Rape and the "Civilized" World

[lightgigantic]

OH&S?

Really?

"Risk assessment" in regards to occupational health and safety issues in a discussion about rape and you are attributing this to the victim.

So now it is ludicrous for individuals to assess risks in their pursuit of personal well being?

Is it an occupation of women to be raped?

No
But the language of OH&S certainly explains what it is that you are consistently failing to address in any one of your posts ... so much so that even persons facilitating prevention seminars/courses capitalize on it since it tends to be a topic people are already familiar with.

I mean, is that how you view women?

We already know you consider them about as valuable as a car. For example:

Once again, its the basic system of risk assessment that is underway in any one of a million victim orientated crimes that I am talking about.
The only reason I bring this up with car theft or whatever is to take the system to other scenarios to not only highlight the absolute absurdity of what you advocate, but also how you are already thoroughly obedient to this outlook -

IOW, regarding rape, placing preventative strategies and push for societal change in some sort of dichotomy , as far as examination of the world and its history of 10 000 years go, is a notion that simply exists only in your head. Its an idea that doesn't appear in the "real world".

Please enlighten me and everyone else who has asked you this question and which you have consistently failed to answer and instead lied through your teeth..

How does a wife apply your OH&S philosophy to prevent being raped by her husband on any given night?

You can't fathom any behavior that might present itself as indicating a hazard is in the making?
Or you can't fathom any responses to such hazardous behavior when it prevents itself?

If you want specific information, this is just the first few hits generated off google

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/highriskrape.htm
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesprofile.htm
http://budokan.wcart.net/WomenSelfDefense/RapistProfile.htm
http://www.vsdvalliance.org/secGetHelp/recognition.html

Or do you think that rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification and once a perpetrator makes it clear you are to be their victim the only empowering option to employ is to acquiesce and have no more cards to play until you contact your lawyer?

Are you still lurking in train stations in red light districts looking for drunken women?

Are you still comparing women to cars and car security?

Are you still lying about rape prevention?

Are you still unable to answer the very basic question of how do women "prevent" being raped by their intimate partners or family members?

Are you still making excuses for rapists?

Are you still blowing hot air as a tactic to avoid discussion?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Cherry picking. Ring a bell?

Repeated occurrences that have statistical merit is kind of the opposite of cherry picking actually ......

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

I will acknowledge that my contention was speculative; nevertheless, you've got 15 thousand posts here which, you know, anyone can read--you really think it will be all that hard for anyone to draw such an inference?

Your personal opinions aside, my point still stands.

The capacity to frame an act in some sort of moral framework in no way grants the same act any sort of reprieve when it crops up in risk assessment. Drink driving illustrates this very clearly.

 

[lightgigantic]

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

On the contrary, you have nothing to offer a woman anticipating that she might get raped other than "call this number after it happens".

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

and the problem is of course, that I used drink driving to explain something else entirely : how issues framed by a purely moral nature (eg teetotalers vs drinking) in no way diminish their hazardous nature when they crop up in risk assessment.

If you want to talk about how one potentially avoids becoming a victim, I guess we would have to go back to the auto theft scenario (which, yet again, is simply about how risk assessment is not only the the empowering force but also the LIMITING FORCE of preventative action ... just in case you decide to take that on a tangent too)
(just to make it clear, since it appears quite a few people have missed this point despite it being said at least a dozen times)

Because you didn't pick up on this, the rest of your post is simply so much barking up the wrong tree.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

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


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.

Or more correctly :

Drinking increases the risk of a car accident. Will this risk combine with any others to result in a scenario I wish to avoid? Am I comfortable making this decision?

or

Drinking (just in case you think I am cherry picking again) can set you up to be a victim of sexual assault. Will this risk combine with any others to result in a scenario I wish to avoid. Am I comfortable making this decision?

 

[wynn]

Preventative measures for the pedestrians? Stay off the streets.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion??


You seem to think that people (whether walking or driving a vehicle) are like trains which, once they start driving, they can't just stop and instead just have to go along with the rails.

