Rape and the "Civilized" World

[wynn]

I said that YOU are dishonest and rotten to the core, but given your "comprehension" of my posts, as well as those of others, I am now saying that YOU are also a complete fucking idiot.

Get it? Or do I need to say it a few more times, in language more appropriate to your level of understanding?

By calling him such names, what do you expect to be the result?

That he will become annihilated, or that he will declare eternal obedience to you, ... or what?

 

[wynn]

Spidey senses?

No Wynn..

Because your belief that women somehow 'just know' is silly and your post's amount to nothing more than dishonest trolling. Either that or you actually have no clue and have never interacted with people in your life.

Suit yourself.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Ummmm... Right...

Remember this? ('Cuz, you know, YOU actually responded to it, so presumably you read it.)


And later, as your request, I clarified something--and again, you responded, so presumably you read it:

I have noticed that both you and bells are omitting one important detail I gave from the train station scenario that is a prominent risk factor as far as data surrounding rape incidents are concerned.
We can only assume that you did it on purpose to make it easier to air your opinions.
Do you know what aspect you are not mentioning?

But thank you for bringing this up again, as I might have to revise that a little:

I suppose it's possible that you are NOT dishonest, and are in fact really just profoundly fucking stupid and suffering from short-term memory problems.

But do note, I said "might." I'm honestly unsure here. Regardless, I do not feel especially comfortable continuing this delightful conversation with you--as you cannot keep straight something I said like five fucking minutes ago, I can confidently say that there is definitely "something" going on with you, I'm just not all that sure as to what it is. But it's unsettling. (Or creepy. Or weird. Or possibly even, just sad.)

At the moment I am just bringing to your attention that the entire thrust of your argument seems to be directed against something you imagined.

Either you are not arguing against the scenario I presented at the train station (for whatever reason) or you are of the opinion that Ms Louise and indeed anyone and everyone who advocates a prevention strategy are misogynist fucking idiots etc.

Whatever the case, you certainly display the attitude of someone who has no interest in anything aside from airing a tirade of insult and hate, even if the suitable recipients of such anger are not actually in your vicinity.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh I read your articles and your links.

You still didn't answer the question though. You are still lying and misrepresenting everyone who disagrees with you...

And you are still placing the onus on the woman to not be raped.

So frankly, you are nothing but a waste of space and oxygen.

":shrug:"

So why should I bother reading and responding to the rest of your post when it is long, stupid and wrong?

You can't even answer some very simple questions without trying to deflect your answer with some links that does not answer the questions asked of you.

How many pages has it been now? And you have the nerve to comment on my apparently refusing to read anything?

The finishing touch on my last post :

I provide a link - you don't read it.
I provide an excerpt from a woman who facilitates teaching a seminar that includes this subject - you ignore it.
I provide a run down from a personal testimony - you say this is not from the real world.

And yet I don't doubt for a second that your next reply will come back to this same question that your arrogance and attitude simply prohibits you from discussing.


I guess its your prerogative to launch into an attempted reply without reading anything, but it just tends to make your behavior as predictable as it is inconsequential.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

OK, did you honestly not notice that iceaura had obviously already read that, being as he QUOTED IT in post #242?

and given that you are following up from your post numbered 239, exactly how does this work in your fevered illogical thought cage?

How does a post that was made 30 or so minutes down the track, impact the writing of a post?


Anyway, that minor detail about chronology aside, you can also see my reply ... provided that is not another detail you wish to cloud over for the sake of presenting your five-star arguments .....

Seriously, get some help.



Though I do understand this continual shrugging of yours now.

Of course, I would not be at all surprised if you've also got "strategies" for children, on how to avoid being beaten or molested by family, relatives, or close acquaintances.

The only thing that would surprise us is if you suddenly displayed adult behavior.

 

[iceaura]

Now: where's the answer to the question at issue, from me and several others, that is central to you efforts here?
What part of the answer is evading you?

The part where you supply an answer, as opposed to claiming that you already have.

Here's the question, my wording:

What situations do you have in mind, in which women need not anticipate that they might get raped?

