Rape and the "Civilized" World

[wynn]

Excellent preventative measures.

Now please tell me what preventative measures you have told your wife to employ against you in case one day you or another male relative rapes her in her own home, for example?

Since the majority of rapes are intimacy rapes, would you expect your wife or girlfriend or partner, to take self defense classes so she can take preventative measures against you? After all, if she is a responsible adult, then she, following your examples, would view you as a potential rapist and she would be taking every step imaginable to ensure she prevents you from raping her. Just in case. Do you feel comfortable with the knowledge that your wife is learning self defense just in case one night you can't take no for an answer? Does it please you?

Because preventative measures would mean that women would have to view all the men in their lives as potential rapists and taking all requisite precautions to ensure they do not become a victim.

As far as intimacy rapes are concerned:

Apparently, you are revolted by the idea of people being careful about their choice of partner or spouse.

Why?

Why is that you automatically jump to the conclusion "You're just blaming women" when someone advocates a more careful approach to the choice of partner or spouse?

Do you believe that if a woman feels she is in love with a man (or a woman), this means that she has the right to throw her brains away, and nothing bad should ever befall her - because she is "in love"?

It is my belief that most men would not enjoy the world they advocate. That is, the open-ended prevention theory is so sub- or un-consciously widespread that if it ever came true, men would be really pissed off at women for treating them that way.

In the end, the only functional solution is to stop presuming male privilege, whether it's because she accepted a date, or because she let him buy her a drink, or because she was walking alone at night, or because she agreed to marry him, or because ... really, what we're down to is two competing assertions.

And again, you are arguing against people who are not here.

Either women are human beings entitled to the same rights and expectations as everyone else, or they're not.

In which case, a charge of rape can only be prosecuted if there is evidence and / or witnesses, as is the standard legal practice in the prosecution of all other crimes.

 

[Motor Daddy]

wynn, Did you not teach your son that it's wrong to rape? Where are all these rapist coming from, since everyone knows it's wrong to rape?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Do you really believe that, for example
a case where two people get drunk, consent to sex, have sex, and then a few days later, one decides he or she didn't really want it and presses charge for rape against the other person,
is the same as when
a group of people kidnaps a person, takes them to another location, and abuses them
- ?

I've added the additional step you conveniently forgot to add to your timeline. Yup, they each consented at that time, and there is no changing your mind after the fact. See how that works, wynn? You don't get to change your mind after the fact. You can't give your consent to having sex (basically like signing a legally binding document), and then days later change your mind. The contract is already signed! If you decide later that you made a mistake in consenting, then that is YOUR mistake, not his.

 

[Bells]

Once again, the only one working with "men" as a category of hazard is you ..... and anyone who comes within walking distance of these seminars (which apparently excludes you, since, for some funny reason, you can't even touch their websites with your eyeballs) can tell you that the models of risk assessment and management work with more effective (aka "realistic") models for risk assessment and management ...

IOW persons coming out from these seminars, again, for some funny reason, don't come out as Charlie's Angels type of misandrists and/or androphobes, which, according to you, is the only default possibility tenable (although there are good arguments for individuals who have ineffective risk assessment/management strategies to default to misandry and/or androphobia)

:scratchin:

And yet again, you still fail to see the glaring and obvious point of your "risk assessment/management strategies" of rape prevention.

Because you go 'well these classes teach you how to prevent being raped' blah blah blah. And yet, when we point out to you the obvious reality of rape, that the greater majority of women are raped by the men they know and usually are intimate with and ask how a woman can prevent being raped in such a situation, you lead us back to "risk assessment/management strategies" and say that women can somehow learn to avoid being raped. Yep great... they can avoid being raped by applying insurance terminology to their bodily orifices and your occupational health and safety dance routine..

But you still can't answer the frigging question.

I say to Billvon, that if he is married, then a reasonable thing would be for his wife or partner or girlfriend, or whatever, to have self defense classes because he could one day rape her. Since you know, it is more than likely that she would be raped by him than by a stranger. And your response? Is to take that out of context, concentrate on one sentence and apply OH&S rules while disregarding and being unable to fucking answer a simple of question of when is a woman meant to expect that she won't be raped.

So you can dodge it as much as you want, apply OH&S principles as much as you want. It still doesn't absolve you of the fact that you can't answer a fucking goddamn question.

I'll put it this way. Have you told your mother that she has to take these classes because one day, you could rape her?

Yes? No?

If you have not, why not?