One of the first things that they teach in driving school is that one needs to predict the possible courses of action in each traffic situation. For example, when driving through a residential area, expect that there will be children around who run across the road, so you have to drive extra slowly and be extra circumspect; when driving through a parking lot, expect that cars may drive backwards or that the doors of cars will open. When driving uphill, maintain a larger safety distance and expect that if the car in front of you makes a turn left off the main road, it may first backslide a yard or more. Etc. etc.
Similarly, pedestrians need to predict the possible courses of action in each traffic situation, and act accordingly.

It's not rocket science. And it's all for the sake of the safety of oneself and others.



Although, actually, you've given a very good example of what a person is like when in the grip of the lower gunas ... they are like a train, bound by the rails.

 

[iceaura]

Similarly, pedestrians need to predict the possible courses of action in each traffic situation, and act accordingly.

It's not rocket science. And it's all for the sake of the safety of oneself and others.

And as in normal situations of human risk, there are large arenas of pedestrian life in which pedestrians are not expected to take special precautions, devote awareness and attention to risk assessment, or burden their lives with traffic avoidance.

No one advocates for the wearing of special reflective tape on the clothes of business folk crossing busy downtown streets, regardless of its benefits and the risk of not wearing it, for instance. Many other precautions - running shoes, keeping track of all nearby license plate numbers, never crossing a street alone, maybe a helmet during rush hour at least - are simply unknown, despite their obvious benefit in reducing an obvious risk.

Enforcing such precautionary measures would be viewed as oppressive, true? the supporters and advocates of them supporting and advocating oppression.

 

[lightgigantic]

And as in normal situations of human risk, there are large arenas of pedestrian life in which pedestrians are not expected to take special precautions, devote awareness and attention to risk assessment, or burden their lives with traffic avoidance.

No one advocates for the wearing of special reflective tape on the clothes of business folk crossing busy downtown streets, regardless of its benefits and the risk of not wearing it, for instance. Many other precautions - running shoes, keeping track of all nearby license plate numbers, never crossing a street alone, maybe a helmet during rush hour at least - are simply unknown, despite their obvious benefit in reducing an obvious risk.

Enforcing such precautionary measures would be viewed as oppressive, true? the supporters and advocates of them supporting and advocating oppression.

Incorrect.

There are never environments that negate caution (since anything can technically happen anywhere) , merely aspects of risk assessment that negate any need for hazard precaution.
The moment a risk comes into play in an unconventional setting (like, say, a small construction vehicle is moving about in a strictly pedestrian only area), is the moment individuals adopt risk management.
They never think "well there is no need for me to look out for my welfare here because its more my business to be here than the driver with his 1 tonne vehicle".

IOW there is never a moment in the life of a (sane) pedestrian where they think there is no need for them to be responsible for their safety

 

[Bells]

So now it is ludicrous for individuals to assess risks in their pursuit of personal well being?

[Removed rest of your rape apologist stupidity]

You still didn't answer the question.


"How does a wife apply your OH&S philosophy to prevent being raped by her husband on any given night?"

What preventative measures should women take to prevent being raped by their spouses, intimate partners, relatives, men in their lives?

What behaviours should women avoid in their own homes to prevent themselves from being raped by the men they know and trust?

 

[lightgigantic]

You still didn't answer the question.


"How does a wife apply your OH&S philosophy to prevent being raped by her husband on any given night?"

What preventative measures should women take to prevent being raped by their spouses, intimate partners, relatives, men in their lives?

What behaviours should women avoid in their own homes to prevent themselves from being raped by the men they know and trust?

I did answer it.

Let me say it again, this time with annotations just in case you missed it :

You can't fathom any behavior that might present itself as indicating a hazard is in the making? (note : this is where I suggest one can recognize behaviour that leads up to an attempted rape)
Or you can't fathom any responses to such hazardous behavior when it prevents itself? (note : this is where I suggest there are evasive/defensive manouvers one can adopt when it becomes apparent an individual is meaning to sexually assault one)

If you want specific information, this is just the first few hits generated off google

(note : this isn't the complete length and breadth of material out there on the subject - this is just the first few hits off google that interested parties could possibly turn up)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/highriskrape.htm
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesprofile.htm
http://budokan.wcart.net/WomenSelfDe...istProfile.htm
http://www.vsdvalliance.org/secGetHelp/recognition.html

(Note : this is where I offer links providing information specific to the above two points)


Or do you think that rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification and once a perpetrator makes it clear you are to be their victim the only empowering option to employ is to acquiesce and have no more cards to play until you contact your lawyer?