You might, for convenience and to avoid further violations of forum policy via multiple consecutive posts, wriggle out a bit to a discussion of what situations you have in mind in which women are not to be held responsible as adults for taking precautions against rape. But posting descriptions of seminars by a woman in New Zealand, unless you are that woman and that is where your mind is and you go on to show how those descriptions provide situational limits for your advocacy of precaution, does not even approach answering that question.

And you know that.

Note that descriptions of seminars by some woman in New Zealand do not even approach an answer, regardless of their content.

 

[Bells]

The finishing touch on my last post :

I provide a link - you don't read it.
I provide an excerpt from a woman who facilitates teaching a seminar that includes this subject - you ignore it.
I provide a run down from a personal testimony - you say this is not from the real world.

And yet I don't doubt for a second that your next reply will come back to this same question that your arrogance and attitude simply prohibits you from discussing.


I guess its your prerogative to launch into an attempted reply without reading anything, but it just tends to make your behavior as predictable as it is inconsequential.

:shrug:

Ah the irony of you whining when you believe someone is not reading what you are writing and linking...

Your links..

Did you even read your own links?

In determining the profile of a 'date rape' rapist, my favourite one that you linked:

RACE: Mostly black (75-90% of rapists in prison are black); crime tends to be intra-racial; rapists are usually unarmed; 1 in 4 (25%) uses a knife or instrument.

PHYSICAL: 6 feet tall, 160-200 pounds, muscular build, dark complexion.

CLASS: Most are from poverty-lower class backgrounds, are products of unstable families, and are abused or neglected.

IQ: Majority in normal range 90-110

EDUCATION: Typically a high school graduate; some college possible; discipline problems likely, most likely involving pornography interest
​

If that was not ridiculous enough:

VEHICLE: Older American cargo-type van with sliding side door, white or light-colored. No side windows.​

So I guess if we were to utilise your OH&S risk aversion to prevent being raped, women, especially white women, need to avoid large black men, especially those who drive white or light coloured old American made vans who may or may not be poorly educated...


And you have the nerve to be offended when I ignore your links which did nothing to answer the questions I asked you, don't respond to them and view them as being general claptrap? Really?

No, really?

Your other link, the underlying premise is to describe rapist profiles, which I already know, and which then says what chances women have of fighting back against each type. The underlying message is that women survive and live, whether they are raped or whether they are able to fight them off, which is what I told you self defense classes and rape seminars tell women and which you consistently disregarded.

However, that link seems to believe that women must be able to complete psychological evaluations on all the men they come into contact with - do not forget, such links and seminars are only able to come up with this after years (if not decades) of research and evaluations and people who are able to tell which type is who are usually experts at profiling. To expect women to be able to recognise and simply 'tell' which one is which in a real world scenario as it is happening to them is dangerous and obscene and can result in further injury or death to their person, which it seems you also did not consider.

I could go on, but I do have things to do that are more important than responding to your frank stupidity because you seem to believe that women can identify who is going to rape them after a couple of hours at a seminar. The reality is vastly different.

 

[billvon]

. . . But posting descriptions of seminars by a woman in New Zealand, unless you are that woman and that is where your mind is and you go on to show how those descriptions provide situational limits for your advocacy of precaution, does not even approach answering that question.

Hmm. A tough question. When it comes to the question of how to protect women from rape, and the societal effects of that protection, who should one heed?

A woman who has been raped, helps teach a class on how to protect oneself from rape, speaks regularly on women's rights, pushes for changes in laws for women's protection and advocates for rape survivors in court?

Or an angry poster on the Internet?

Tough one.

 

[iceaura]

Hmm. A tough question. When it comes to the question of how to protect women from rape, and the societal effects of that protection, who should one heed?

We'll be getting to that question when some kind of discussion has become possible. And we will heed everyone who speaks with integrity and makes some kind of sense - maybe even you, if you grow up.

Along that line: are you willing to attempt an answer to the question you pretended to deal with, there? It's posted right there for you to quote before you call it "interesting", and you seem concerned with it.

 

[parmalee]

By calling him such names, what do you expect to be the result?

That he will become annihilated, or that he will declare eternal obedience to you, ... or what?

I'm not sure how to interpret your question: are either of those something that you hope to achieve when posting on some anonymous message board?