Have you told her that she must take those classes to prevent being raped by your father? Yes? No? If not, why haven't you? How about your wife/partner? Have you told her she must take self defense classes so she can prevent becoming a rape victim because one day, a male in her family, or near her could rape her?

If you haven't, then you obviously fail. Because if you haven't warned women around you that they must take rape prevention classes because all the men around them could be rapists, then you obviously fail.

Do you really believe that, for example
a case where two people get drunk, have sex, and then a few days later, one decides he or she didn't really want it and presses charge for rape against the other person,
is the same as when
a group of people kidnaps a person, takes them to another location, and abuses them
- ?

If they had sex, and both consented, then it's not rape.

One does not change one's mind about consent after the fact.

As far as intimacy rapes are concerned:

Apparently, you are revolted by the idea of people being careful about their choice of partner or spouse.

Why?

Why is that you automatically jump to the conclusion "You're just blaming women" when someone advocates a more careful approach to the choice of partner or spouse?

Do you believe that if a woman feels she is in love with a man (or a woman), this means that she has the right to throw her brains away, and nothing bad should ever befall her - because she is "in love"?

Do you honestly think that rapists walk around with their dicks hanging out of their pants as an indicator that they are rapists? Perhaps they have the word "rapist" tattooed to their forehands or somewhere on their bodies?

Because you carry on as if women who are raped by their intimate partners somehow knew those men were rapists for whatever reason, and then deliberately became involved with them, therefore you place the blame for their being raped on them, because they somehow or other, knew about their choices and the ultimate consequences.

I had posted a few images earlier on in this thread. Tell me, which one is the rapist?

 

[Tiassa]

Round About and Round About and Round About I Go ....

Do you really believe that, for example
a case where two people get drunk, have sex, and then a few days later, one decides he or she didn't really want it and presses charge for rape against the other person,
is the same as when
a group of people kidnaps a person, takes them to another location, and abuses them
- ?

I really do think that question is well enough answered in my contribution to the five hundred posts in this discussion, which you obviously haven't paid enough attention to.

But I really wouldn't suggest sitting in on a rape survivors meeting and trying to call one rape better than another.

The point you seem to be constantly evading is most recently summed up by Billvon's list and Bells' response.

And if we take a look at Billvon's post at #497, and compare it to, say, my posts at #15, the second section of #22, and #26, you'll find early iterations of what some find so objectionable about this stupid prevention theory.

My wallet in my front pocket? Easy enough. Actually, I use an inner pocket on my jacket, but not as a crime prevention measure; carrying a wallet in my back pocket caused lower back pain when sitting at a desk. Keeping it in my jacket was a very easy alternative, and much easier than trying to remember to get my wallet out of a desk drawer at the end of the day.

There is a difference between simple crime-prevention steps like locking your steering wheel, leaving the porch light on, and carrying your wallet somewhere that a pickpocket can't get it, and the challenges a woman faces in such a hostile environment as our allegedly civilized society.

In all of these posts, the best answer we have from prevention advocates about the imbalance is the idea that if a woman decides to shut herself away from the world in order to protect herself, that's just fine with Billvon. Sure, it's a quality of life issue—

"For example - to reduce the risk of being mugged you may decide to never go outside. That's your decision, and making that decision yourself is a prerequisite to being a responsible adult. You may still get mugged, of course; no preventative measure is 100%."​

—but, hell, she's just a woman, so, you know, it all comes down to "the point that they are OK with the risk they are taking".

Her quality of life? Not a consideration.

This is what's objectionable. Comparing the kind of crime prevention that takes all of a couple of seconds to the lifetime of challenges a woman faces is beyond simply insensitive. It's stupid. Tips for avoiding muggers can certainly translate into tips for avoiding rapists, but those are the rare ones, so the tips speak nothing to the greatest threats of rape a woman faces.

And with that point on the record repeatedly from multiple people, you wander through muttering, "The problem is that you maintain that all cases that anyone claims as 'rape,' are the same"?

That's pretty stupid, Wynn.

An ounce of prevention: Women need to just say no, to dates and marriage. See? It's real easy. A one-word preventative measure to address the greatest threat of rape in her world. So powerful, even, that if it was enacted, rape statistics would change drastically as the proportion of intimate-partner assaults plummets for lack of intimate partners to commit the crimes.

It's just as easy as carrying your wallet in a different pocket, or leaving the porch light on at night, isn't it?

Or would you like to be more realistic and consider the implications of such a standard for a woman's quality of life? Because then it's no longer an ounce of prevention, but, rather, carrying the weight of the world on her back.