(note : this is where I play the only alternative, if one is assuming there is no signifying behaviour of a rapist or that there are no defensive measures one can take that can help someone prevent themselves from becoming a victim)

If you can't see how this is an answer we can only assume that you have your own personal reasons for pretending to be stupid and are being very good at it.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

I did answer it.

Let me say it again, this time with annotations just in case you missed it :

You can't fathom any behavior that might present itself as indicating a hazard is in the making? (note : this is where I suggest one can recognize behaviour that leads up to an attempted rape)

Oh no I saw your answer. I just chose to disregard it and not bother with it because it was stupid and was indicative of your backwards view of women.

No, I cannot fathom any behaviour that might lead to a rape, because rapists are not all the same and anything could lead to it.

People who try to analyse or come up with the "recognised behaviour" that leads to an attempted rape are usually looking for an excuse for the rapist's actions and behaviour. So I need to ask, why are you trying to excuse rapists?

But to repeat the questions that has been asked of you repeatedly and which you have failed to answer..

What should a woman do to prevent being raped by her intimate partner, relative or man she knows and trusts? What behaviour do you think a woman could engage in that could "lead up to" a rape by her spouse?

Or you can't fathom any responses to such hazardous behavior when it prevents itself? (note : this is where I suggest there are evasive/defensive manouvers one can adopt when it becomes apparent an individual is meaning to sexually assault one)

Continuing the stupid, I see.

At no time have I or anyone else in this thread ever asserted that women should not defend themselves if attacked. No one has said this. Yet for some bizarre reason, you seem to assume we have and have carried on with this dishonest argument for a while now.

You have lied through your teeth about one article and tried to claim she had successfully prevented being raped, when in reality she was talking about a flash back to her rape by police officers when she took a self defense class.

You have also lied and been dishonest when you have consistently deemed that women can somehow prevent rapists from raping them if they behave a certain way and even in this post, have said that there are certain behaviours which would "lead up to a rape".. When asked how a woman can prevent being raped by someone she knows.. You even went so far down the ridiculous and downright stupid track of saying this when asked 'how can a woman prevent being raped by her intimate partner or relative or friend'.. And then tried unsuccessfully and stupidly to tie it in with self defense and lied to misrepresent what we have been saying and twisting it to say that we don't support self defense.. So I shall ask you again.

What behaviours do you think a woman could show that would lead to her being raped by her intimate spouse, relative or acquaintance?

(Note : this is where I offer links providing information specific to the above two points)

Which is all pretty and all. But it still fails to answer the question of what behaviours could lead a woman to be raped by her intimate spouse, relative or male acquaintance.. After all, you are the one harping on about OH&S about women and rape and you are the one saying that certain behaviors by women can lead them to being raped. So what behaviours do you think a woman could exhibit that would result in her being raped by her intimate partner, relative or male acquaintance? I will even make the question easier for you:

What should women avoid doing so they are not raped by their spouse, intimate partner, relative or mail acquaintance?

Or do you think that rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification and once a perpetrator makes it clear you are to be their victim the only empowering option to employ is to acquiesce and have no more cards to play until you contact your lawyer?

I'm sorry, but where exactly have I said this?

(note : this is where I play the only alternative, if one is assuming there is no signifying behaviour of a rapist or that there are no defensive measures one can take that can help someone prevent themselves from becoming a victim)

Yep.

Now detail what defensive measures a woman can take when her husband rapes her while she sleeps.

If you can't see how this is an answer we can only assume that you have your own personal reasons for pretending to be stupid and are being very good at it.

Here is the thing.

You have not answered the question.

You have instead tried to divert attention away from it by discussing something completely different.