I was simply stating what appears to be the case--I will not rehash here, as I've already done so repeatedly and you can simply read the posts. But, in short, lg has consistently demonstrated dishonesty (in many fashions, but particularly with respect to falsely attributing quotes or sentiments) and he has demonstrated an inability to comprehend straightforward declarative statements.

Though I should be clear here: I use the term "idiot" in a somewhat idiosyncratic fashion, modeled after Vicki Hearne's usage, which itself was a sort of reformulation of Hannah Arendt's thesis. IOW, by "idiot," I certainly do not intend anything remotely proximal to Aloyshya Myshkin, but neither do I intend to suggest a harmless dullard or half-wit; to the contrary, an idiot is quite dangerous.

Also note, an idiot (in my usage) is not necessarily even... erm... "unintelligent," I suppose. In fact, Hearne, IIRC, used it in describing Heidegger (in either Bandit or Adam's Task) for declaring non-human beings as either "world-poor" or "world-less," and lacking Dasein in any meaningful sense (which is the only sense). Point being, an "idiot" can be quite intelligent (or not), but has a habit of espousing uninformed--and essentially dangerous--ideas and ideals.

Regardless, as I noted in a previous post, I honestly cannot determine precisely how willful lg's dishonesty and inability to comprehend is (I mean, perhaps it genuinely is an "inability"), and so I'm no longer inclined to continue with him.

 

[lightgigantic]

The part where you supply an answer, as opposed to claiming that you already have.

Here's the question, my wording: You might, for convenience and to avoid further violations of forum policy via multiple consecutive posts, wriggle out a bit to a discussion of what situations you have in mind in which women are not to be held responsible as adults for taking precautions against rape.

Here - let me put in bold letters for you, in the hope that you won't edit it out and pretend I never mentioned it like you have on several other previous occasions :

An individual does not implement risk management (ie the the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks) when their powers of risk assessment ( ie the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a situation) detail that the probability of encountering hazards (ie a situation that poses a level of threat to life, health, property, or environment) are low or practically non-existent.

So for instance, if you understand that car thieves can potentially strike anywhere (that's the hazard of this scenario), understand that locking it helps prevent such persons from stealing your car (that's the risk management), yet have nonetheless refrained from locking your car is some circumstances while locking it in others (that's the risk assessment), you are already quite familiar with how preventative strategies are utilized and indeed limited in everyday life.

NOTE: I am citing the car theft scenario to indicate the process of dealing with risks and their prevention, since that was the nature of your question. If you go on a tangent about the absurdity of qualitatively drawing a parallel between car theft and rape, we can understand that you actually have no interest aside from implementing a number of ruses to avoid serious discussion.

IOW the short answer to your question (which you hopefully won't repost a reply to with all the above edited out in an effort to make your arguments more laudable once again) is that an individual implements systems of risk management as dictated by their powers of risk assessment ....

And as a further point, this is the default position of anyone faced with a hazard, IOW when someone is in immediate danger (IOW they sense the danger of their situation due to their powers of risk assessment) , they automatically act in a manner to protect themselves or that which they value (IOW they implement risk management). It doesn't matter whether they feel it should have been someone else's responsibility to protect them or refrain from hurting them in whatever way.
The only detail that begs a difference to this scenario is which risk management strategies are more effective than others and which systems of risk assessment identify the proximity of a hazard at its earliest point.

Hence, comes the idea of people examining the nature of a hazard, and pinpointing precise strategies aimed at avoiding or minimizing an incident.

But posting descriptions of seminars by a woman in New Zealand, unless you are that woman and that is where your mind is and you go on to show how those descriptions provide situational limits for your advocacy of precaution, does not even approach answering that question.

I guess at this point we have to ask if you are again going to try and play the category of "man" as a hazard for a woman. We have already been over this, however if you feel the need to go back there, I more than happy to repeat myself yet again.

And you know that.

Note that descriptions of seminars by some woman in New Zealand do not even approach an answer, regardless of their content.

I posted the NZ seminar as a clear example of someone advocating a preventative model for rape with an aspect that deals with identifying an offender and steps one can take to prevent becoming a victim. I was just making it clear the type of person bells and co. are deriding as misogynistic rape apologists and the like.

 

[iceaura]

Here - let me put in bold letters for you, in the hope that you won't edit it out and pretend I never mentioned it like you have on several other previous occasions :

Liar.