I'll offer you an ounce of prevention against making yourself look foolish: When you want to tell someone what the problem is, get a clue first.

 

[wynn]

Her quality of life? Not a consideration.

If you think that, for example, consuming alcohol greatly contributes to a person's better quality of life ...

The adverse effects of alcohol on human functioning are well known. And yet you apparently insist that such adverse effects of alcohol consumption should not exist, and that everyone who points out that alcohol consumption can and does have adverse effects of human functioning, is just stupid, a misogynist etc. etc.

An ounce of prevention: Women need to just say no, to dates and marriage.

The only one suggesting such a measure is you. And Bells, and a few others.


It's still not clear though why you find it so impossible or so odious to consider living life beyond the dichotomy of your current notion of an ideal lifestyle, and being a homophobic / misanthropic recluse ...

 

[wynn]

If they had sex, and both consented, then it's not rape.

One does not change one's mind about consent after the fact.

I've given two examples to illustrate how not all cases that someone claims as "rape," are the same.

And yes, some people do change their mind after the fact, and press rape charges against the other person.

Do you honestly think that rapists walk around with their dicks hanging out of their pants as an indicator that they are rapists? Perhaps they have the word "rapist" tattooed to their forehands or somewhere on their bodies?

Actually, it seems that you advocate that intimate relationships should be conducted in a formal manner, the partners treating eachother at arm's length, not really discussing intimate topics, or at least not discussing them as they pertain to them in their particular situation.


There was that other thread about the Chinese woman who had cosmetic surgery on her face, but didn't tell her prospective husband. They got married, had a baby, and it was only then that the husband found out that his wife had cosmetic surgery, and that she was ugly before. He then divorced her.
IIRC, in that thread, you took the husband's side. Balerion and a few others sided with the husband. They found it inappropriate that a person would inquire about delicate issues from the other person before getting intimately involved with them. I was in favor of thoroughly getting to know the other person and clearing up all iffy issues before getting intimately involved.

And our difference in approaching relationships shows here too. If your stance is like the one of that Chinese husband or those who sided with him, then I can understand how come you find it impossible to consider that it is possible to reasonably well predict if someone is going to become abusive in an intimate relationship.

Because you carry on as if women who are raped by their intimate partners somehow knew those men were rapists for whatever reason, and then deliberately became involved with them, therefore you place the blame for their being raped on them, because they somehow or other, knew about their choices and the ultimate consequences.

You are the one carrying on with that.


And again the blame blame blame game.

Do you not care about the wellbeing of a person at all? Is assigning blame more important to you than anything else?

I had posted a few images earlier on in this thread. Tell me, which one is the rapist?

LG has already addressed this. An image of the face is not enough.

 

[Bells]

If you think that, for example, consuming alcohol greatly contributes to a person's better quality of life ...

The adverse effects of alcohol on human functioning are well known. And yet you apparently insist that such adverse effects of alcohol consumption should not exist, and that everyone who points out that alcohol consumption can and does have adverse effects of human functioning, is just stupid, a misogynist etc. etc.





The only one suggesting such a measure is you. And Bells, and a few others.


It's still not clear though why you find it so impossible or so odious to consider living life beyond the dichotomy of your current notion of an ideal lifestyle, and being a homophobic / misanthropic recluse ...

Does this mean women should simply not drink in the presence of males or be near men when they are drinking?

What is clear by your post and what causes so much disgust in the rest of us is that you are twisting yourself into knots trying to find a way to excuse rapists.

Last year, there was a discussion about rape and rapists and in this discussion, many poured their hearts out about how they raped women and got away with it. This wasn't just stranger rapes, but date rapes. A report on those discussions below has links to some of what was discussed.

For all that we've moved modestly beyond the idea that a rapist is the transient in a back alley or the creepy guy eyeing your unattended drink in a bar or the angry, sexually frustrated predator, we still believe that we can tell who the bad people are. We believe that rapists are defined by their criminality and that people whose lives aren't defined by that criminality – be they sports stars, coaches, international leaders, whistleblowers redefining journalism in the digital age, the creators of popular movies or songs, or just the nice fatherly guy next door – well, they can't be rapists.

Life, and people, are more complicated than that. The cute guy who let you cuddle up next to him during a movie becomes the man who crudely forces your legs apart and enjoys himself more when you struggle. The friend who you let stay in your extra bed becomes the man who shoves his fingers in you when you're too drunk to know.