You have claimed that certain behaviours lead to rape. So I asked you (repeatedly), what behaviours by a woman would lead to her being raped by her spouse, intimate partner, relative or acquaintance. You can't answer it, instead you prattle on about OH&S and self defense classes.

So answer the question please.

 

[parmalee]

Repeated occurrences that have statistical merit is kind of the opposite of cherry picking actually ......




Your personal opinions aside, my point still stands.

The capacity to frame an act in some sort of moral framework in no way grants the same act any sort of reprieve when it crops up in risk assessment. Drink driving illustrates this very clearly.

I was gonna respond to this, point by point, but then I realized something: you are either incredibly stupid, or simply dishonest and rotten to the core. I'm kinda leaning towards the latter, as it's difficult to believe that a person could be that stupid, but regardless...

Seriously? Obviously there are going to be incidences of such; otherwise there'd be no fucking cherries to pick, right? It's all about prevalence and gravity and suchlike... but again, you can't possibly be that fucking idiotic, right?

I'm not addressing the rest. Just carry on with your preaching.

 

[Tiassa]

Prevention Advice: If/Then

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion??

How on earth do you miss the point ... so badly ... so often?

Your consistent ability to ask questions in such a manner as to demonstrate that you have no clue what you're addressing is one of the reasons people mock you.

Wait, let me get that correct: It's why they mock you.

Nope, not quite: It's why they mock you.

The commentary examined a fallacious comparison, stated the obvious differences, and then showed the stupidity of prevention theory in a more situationally-appropriate (i.e., realistic) context.

Stay off the streets? How on earth do I arrive at that conclusion? It's an application of open-ended prevention theory to the drunk-driving analogy.

I know that sometimes it's difficult to follow a specific thread within the larger discussion; it is inconvenient to attend closely the chain of points and valences of analysis.

Simply observing the way you edit the quote in order to construe the appearance of a reason to ask such an idiotic question demonstrates the fallacy of your inquiry.

I might, then, offer another prevention theory: If you wish to prevent situations in which you embarrass yourself so morbidly, then it would be advisable to take the inconvenient precaution of paying attention.

 

[arauca]

Oh no I saw your answer. I just chose to disregard it and not bother with it because it was stupid and was indicative of your backwards view of women.

No, I cannot fathom any behaviour that might lead to a rape, because rapists are not all the same and anything could lead to it.

People who try to analyse or come up with the "recognised behaviour" that leads to an attempted rape are usually looking for an excuse for the rapist's actions and behaviour. So I need to ask, why are you trying to excuse rapists?

But to repeat the questions that has been asked of you repeatedly and which you have failed to answer..

What should a woman do to prevent being raped by her intimate partner, relative or man she knows and trusts? What behaviour do you think a woman could engage in that could "lead up to" a rape by her spouse?



Continuing the stupid, I see.

At no time have I or anyone else in this thread ever asserted that women should not defend themselves if attacked. No one has said this. Yet for some bizarre reason, you seem to assume we have and have carried on with this dishonest argument for a while now.

You have lied through your teeth about one article and tried to claim she had successfully prevented being raped, when in reality she was talking about a flash back to her rape by police officers when she took a self defense class.

You have also lied and been dishonest when you have consistently deemed that women can somehow prevent rapists from raping them if they behave a certain way and even in this post, have said that there are certain behaviours which would "lead up to a rape".. When asked how a woman can prevent being raped by someone she knows.. You even went so far down the ridiculous and downright stupid track of saying this when asked 'how can a woman prevent being raped by her intimate partner or relative or friend'.. And then tried unsuccessfully and stupidly to tie it in with self defense and lied to misrepresent what we have been saying and twisting it to say that we don't support self defense.. So I shall ask you again.

What behaviours do you think a woman could show that would lead to her being raped by her intimate spouse, relative or acquaintance?