Here - let me put in bold letters for you

What you put in bold letters has little to relevance to the question, and is as you know not even an attempt at an answer, but something else entirely.

NOTE: I am citing the car theft scenario to indicate the process of dealing with risks and their prevention, since that was the nature of your question

Was not. As you know. The reason you keep telling me what my question was, or the nature of it, or whatever, instead of answering it, is because you do not want to confront your answer and be held accountable for it. I don't blame you a bit - I wouldn't either.

I posted the NZ seminar as a clear example of someone advocating a preventative model for rape with an aspect that deals with identifying an offender and steps one can take to prevent becoming a victim. I was just making it clear the type of person bells and co. are deriding as misogynistic rape apologists and the like.

To make that "clear", you would have to draw the relevant parallels between that woman's advocacy and the posting being derided here, and the similarities of "type" between her and somebody like you or the other unlimited victim responsibility and personal precaution advocates here. What you have quoted from the description and seminar recommendations establishes nothing like that; she might be as dishonest and unreasonable and misogynistic and oppressive as you, say, or she might not be - can't tell.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah the irony of you whining when you believe someone is not reading what you are writing and linking...

Your links..

Did you even read your own links?

In determining the profile of a 'date rape' rapist, my favourite one that you linked:

RACE: Mostly black (75-90% of rapists in prison are black); crime tends to be intra-racial; rapists are usually unarmed; 1 in 4 (25%) uses a knife or instrument.

PHYSICAL: 6 feet tall, 160-200 pounds, muscular build, dark complexion.

CLASS: Most are from poverty-lower class backgrounds, are products of unstable families, and are abused or neglected.

IQ: Majority in normal range 90-110

EDUCATION: Typically a high school graduate; some college possible; discipline problems likely, most likely involving pornography interest
​

If that was not ridiculous enough:

VEHICLE: Older American cargo-type van with sliding side door, white or light-colored. No side windows.​

So I guess if we were to utilise your OH&S risk aversion to prevent being raped, women, especially white women, need to avoid large black men, especially those who drive white or light coloured old American made vans who may or may not be poorly educated...

Funnily enough, if you take that same link and go to the very next paragraph (titled "rapist typology") from where you left off, it actually goes on to explain different types of rapists and a brief over view of strategies to identify and deal with them.

In fact given this from the very end of the link :

The dangerous men are not visibly identifiable, have no distinguishable traits, fit no particular group. We know they can be fathers, brothers, husbands, teachers, doctors. They can be small, large, rich, poor, black or white. The only thing they have in common is that they are men who rape and batter women.

.... its pretty clear that they are making the point that its not rapist profiles (ie assessment of their physical characteristics) but rather rapist typologies that one uses to develop risk assessment/management strategies.


Yet despite all this, you expect us to believe you read stuff before you post .... even after you post several photographs and then ask us to identify the rapist (ie try to discern the rapist through their profile) in an attempt to make some clever point

:shrug:

And you have the nerve to be offended when I ignore your links which did nothing to answer the questions I asked you, don't respond to them and view them as being general claptrap? Really?

No, really?

Not so much offended, but perplexed.

I can't fathom why someone like yourself would pump so much energy into attempted discourse without going to the effort to read stuff.
In my mind, it simply doesn't make sense and is a behaviour on par with loony street dwellers screaming at people they don't even know.
:shrug:

Your other link, the underlying premise is to describe rapist profiles, which I already know, and which then says what chances women have of fighting back against each type. The underlying message is that women survive and live, whether they are raped or whether they are able to fight them off, which is what I told you self defense classes and rape seminars tell women and which you consistently disregarded.

However, that link seems to believe that women must be able to complete psychological evaluations on all the men they come into contact with - do not forget, such links and seminars are only able to come up with this after years (if not decades) of research and evaluations and people who are able to tell which type is who are usually experts at profiling. To expect women to be able to recognise and simply 'tell' which one is which in a real world scenario as it is happening to them is dangerous and obscene and can result in further injury or death to their person, which it seems you also did not consider.

The link makes the point that this is the cumulative body of statistics based on the FBI. I used the link to bring to your attention that there is an existing statistical body of knowledge used to identify a rapist ... although the subtle point that its their psychological profile that is more effective tool for developing risk management than their physical profile seems to have evaded your self pro-claimed adroit reading skills and knowledge base ....

This is the sort of thing individuals look at when they start to devise methodologies for preventative strategies. IOW its the type of thing a seminar facilitator (or someone else with insight and skills to engineer risk prevention strategies) would be looking at ... as opposed to someone simply at the stage of wanting to broaden their skills in the area. IOW looking at the raw data and working out where to go from there is a bit daunting.

I could go on, but I do have things to do that are more important than responding to your frank stupidity because you seem to believe that women can identify who is going to rape them after a couple of hours at a seminar. The reality is vastly different.

Obviously the better things you have to do doesn't involve reading the links you use to support yourself

From the link you provided :

IV. Research Findings

The research of Koss and her colleagues has served as the foundation of many of the investigations on the prevalence, circumstances, and aftermath of acquaintance rape within the past dozen or so years. The results of this research have served to create an identity and awareness of the problem. Equally as important has been the usefulness of this information in creating prevention models. Koss acknowledges that there are some limitations to the research. The most significant drawback is that her subjects were drawn exclusively from college campuses; thus, they were not representative of the population at large. The average age of the subjects was 21.4 years. By no means does this negate the usefulness of the findings, especially since the late teens and early twenties are the peak ages for the prevalence of acquaintance rape. The demographic profile of the 3,187 female and 2,972 male students in the study was similar to the makeup of the overall enrollment in higher education within the United States. Here are some of the most important statistics:

More evidence that the only person with a vastly different reality on their hands is you.

:shrug:


And in conclusion, like so many of you poorly though out , highly emotional rants that have no bearing on what a person actually says since your head is too clouded with your own sense of self-importance, this brings us back to right where we started just a few moments ago.

I provide a link - you don't read it. (You not only proved that you don't read them, you admitted you have no need to ... and you out did yourself on this occasion by providing a link that actually defeats your own argument)
I provide an excerpt from a woman who facilitates teaching a seminar that includes this subject - you ignore it. (No room in your world for women to teach other women how to avoid getting rape, since the very premise warrants absolute disbelief IYHO and is not part of the "real world " )
I provide a run down from a personal testimony - you say this is not from the real world. (Provided another one at the end here)

And yet I don't doubt for a second that your next reply will come back to this same question that your arrogance and attitude simply prohibits you from discussing.



Recently I was out walking by myself, it was about 9am and bright and sunny. I thought I was pretty safe so didn't take a cellphone or anything. I took a wrong turn down a street and this guy popped out of nowhere. Instantly the awareness system Phil and Athena had taught me went off in my head. I felt something was wrong even though this guy was across the street. I saw him turn down an alley way so thought I wouldn't have to worry about him anymore. All of a sudden he was RIGHT BEHIND ME! I am guessing he crossed the road as quietly as possible. I walked off the concrete onto the grassy verge, I don't know if this was the right thing to do but I did not want him right behind me. He was breathing heavy. I tried walking slowly to let him overtake but he just wouldn't!! I saw his hands around his pants and really thought he'd pull out a knife but instead he pulled out something else and had a hideous look of intent on his face as he came towards me. I ran as fast as I could down the road, I didn't know where I was or where the guy was, I was really scared but managed to hail down the first car that came by. Luckily it was a nice lady who took me home. It could've been so much worse but I'm SO thankful I attended the self defence course.

Obviously oppressed by misogynistic prevention strategies , isn't she?
Why on earth doesn't she just wake up to the reality that its a rapist's responsibility not to rape instead of falling back on tools that oppress women?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Liar.

Incorrect

True.

You did edit it out

:shrug:

What you put in bold letters has little to relevance to the question, and is as you know not even an attempt at an answer, but something else entirely.

Yet you can't explain why it is irrelevant
:shrug:

Why do you deem straight-forward discussion to be beneath you?

Was not. As you know. The reason you keep telling me what my question was, or the nature of it, or whatever, instead of answering it, is because you do not want to confront your answer and be held accountable for it. I don't blame you a bit - I wouldn't either.