The hook-up buddy becomes the man who ignores your boundaries and your nos and forces open your clamped legs. The guy in your group of friends who you were laughing with half an hour ago becomes the man who walks into your room and molests you when you're asleep, even turning on the light to inspect his work. The older guy who was nice to you in the afternoon becomes the man who shows up in the middle of the night and pins you down in your own bed with his body. Your loving boyfriend with whom you consent to sex becomes a man who clamps his hand over your mouth to stop you from screaming as he anally rapes you while in a "trance".

Some of them stop when you cry, when they look at your face and see you feel you're about to be raped, when you say no, when you push at them screaming. Others don't. Some go to jail, but most of them don't.

Some grow up and marry women who don't know what they did, have children they want to protect from men like them, smile at you at PTA meetings, or even show up at your door years later to look over some storm damage on behalf of your insurance company. Some stop, some learn better, some spend years hating themselves; others brag about it, or self-pleasure while remembering it. But one thing they all have in common: none of them looked or acted like rapists, and few in their lives, unless they were reported, suspects they were.​

Reading through some of those links, one particular comment caught my eye.

And perhaps it it is important to this discussion. Because for all your talk about rape prevention and your particular zeal at blaming the victim in your discussions about women and their actions, there is one thing missing:

Dude, come the fuck on. Don't rationalize what you did with "boys will be boys" bullshit. You know how many times I've been harder than I thought was possible and still been able to stop when a girl said no? As someone who isn't a rapist, I find not raping people exceedingly easy, regardless of how erect my dick is.​

Emphasis mine.

Now certainly, we can blame alcohol, the woman's choice in men, where she may be, what she is wearing, and all other excuses rapists and their apologists make.

However what you sick perverted rape apologists don't realise is that 'someone who is not a rapist finds not raping women to be very easy, no matter how aroused they are and how much the woman is drunk, state of dress or undress, if she is on the street or in her home or even in bed with you'... For someone who isn't a rapist, it is easy to not rape.

So perhaps you rape apologists who speak of rape prevention as though one is insuring a car or taking precautions to prevent wrist injury at work, could explain to me why it is the woman's job to prevent being raped and not the man's job to simply not rape?

And the question that has been asked numerous times.. At what point should a woman not expect to be raped?

 

[Bells]

I've given two examples to illustrate how not all cases that someone claims as "rape," are the same.

And yes, some people do change their mind after the fact, and press rape charges against the other person.

Unless of course you wish to redefine rape as being something other than sex without consent, you would be wrong.

Actually, it seems that you advocate that intimate relationships should be conducted in a formal manner, the partners treating eachother at arm's length, not really discussing intimate topics, or at least not discussing them as they pertain to them in their particular situation.

I'm not the one saying that women know which men will rape them because there are clear and obvious signs beforehand, and I am certainly not the one advocating women taking rape prevention and preventing being raped... You rape apologists are and I keep asking this question and none of you are able to answer it. Because you expect women to be able to prevent being raped, but you can't say when a woman should expect to not be raped. Passing on the buck to LG who fails just as badly as you are isn't going to cut it.

There was that other thread about the Chinese woman who had cosmetic surgery on her face, but didn't tell her prospective husband. They got married, had a baby, and it was only then that the husband found out that his wife had cosmetic surgery, and that she was ugly before. He then divorced her.
IIRC, in that thread, you took the husband's side. Balerion and a few others sided with the husband. They found it inappropriate that a person would inquire about delicate issues from the other person before getting intimately involved with them. I was in favor of thoroughly getting to know the other person and clearing up all iffy issues before getting intimately involved.

You would be wrong. I did not side with the husband. At the time I thought his actions appalling and the court's decision even more so.

But good try though Wynn.

And our difference in approaching relationships shows here too. If your stance is like the one of that Chinese husband or those who sided with him, then I can understand how come you find it impossible to consider that it is possible to reasonably well predict if someone is going to become abusive in an intimate relationship.

Again, I did not side with the husband.

So you can stop lying now.

You are the one carrying on with that.

No. You are the one who keeps saying that women know... In other words, in your bizarre and twisted world, there is rape and there is a different kind of rape where women cry rape and it's not really rape.

And again the blame blame blame game.

Do you not care about the wellbeing of a person at all? Is assigning blame more important to you than anything else?

Oh I'm sorry, we shouldn't blame the rapist for rape?

That's right, you prefer to blame the victim, even if she happens to be 3 years old at the time.

LG has already addressed this. An image of the face is not enough.