Which is all pretty and all. But it still fails to answer the question of what behaviours could lead a woman to be raped by her intimate spouse, relative or male acquaintance.. After all, you are the one harping on about OH&S about women and rape and you are the one saying that certain behaviors by women can lead them to being raped. So what behaviours do you think a woman could exhibit that would result in her being raped by her intimate partner, relative or male acquaintance? I will even make the question easier for you:

What should women avoid doing so they are not raped by their spouse, intimate partner, relative or mail acquaintance?


I'm sorry, but where exactly have I said this?



Yep.

Now detail what defensive measures a woman can take when her husband rapes her while she sleeps.


Here is the thing.

You have not answered the question.

You have instead tried to divert attention away from it by discussing something completely different.

You have claimed that certain behaviours lead to rape. So I asked you (repeatedly), what behaviours by a woman would lead to her being raped by her spouse, intimate partner, relative or acquaintance. You can't answer it, instead you prattle on about OH&S and self defense classes.

So answer the question please.

RABAT, Morocco (AP) — Bewilderment, scorn, resentment. Women's rights activists across the Middle East are reacting with everything but joy to topless demonstrations in Europe by a Ukrainian feminist group held in solidarity with a Tunisian woman who posted topless photos of herself protesting religious oppression.

They fear the bare breasts may hurt their cause more than help it, after FEMEN activists protested in front of mosques and Tunisian diplomatic missions last week to support 19-year-old Amina Tyler, who caused a scandal in her country with her Facebook postings.

Tyler herself, a high school student, said that while she was encouraged by the solidarity, the burning of the black flag bearing the Muslim profession of faith in front of the Paris mosque was a step too far, even if the banner has been championed by ultraconservatives and jihadists.

"I am against that," she told French TV Canal+ on Saturday. "They didn't insult a certain kind of Muslim, the extremists, but all Muslims."

 

[parmalee]

Well, it's too hard to resist such... entertainment.

Your personal opinions aside, my point still stands.

The capacity to frame an act in some sort of moral framework in no way grants the same act any sort of reprieve when it crops up in risk assessment. Drink driving illustrates this very clearly.

That was your point?!

Can you point me to where precisely I suggested otherwise?

And are you really that oblivious as to what I was suggesting about your motivations?

 

[wynn]

And as in normal situations of human risk, there are large arenas of pedestrian life in which pedestrians are not expected to take special precautions, devote awareness and attention to risk assessment, or burden their lives with traffic avoidance.

No one advocates for the wearing of special reflective tape on the clothes of business folk crossing busy downtown streets, regardless of its benefits and the risk of not wearing it, for instance. Many other precautions - running shoes, keeping track of all nearby license plate numbers, never crossing a street alone, maybe a helmet during rush hour at least - are simply unknown, despite their obvious benefit in reducing an obvious risk.

You are falsely limiting the scope of precautionary measures for pedestrians.
In some countries, the law indeed mandates that pedestrians wear reflective items etc. in particular circumstances.
There is also a general principle in traffic laws that people should participate in traffic in such a way that they don't endanger themselves or others.

Enforcing such precautionary measures would be viewed as oppressive, true? the supporters and advocates of them supporting and advocating oppression.

Well, if you think falling into an uncovered unprotected manhole or having a brick fall onto your head, is better than paying attention to your surroundings and taking that into consideration as you are walking down the street ...

 

[wynn]

How on earth do you miss the point ... so badly ... so often?

Your consistent ability to ask questions in such a manner as to demonstrate that you have no clue what you're addressing is one of the reasons people mock you.

Wait, let me get that correct: It's why they mock you.

Nope, not quite: It's why they mock you.

The commentary examined a fallacious comparison, stated the obvious differences, and then showed the stupidity of prevention theory in a more situationally-appropriate (i.e., realistic) context.

Stay off the streets? How on earth do I arrive at that conclusion? It's an application of open-ended prevention theory to the drunk-driving analogy.

So you can understand that staying off the streets to be safe as a pedestrian, is an absurd proposition.
So you understand that pedestrians can do quite a bit for their safety, as they participate in traffic.

But the idea that this principle of personal safety may also apply in other cases, such as assault and rape, strikes you as absurd.

I know that sometimes it's difficult to follow a specific thread within the larger discussion; it is inconvenient to attend closely the chain of points and valences of analysis.