Yet for some magical reason you cannot paraphrase your question to explain why it is irrelevant in order to clarify it

At the moment you are in the position of asking questions that you apparently have no interest in discussing answers for.
I have said on at least a dozen occasions that its risk assessment that limits and preventative strategy.
Several other posters have said words to the same effect.
And at no time have you displayed anything except wild accusations about a persons character (eg "Liar." "You are dishonest" "you are idiot" etc) as a means to explain why you don't find these answers acceptable.

At this stage the only real question seems to be "why do you ask questions you have no interest in being answered?".
:shrug:

To make that "clear", you would have to draw the relevant parallels between that woman's advocacy and the posting being derided here, and the similarities of "type" between her and somebody like you or the other unlimited victim responsibility and personal precaution advocates here. What you have quoted from the description and seminar recommendations establishes nothing like that; she might be as dishonest and unreasonable and misogynistic and oppressive as you, say, or she might not be - can't tell.

Thats funny.

I would have thought that would be tasked to the person leveling claims that all and any prevention models for rape equate with misogyny and the oppression of women .

IOW if you are willing to concede in some manner that her program is not misogynistic and oppressive, its you who has to provide the details ... (I'm assuming that you are not so confident of your powers of intellectual ambidextrousness to suggest that she is not advocating something in line with "rape-prevention").

So to put it bluntly, if you want to continue with your axiomatic position of "rape prevention = misogyny and oppression" you either have to explain how she fits this category or, alternatively, revise your position.

There is no third option.
:shrug:

BTW, as a detail, the NZ seminar example is used to problematize your assumptions about the relationship between prevention and misogyny. It doesn't really have a strong bearing on your question about the un/limited nature of adopting a preventative model (unless you want to suggest that because the strategies she teaches are "unlimited", they are infact misogynistic etc ... a somewhat comical proposal that has already been picked up on by another poster )

 

[iceaura]

You did edit it out

No, I didn't. And I did actually explain that to you, the first time you lied about it, on the assumption you had merely misunderstood. I won't make that mistake ever again. You aren't stupid, you're dishonest.

I have said on at least a dozen occasions that its risk assessment that limits and preventative strategy.

And that is still irrelevant, and always will be. The question was not what somebody else's criteria would be in abstract, but what your limits are in reality. Further, no general or abstract notion of "preventative strategy" is at issue - your particular advocacy of precautionary awareness and behavior on the part of all responsible women is at issue, and the question is where you draw the line - to avoid advocating oppression (backed by misogyny, normally).

BTW, as a detail, the NZ seminar example is used to problematize your assumptions about the relationship between prevention and misogyny

The relationship at issue is between your advocacy and its implications, not some abstract "prevention" and anything. The NZ seminar has nothing to do with you, and nothing to do with my posts here, as far as you have posted.

I would have thought that would be tasked to the person leveling claims that all and any prevention models for rape equate with misogyny and the oppression of women

I'm not making any such claim, the entire issue here is you guys's refusal to limit your advocacy of precaution so as to make it a non-oppressive prevention model,

and as usual with you, the pretense of not knowing that is dishonest.

You can't post honestly. Do you know why that is?

Obviously oppressed by misogynistic prevention strategies , isn't she?

Not "prevention strategies", but advocacy of precaution and assignment of responsibility - actually, yeah, that's how it reads, but not necessarily from the seminar. She seems to think she was somehow at fault for not bringing her cell phone and naively expecting to be safe in some regular public place (that stuff is not part of the event, so her details and self-justification attempts are motivated elsewhere). Whether she got that from the seminar is impossible to tell - I doubt it, myself, because the seminar seems too short to inculcate that kind of reflexive apology.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, I didn't. And I did actually explain that to you, the first time you lied about it, on the assumption you had merely misunderstood. I won't make that mistake ever again. You aren't stupid, you're dishonest. And that is still irrelevant, and always will be. The question was not what somebody else's criteria would be in abstract, but what your limits are in reality. Further, no general or abstract notion of "preventative strategy" is at issue - your particular advocacy of precautionary awareness and behavior on the part of all responsible women is at issue, and the question is where you draw the line - to avoid advocating oppression (backed by misogyny, normally).
The relationship at issue is between your advocacy and its implications, not some abstract "prevention" and anything. The NZ seminar has nothing to do with you, and nothing to do with my posts here, as far as you have posted.

I'm not making any such claim, the entire issue here is you guys's refusal to limit your advocacy of precaution so as to make it a non-oppressive prevention model,

and as usual with you, the pretense of not knowing that is dishonest.

You can't post honestly. Do you know why that is?
Not "prevention strategies", but advocacy of precaution and assignment of responsibility - actually, yeah, that's how it reads, but not necessarily from the seminar. She seems to think she was somehow at fault for not bringing her cell phone and naively expecting to be safe in some regular public place (that stuff is not part of the event, so her details and self-justification attempts are motivated elsewhere). Whether she got that from the seminar is impossible to tell - I doubt it, myself, because the seminar seems too short to inculcate that kind of reflexive apology.

Thanks for providing an analysis of a scenario that you concede is not abstract.
Now I can comfortably ask these questions without you weaseling away on the pretext that the answer to your burning question is simply abstract.


Notice how she seemed to think she was safe at the start.
What, at that point, do you suppose was occurring/not occurring for her to not be implementing the prevention strategy she learnt?
What occurred for her to suddenly implement the strategy?
And what concluded for her to again disengage the strategy?

If you can answer these questions, you should be able to answer in what way rape prevention models are limited.

Thanks in advance for your honesty

 

[Tiassa]

(Something, something, Burt Ward)

Obviously oppressed by misogynistic prevention strategies , isn't she?

I keep thinking that maybe you shouldn't use advertising for self-defense courses as actual arguments. But then it occurs to me how absurd it is to even try that route, and, frankly, I have a hard time believing you can't figure out the problem with that.

 

[wellwisher]

Would prostitution help decrease rape, since it would provide an outlet for guys on the edge? When I was younger, there was a saying among the guys; "a stiff d!ck has no conscience". What this meant is once a guy gets horny enough, his normal reason and censor is no longer fully operational. He becomes vulnerable to bad choices. Things that might seen good on the blind impulse, may not be a good idea once the brain comes back to normal. Rape can occur when there is one of those, no conscience moments.

The dating leading to sex rules between men and women, does not benefit all men, since not all men are charming and know how to play the game in a way they can loosen up ladies with reliability. One guy can charm his way in bed, while the next guy might be accused of rape by the same gal, simply because he did not have the skills to do it, legitimately. He may skip steps. Rape is not about virgins but can occur with the loosest women with an awkward guy.

Prostitution would add a playing filed leveling variable, since does not require skill to get lucky. If the guy goes on a date expecting sex but can't charm the deal, this can lead to accusations of rape. If there was a prostitute on this date, then the sex deal is set up front, regardless of his charm and skill. There is honesty in this and no linger lack of conscience.

One reason prostitution is frowned upon by women, is because women will not benefit by this, since guys will go to the path of least resistance. One could get a high quality date above one's own class since charm game are not needed. However, containment of the males, to the rules of the female, although better for most women, does lead to many men, who can't play the game, some of which will then resort to rape.

If a rapist woke up one day and could charm the pants off any girl, why rape? He could pick a victim, stock her, and then charm her until she does not even fell victimized. If the charmer wakes up and finds all the gals now think he is creepie, he now has no outlet for his libido, he may start to think in term of a predator, due to constant feedback abuse. The Pro gives this guy another option. She will not say he is creepie, but will try to be nice to him like any good business person.

Rape is often associated with control and violence. The question is what is being controlled? Then next, how can you make it such that there is no need for such control?

 

[parmalee]

I keep thinking that maybe you shouldn't use advertising for self-defense courses as actual arguments. But then it occurs to me how absurd it is to even try that route, and, frankly, I have a hard time believing you can't figure out the problem with that.

Well, how about the link on "Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape" (from post #205) which repeatedly advises victims to contact the UNC Student Health Services? 'Cuz we all know trhat they are not all about blaming victims or anything like that.

Edit: OK, yeah, I know--this takes us full circle all the way back to your opening post. But seriously, some of us are being accused of not reading the links!

 

[wynn]

I keep thinking that maybe you shouldn't use advertising for self-defense courses as actual arguments. But then it occurs to me how absurd it is to even try that route, and, frankly, I have a hard time believing you can't figure out the problem with that.

Yeah, pot does stuff to people ...