Rape and the "Civilized" World

[wynn]

Yes you do. I just told you what he's accusing you of.

Apparently both you and he skipped the part where I begin a sentence with "It looks like ..." or "Hypothesis:" or "I have the impression that ..."

Wow, so in your mind, only God can point out your character flaws?

A flaw exists only in relation to a purpose; a flaw or fault being that which makes it difficult or impossible to reach that purpose.
I am quite sure we are after entirely different purposes, so what you perceive to be my flaws, I don't. And vice versa.

Holy shit what an ego on you!

Yeah, I know, fights for divine supremacy and all that ...

 

[iceaura]

- is rare. It's very common, world wide, as you know very well. And you have put no limits whatsoever on the precautions you - you personally - expect women to take whenever they "anticipate {they} might be raped", to be considered by you and your kind "responsible adults". So until you have separated yourself from this very common - even, yes, predominant - sociological and psychiatric category of precaution advocates, we have no reason to assume you are separate from it.

So this is all about reputation, then?

Yours. It's about you and your kind putting some limits on your advocacy of precaution against the threat of rape. Because without some boundaries on your advocacy, you are advocating oppression of women. Failure to recognize such oppression is usually based in misogyny, and almost always supports misogyny as a cultural norm.

I don't come from that position, and I am quite sure neither do LG or Bill.

I'm pretty sure LG does come from that position, and probably you as well. Billvon is mostly being careless, I think, in an unfamiliar arena.

How you come to the point of interpreting precautionary measures as misogyny is still not exactly clear.

That's why I think you probably do come from that position - you seem incapable of recognizing very basic situations that seemingly would be clear to you if you weren't; for example, that no one here is "interpreting precautionary measures". I'm certainly not, Bell's hasn't been, Tiassa's not - where did you get that?

And you say things like this:

IOW, it appears that what you mean by "full participation in human society" is about a limited set of givens, qualities, activities and actions that you consider normative or representative.

?

 

[Balerion]

Apparently both you and he skipped the part where I begin a sentence with "It looks like ..." or "Hypothesis:" or "I have the impression that ..."

Non-sequitur. I was talking about how you rudely criticized parmalee for responding to a post you mistakenly believe you directed at Fraggle Rocker.

A flaw exists only in relation to a purpose; a flaw or fault being that which makes it difficult or impossible to reach that purpose.
I am quite sure we are after entirely different purposes, so what you perceive to be my flaws, I don't. And vice versa.

If you don't see how you present yourself here as a character flaw, then I can only assume your purpose here is to troll. You are elusive, dishonest, and rude. (often at the expense of coherence, as evidence by your nonsensical closer below, which seems to exist solely for the purpose of you employing the cliche "Yeah, I know, ____________ and all that") If your purpose here were earnest discussions about interesting topics, your behavior would represent serious flaws, because you haven't had one in all your time here. As I said before, a poseur. And you don't even do that well.

No idea what any of that has to do with God, of course.

Yeah, I know, fights for divine supremacy and all that ...

Brilliant.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't "suggest", I directly observe - you have never answered that question, or even attempted an answer. Your claims otherwise have been dealt with before, and stupidity or misunderstanding is no longer a possibility with you. Dishonesty remains, as there - and here:
In the original post you carefully broke apart, no conclusion was drawn, and the justification for the suspicion was provided.

fine.
tell us then which parts of the beginning and end of the scenario you directly observe her implementing precautions and cease being so obtuse

Editing like that is clearly deliberate, to suggest the post said something it did not say, and appear to justify your response. You are a liar.

I could have left it in, but I thought it might make it harder for you to work out exactly what I was referringto.

Given that you are such an edit-a-holic yourself who has practically been unable to refrain from editing in every single one of your posts, I really didn't think it would bother you.

:shrug:

To repeat the point: Your innuendo here: is, apart from the dishonesty of pretending other people are talking about any "predominance of preventative strategies", also false in suggesting that the phenomenon

- of people who advocate that women take responsibility for their personal risk of being raped also expecting some women (the most honored, higher class, respectable) to risk (or even suffer) death in the course of their precautionary behavior

- is rare. It's very common, world wide, as you know very well. And you have put no limits whatsoever on the precautions you - you personally - expect women to take whenever they "anticipate {they} might be raped", to be considered by you and your kind "responsible adults". So until you have separated yourself from this very common - even, yes, predominant - sociological and psychiatric category of precaution advocates, we have no reason to assume you are separate from it.

and to repeat the response (this time without the edit ... I guess we will just have to wait and see if you can abide by your own standard of "non-editing honesty" this time :




justify these asinine conclusions of yours with references from this site, and there is a slight chance we might take you seriously
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Anti-anti-rape Prevention : Opium for the Missus

The problem with prevention theory, as I have said for years, is that it remains unbounded. There is no outer boundary. This isn't just watching where you step in order to not trip. This isn't just locking your front door and turning on the porch-light. The open-ended prevention theory reaches into aspects like what a woman wears, whether or not she drinks alcohol, where she goes, how she travels. It is nothing more than an obligation to deny herself full participation in our human society. And the advocates cannot seem to muster a coherent description of their prevention theory's dimensions.