Simply observing the way you edit the quote in order to construe the appearance of a reason to ask such an idiotic question demonstrates the fallacy of your inquiry.

I might, then, offer another prevention theory: If you wish to prevent situations in which you embarrass yourself so morbidly, then it would be advisable to take the inconvenient precaution of paying attention.

Talk about bad faith!

 

[wynn]

What should a woman do to prevent being raped by her intimate partner

This situation is relatively simple to understand, although perhaps the understanding may not be so easy to implement in practice.
She needs to get her head out of the clouds of infatuation and be realistic about the relationship.

What behaviour do you think a woman could engage in that could "lead up to" a rape by her spouse?

It's telling that you chose to read it like that.
As opposed to understanding the part about "this is where I suggest one can recognize behaviour that leads up to an attempted rape" as being about the behavior of the prospective rapist,

you read it exclusively as referring to the behavior of the prospective victim.

What should women avoid doing so they are not raped by their spouse, intimate partner, relative or mail acquaintance?

Again, get their head out of the clouds of infatuation, or fantasy, and be realistic about the relationship.

Granted, this is easier said than done, but it works.

 

[iceaura]

Enforcing such precautionary measures would be viewed as oppressive, true? the supporters and advocates of them supporting and advocating oppression.

Incorrect.

No, correct, as you demonstrate. Had it been incorrect, you would have been able to address the issue - advocacy, expectation, enforcement, of precautions - instead of deflecting into irrelevancies of immediate hazard etc.

You are falsely limiting the scope of precautionary measures for pedestrians.

How so? You appear to agree with me in every respect - look at this:

In some countries, the law indeed mandates that pedestrians wear reflective items etc. in particular circumstances.

As I emphasized: in particular, definable, limited circumstances. You agree. Had you been able to come up with similar limits on your advocated rape precautions, you would have been able to at least begin dealing with the major issues of this thread.

There is also a general principle in traffic laws that people should participate in traffic in such a way that they don't endanger themselves or others.

And that general principle is satisfied for pedestrians, one's behavior meets all expectations and advocated precautions, without one's continually maintaining awareness and adopting obvious precautions against all visible risk. No helmets, no reflective tape on the business suits stepping out for lunch at rush hour, no protective behaviors such as always walking in groups or keeping a barrier between yourself and any approaching cars, are advocated. There are limits on the advocacy of precaution, beyond which such advocacy is seen as advocacy of oppression (unreasonable, even ridiculous, to boot).

 

[Bells]

This situation is relatively simple to understand, although perhaps the understanding may not be so easy to implement in practice.
She needs to get her head out of the clouds of infatuation and be realistic about the relationship.

*Guffaw*

Are you of the belief that women know who rapists are?

It's telling that you chose to read it like that.
As opposed to understanding the part about "this is where I suggest one can recognize behaviour that leads up to an attempted rape" as being about the behavior of the prospective rapist,

Oh is that what he meant when he said:

You can't fathom any behavior that might present itself as indicating a hazard is in the making? (note : this is where I suggest one can recognize behaviour that leads up to an attempted rape)

So when he is discussing OH&S principles and hazardous behaviour that leads to rape, he is talking about the rapist?

It's okay Wynn. You can stop making excuses for him now.

you read it exclusively as referring to the behavior of the prospective victim.

Because he worded it to mean the victim.

You know, when one takes it into account along with his constant obsession of women in dark train stations at 1am in red light districts attracting rapists..

Again, get their head out of the clouds of infatuation, or fantasy, and be realistic about the relationship.

Are you suggesting that women knowingly or become involved with men they know will rape them one day? That women can somehow pick out their rapists before they are raped?

Granted, this is easier said than done, but it works.

See, this could be said after the rape has occurred. To claim that women should somehow be realistic about something that hasn't even occurred yet in so far as she does not believe such a thing could happen to her with him, it's a bit of a stretch to say that she should be "realistic about the relationship".

Unless of course women are to treat all men as if they are potential rapists, your solution is pretty.. well.. silly.

:shrug: