stratification. This is close enough that they are generally capable by faculty to perceive any tributary relationship they might have with this phenomenon they believe they abhor. And it is proper to consider the horror they claim as genuine, as it is the simpler and more direct neurotic process. But therein lies the hook: Holy shit ... I'm contributing to the Rape Culture!

Ego Defense Powers, activate! Form of ... a drunk woman. Shape of ... a short skirt.

It is not necessarily a conscious decision to follow the sublimated rape advocacy path. It is likely that at any given moment, one is incapable of seeing the problem that escalates prevention theory to rape advocacy.

But in truth, I'm not sure how hard to knock on their skulls before that pushes them back into their shells.

 

[iceaura]

I do not advocate "unlimited precautions."

You have been given many opportunities to limit the scope of your recommendations, and have not even attempted to do so.

I advocate that everyone make their own decisions on how safe they want to be vs. how much risk they want to take in every part of their lives. Want to live life on the edge? Do do. Want to be more careful? Do so. I also strongly advocate making _informed_ decisions on such tradeoffs. And then take responsibility for your own decisions.

Exactly. The woman is to take responsibility for the level of risk she chooses, and make that choice an informed and aware one always.

And that, in their own eyes, relieves the advocates here of any taint of supporting oppression - the advocates of burka wearing in Saudi Arabia are not oppressing these women, because the women themselves make the informed choice and take responsibility for the level of risk they are willing to incur.

Penny drop yet?

Nothing about "unlimited" in there

Nothing about any limits, you mean. Until you demarcate otherwise, your advocacy extends to a woman's entire life, asleep and awake, whenever the well-informed and aware she - as your fellow advocate put it, accepted unconditionally by you to date - "anticipates that she might be raped".

And this is the norm, in the US - unlike other victimizing crimes, there is no arena of life in which she as a responsible adult is not expected ("recommended" by her fellow society members) to assess her risk with good information, remain aware of it, and take precautions accordingly.

And this has consequences, as in Saudi Arabia and Russia and Mexico and so many other places: it is oppressive.

 

[billvon]

You have been given many opportunities to limit the scope of your recommendations, and have not even attempted to do so.

I do not. Take responsibility for every decision you make. No "limitations." I may give you advice; you are always free to take it or not, since in the end all your decisions are yours to make, and no one else's.

Exactly. The woman is to take responsibility for the level of risk she chooses, and make that choice an informed and aware one always.

Exactly.

And that, in their own eyes, relieves the advocates here of any taint of supporting oppression - the advocates of burka wearing in Saudi Arabia are not oppressing these women, because the women themselves make the informed choice and take responsibility for the level of risk they are willing to incur.

If they say "women who go with bare heads are at higher risk of attack" then no, they are not supporting oppression. They are stating the truth. Stating the truth is never oppressive; indeed, it is liberating. Getting out the truth of how women are treated in these countries has been one of the biggest factors in bringing down their oppressors. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant.

"Cover your head or I'll hit you" IS oppressing women, because you are threatening them.

Nothing about any limits, you mean. Until you demarcate otherwise, your advocacy extends to a woman's entire life, asleep and awake, whenever the well-informed and aware she - as your fellow advocate put it, accepted unconditionally by you to date - "anticipates that she might be raped".

Yes. I advocate that women make their own decisions, based on the best knowledge available to them. Do you disagree?

And this is the norm, in the US - unlike other victimizing crimes, there is no arena of life in which she as a responsible adult is not expected ("recommended" by her fellow society members) to assess her risk with good information, remain aware of it, and take precautions accordingly.

That is mostly correct. However, you err with your statement "unlike other victimizing crimes." A responsible adult makes his or her own decisions on how much risk they want to take in EVERY PART OF THEIR LIVES. No one else. Full stop.

Do you disagree?

And this has consequences, as in Saudi Arabia and Russia and Mexico and so many other places: it is oppressive.

If the responsibility to make your own choices in life is oppressive, then there are countries you can go to where many of those decisions will be made for you. Most people prefer to make their own decisions, though.

 

[iceaura]

"Cover your head or I'll hit you" IS oppressing women, because you are threatening them.

Cover your head or some guy will hit you is also a threat. The people who advocate burkha wearing in Saudi Arabia are advocating oppression.

That is mostly correct. However, you err with your statement "unlike other victimizing crimes." A responsible adult makes his or her own decisions on how much risk they want to take in EVERY PART OF THEIR LIVES.

I do not err. That isn't true. For most victimizing crimes there are large arenas of a person's normal life in which they are not expected to even maintain awareness of any risk, let alone take continual precautions however minor.

And many of these arenas even include non-negligible risk. That's what make the bait car contrast informative - the police have wide latitude in setting up their cars, without running foul of society's advocates of precaution, without having illegitimately entrapped the thief by making it too attractive or easy to steal - and this kind of bait situation is normal and routine law enforcement.

Taking not only precautions but responsibility for imposed risks is oppression, taking precautions unreasonably is oppression, advocating this is advocating oppression.