The problem with anti-prevention theory is that it is completely unbounded, since it doesn't have recourse to the boundaries of prevention theory. IOW what you are actually disabling is not anything that generates an encounter with a rapist, or even the attempts of a victim to prevent it happening once the scenario filters through to their (delayed) powers of (uninformed, diminished) risk assessment and/or management.

What you are disabling is an individual's ability to process information about a criminal at a more refined level ... which simply fast tracks a scenario to a more devastating point of crisis, and disables an individuals attempt to contextualize the occurence.

For example, what does this scenario .....

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.

.... look like if you remove all the heightened risk assessment/management cues she derives as being learnt from the seminar?

Something like this perhaps ....

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 and ...... .......well there is no instant awareness of suspicious activity, no subsequent evasive manouvers. What else does it leave?

:shrug:

IOW rather than prevention being bound by relevant information that triggers off effective processes of risk assessment/management at an early point (Eg : because I recognize symptoms A, B and C, I can understand I am in immediate danger of X from a person who is a Z), you have prevention being bound by relevant information that triggers off effective processes of risk assessment/management at a later point (merely, I am in danger of X) ... which of course can only hope to bring the scenario to a more devastating crisis.

So basically, the evil of anti-anti-rape prevention theory is that it requires individuals move about not only blissfully unaware of danger, but blissfully unaware of how to recognize it ... until of course such time they encounter it ... whereupon it is still emphatically demanded that any systematic analysis of how the scenario developed (IOW any attempt to bind the event to any consequence, phenomena or "danger sign"), either by that said individual or by any collective of individuals, be strictly prohibited... so now you have an individual terribly aware of a danger, and also terribly unaware how to recognize it.

If you wracked your brain on how to render a crime more common, how to render a potential victim more susceptible and how to render a survivor more plagued by insecurity and disempowerment, you couldn't come up with a more devious plan.

The only saving grace is that people in the real world who actually have an interest in engineering some sort of structure for dealing with this problem, don't so much as come within smelling distance of this shit-pile of an idea.

:shrug:

 

[arauca]

The problem with anti-prevention theory is that it is completely unbounded, since it doesn't have recourse to the boundaries of prevention theory. IOW what you are actually disabling is not anything that generates an encounter with a rapist, or even the attempts of a victim to prevent it happening once the scenario filters through to their (delayed) powers of (uninformed, diminished) risk assessment and/or management.

What you are disabling is an individual's ability to process information about a criminal at a more refined level ... which simply fast tracks a scenario to a more devastating point of crisis, and disables an individuals attempt to contextualize the occurence.

For example, what does this scenario .....

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.

.... look like if you remove all the heightened risk assessment/management cues she derives as being learnt from the seminar?

Something like this perhaps ....

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 and ...... .......well there is no instant awareness of suspicious activity, no subsequent evasive manouvers. What else does it leave?

:shrug:

IOW rather than prevention being bound by relevant information that triggers off effective processes of risk assessment/management at an early point (Eg : because I recognize symptoms A, B and C, I can understand I am in immediate danger of X from a person who is a Z), you have prevention being bound by relevant information that triggers off effective processes of risk assessment/management at a later point (merely, I am in danger of X) ... which of course can only hope to bring the scenario to a more devastating crisis.

So basically, the evil of anti-anti-rape prevention theory is that it requires individuals move about not only blissfully unaware of danger, but blissfully unaware of how to recognize it ... until of course such time they encounter it ... whereupon it is still emphatically demanded that any systematic analysis of how the scenario developed (IOW any attempt to bind the event to any consequence, phenomena or "danger sign"), either by that said individual or by any collective of individuals, be strictly prohibited... so now you have an individual terribly aware of a danger, and also terribly unaware how to recognize it.

If you wracked your brain on how to render a crime more common, how to render a potential victim more susceptible and how to render a survivor more plagued by insecurity and disempowerment, you couldn't come up with a more devious plan.

The only saving grace is that people in the real world who actually have an interest in engineering some sort of structure for dealing with this problem, don't so much as come within smelling distance of this shit-pile of an idea.

:shrug:

here is some more wood for your fire.
"Overwhelmingly, we're seeing junior women being targeted by senior men," Clancy said. "59 percent of respondents have experienced sexual harassment. Women are 3 times more likely to experience harassment than men. And 19 percent of respondents have been sexually assaulted."

The perpetrators of the harassment and assaults were usually men, but some women also abused their students. One female site director, for example, refused to let women leave the work site to urinate.

The researchers did not directly ask the respondents if they had been raped, but some of the respondents volunteered that they had been raped by research leaders or peers at fieldwork sites. Others reported that they had witnessed the systematic targeting of junior members of the research team for harassment or assault.

Such working conditions can have devastating effects on the health and wellbeing of those who are targeted and those who witness the abuse, Clancy said. They also force students to choose between their career goals and their desire to speak up for themselves or others.

Clancy and her colleagues noticed that larger, more organized research sites tended to have fewer incidents of abuse, harassment or assault than smaller, less formal fieldwork sites. Those who worked on teams that included women in leadership positions also reported less harassment and abuse. Some respondents said they noticed an uptick in abusive behavior when female leaders were absent.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/uoia-tro041113.php

 

[Tiassa]

Really ineffective advertising

The problem with anti-prevention theory is that it is completely unbounded ....

The problem with rubber-glue retorts is that they so frequently ignore the circumstances they purport to address. You frequently provide examples of the problem, and this is no different.

For example, what does this scenario ... look like if you remove all the heightened risk assessment/management cues she derives as being learnt from the seminar?

It would look like really ineffective advertising.

 

[wynn]

Yours. It's about you and your kind putting some limits on your advocacy of precaution against the threat of rape. Because without some boundaries on your advocacy, you are advocating oppression of women. Failure to recognize such oppression is usually based in misogyny, and almost always supports misogyny as a cultural norm.
I'm pretty sure LG does come from that position, and probably you as well. Billvon is mostly being careless, I think, in an unfamiliar arena.

That's why I think you probably do come from that position - you seem incapable of recognizing very basic situations that seemingly would be clear to you if you weren't; for example, that no one here is "interpreting precautionary measures". I'm certainly not, Bell's hasn't been, Tiassa's not - where did you get that?

And you say things like this: ?

Oh well. Suit yourself.

Nobody can promise you heaven. You have to find it yourself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Planet Tiassa and the his New Whirled Order

The problem with rubber-glue retorts is that they so frequently ignore the circumstances they purport to address. You frequently provide examples of the problem, and this is no different.



It would look like really ineffective advertising.

You say nothing to explain how diminishing powers of risk assessment/management establishes a more secure environment. Your entire premise is that the world would be magically perfect simply on your say so ...
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

I don't "suggest", I directly observe - you have never answered that question, or even attempted an answer. Your claims otherwise have been dealt with before, and stupidity or misunderstanding is no longer a possibility with you. Dishonesty remains, as there - and here:
In the original post you carefully broke apart, no conclusion was drawn, and the justification for the suspicion was provided.
fine.
tell us then which parts of the beginning and end of the scenario you directly observe her implementing precautions and cease being so obtuse

The observation that you have never even attempted an answer to that central question, stands.

So basically, the evil of anti-anti-rape prevention theory is that it requires individuals move about not only blissfully unaware of danger, but blissfully unaware of how to recognize it ...

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

The observation that you have never even attempted an answer to that central question, stands.

I already answered it.

the only person not answering questions is yourself.

You can't even follow a discussion around "how I already answered it" without falling back on circular arguments

Editing what you are responding to doesn't help you save face any ...
:shrug:

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

Sure

Instead there is just the absolute prohibition on contextualizing the lead up to rape by any anticipated danger signs..
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

The observation that you have never even attempted an answer to that central question, stands.
I already answered it.

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted an answer. No one reading your several responses could tell from any of them what was even being asked.

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

Sure

Fact. And it's obvious you know that - which is revelatory.

Look at this:

Instead there is just the absolute prohibition on contextualizing the lead up to rape by any anticipated danger signs..

The question from me you refuse to answer is just one of the many attempts by people on this thread to force you to "contextualize the lead up to rape" - and you will never even acknowledge that question, because facing what you are actually advocating here is something you can't afford to do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura answering Iceaura as if he is Iceaura

The observation that you have never even attempted an answer to that central question, stands.

Incorrect.
I did.

Your unbridled dishonesty and low grade intelligence is very apparent.

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

More deflection.
You are still not attempting to answer my question.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________

nb : wow! this is starting to get more confusing than a mirror maze!!!

 

[iceaura]

nb : wow! this is starting to get more confusing than a mirror maze!!!

It's clear that you are aware of what you are doing - that would be the only significant area of confusion on our part, and you have cleared it up by being a bit too blatant to maintain plausibility in the denial.

Too blatant in that no one could be as complete, consistent, unsupported, and preemptive in accusing other people of their own sins, without being aware of them in their own posting.

This is worth repeating:

So basically, the evil of anti-anti-rape prevention theory is that it requires individuals move about not only blissfully unaware of danger, but blissfully unaware of how to recognize it ...

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's clear that you are aware of what you are doing - that would be the only significant area of confusion on our part, and you have cleared it up by being a bit too blatant to maintain plausibility in the denial.

Too blatant in that no one could be as complete, consistent, unsupported, and preemptive in accusing other people of their own sins, without being aware of them in their own posting.

actually I am just implementing what i said at the end of an earlier post .... I mean heaven forbid that I ever give you a legitimate excuse for calling me dishonest ....

This is worth repeating: There is no such theory being promulgated by anyone anywhere on this thread.

Yes, you are big on repetition.. pretty slack on comprehension, justification or explanation however ....

:shrug:

 

[Mathers2013]

We don't HAVE to rape! However men are generally stronger than women, and any woman should be attracted to a MAN. This meaning any woman who dislikes being raped is a lesbian. Men are bastards and women should be (and in many peoples opinions (including many women!)) attracted to a man for this reason. However there IS such a thing as a GENTLE-MAN, and romance, and even comedy. Plus rape gives women the advantage of denial. Plus the demure character of a woman during rape SHOULD attract the male. But as I said, men DO NOT HAVE TO rape. Oh yeah, I just read a post which reminded me of another argument for rape. It gets the heart beating faster which can be CONFUSED with love, of course I am not one to trick someone into love.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

You say nothing to explain how diminishing powers of risk assessment/management establishes a more secure environment. Your entire premise is that the world would be magically perfect simply on your say so ...
:shrug:

Well, maybe you should start reading the posts you're responding to. The reason you need to shrug so much is that you're tilting windmills.

Indeed, people have tried taking you seriously, but to no avail. There really isn't any reason for them to continue to do so. Perhaps it feels good in the moment to say things like, "tl;dr", but we're nearly three hundred posts later in the discussion and you're still shrugging about your own straw men.

It's actually impossible to believe you're that stupid.

To the other, if you really are still trying to have some sort of serious discussion, perhaps you might give some honest consideration to the question of why Bells isn't angry at Iceaura and me for acknowledging the need for crime prevention techniques by potential victims.

It's just that you've been told so many times that people are trying to figure out if it's a comprehension issue or some deliberate trolling calculation.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We don't HAVE to rape! However men are generally stronger than women, and any woman should be attracted to a MAN. This meaning any woman who dislikes being raped is a lesbian. Men are bastards and women should be (and in many peoples opinions (including many women!)) attracted to a man for this reason. However there IS such a thing as a GENTLE-MAN, and romance, and even comedy. Plus rape gives women the advantage of denial. Plus the demure character of a woman during rape SHOULD attract the male. But as I said, men DO NOT HAVE TO rape. Oh yeah, I just read a post which reminded me of another argument for rape. It gets the heart beating faster which can be CONFUSED with love, of course I am not one to trick someone into love.

So you're agreeing with the old adage that all any woman wants is a clean-smelling pirate?

 

[Tiassa]

Local Update

Local Update

Jen Graves notes:

No More Raping Your Spouse With Impunity Even if You Don't Use Physical Force in Washington: The Senate removes a "spousal exception." The spousal exception will also be removed from the "indecent liberties" clause of the law, which is here. (None of that makes these cases any easier to try; I served on a jury in Tacoma for six weeks on a DV rape case. Most open-and-shut case of this kind the prosecutor had ever seen. Jury hung.)​

And that here, in my beloved Evergreen State.

It's the twenty-first century. What do you mean we're just getting around to this part of it?
____________________

Notes:

Graves, Jen. "Tuesday Morning News: Boston and Way Beyond". Slog. April 16, 2013. Slog.TheStranger.com. April 16, 2013. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/04/16/tuesday-morning-news-boston-and-way-beyond

 

[wynn]

To the other, if you really are still trying to have some sort of serious discussion, perhaps you might give some honest consideration to the question of why Bells isn't angry at Iceaura and me for acknowledging the need for crime prevention techniques by potential victims.

In that case, it seems there exists some reactance on your part.

You have a long history of dislike for LG (and myself, and anyone who is not part of your camp), therefore, you are averse to anything we may suggest, even if we also suggest things that you yourself are suggesting.