Actually yes it is.

So which is the rapist?

After all, you say women can tell. You are supposedly a woman. Which one is the rapist. If all 6 of those guys approaches you in a bar and offers to buy you a drink. Which one would you know was going to rape you?

 

[lightgigantic]

And yet again, you still fail to see the glaring and obvious point of your "risk assessment/management strategies" of rape prevention.

Because you go 'well these classes teach you how to prevent being raped' blah blah blah. And yet, when we point out to you the obvious reality of rape, that the greater majority of women are raped by the men they know and usually are intimate with and ask how a woman can prevent being raped in such a situation, you lead us back to "risk assessment/management strategies" and say that women can somehow learn to avoid being raped. Yep great... they can avoid being raped by applying insurance terminology to their bodily orifices and your occupational health and safety dance routine..

But you still can't answer the frigging question.

On the contrary, the only one advocating orifice insurance is yourself ... since your so-called prevention program practically begins at the point of violation.
:shrug:

Actually they aim for more practical ends, namely early detection through identification of categories of hazard and more effective and safe strategies to neutralize escape.

I say to Billvon, that if he is married, then a reasonable thing would be for his wife or partner or girlfriend, or whatever, to have self defense classes because he could one day rape her. Since you know, it is more than likely that she would be raped by him than by a stranger. And your response? Is to take that out of context, concentrate on one sentence and apply OH&S rules while disregarding and being unable to fucking answer a simple of question of when is a woman meant to expect that she won't be raped.

So you can dodge it as much as you want, apply OH&S principles as much as you want. It still doesn't absolve you of the fact that you can't answer a fucking goddamn question.

I'll put it this way. Have you told your mother that she has to take these classes because one day, you could rape her?

Yes? No?

If you have not, why not?

Have you told her that she must take those classes to prevent being raped by your father? Yes? No? If not, why haven't you? How about your wife/partner? Have you told her she must take self defense classes so she can prevent becoming a rape victim because one day, a male in her family, or near her could rape her?

If you haven't, then you obviously fail. Because if you haven't warned women around you that they must take rape prevention classes because all the men around them could be rapists, then you obviously fail.

Also these people aren't being told to take these classes because the postman might rape them either - IOW all these designations you are working with as hazard categories "man", "son', "father", etc are, once again, for some funny reason, only used by you and not by anyone else....
IOW they don't run seminars along the lines of "This is what you should do with your husband, since your husband could be a rapist you know ..." ... an idea, which according to your broad and well informed sources of intelligence, is the only viable option for contextualizing the learning environment.



IOW much like your earlier attempt to profile rapists with photographs, you insist on working exclusively with patterns of information that make you look like a nutcase (which is no doubt your brilliant strategy, since your actual vested interest lies in trying to belittle prevention programs for your own small minded, online discussion orientated ends).
Just like a collection of photographs is not enough to compound an effective prevention strategy program neither is working with the category of "husband" ....

 

[iceaura]

You have told us all that you would do what you could to protect your daughter from rape. So you have clearly have some limits in mind there.

We now have a consensus, among the precaution advocates (two different representative ones) that when I ask for their limits on the precautions necessary for a woman to be considered a responsible adult, a query concerning my own limits on the precautions I would advocate for my own dependent child is relevant - not only relevant, but apparently a telling and argument settling response. The two situations are equivalent, in their minds.

And these people insist they are not advocating oppression of women.

None of the above means "the victim is at fault for being mugged."

Are you getting the picture yet? Or do you need a few more examples?

All those examples are beside the point. The question was, what limits you - you, the precaution advocates - have in mind on the precautions necessary for a woman to be considered a responsible adult.

The consequences to the woman of being considered irresponsible and inadequately precautionary are obvious, no? If you need reminder, look around - or read scifes's and wellwisher's posts, if your own are invisible to you.

 

[Bells]

On the contrary, the only one advocating orifice insurance is yourself ... since your so-called prevention program practically begins at the point of violation.
:shrug:

Actually they aim for more practical ends, namely early detection through identification of categories of hazard and more effective and safe strategies to neutralize escape.





Also these people aren't being told to take these classes because the postman might rape them either - IOW all these designations you are working with as hazard categories "man", "son', "father", etc are, once again, for some funny reason, only used by you and not by anyone else....
IOW they don't run seminars along the lines of "This is what you should do with your husband, since your husband could be a rapist you know ..." ... an idea, which according to your broad and well informed sources of intelligence, is the only viable option for contextualizing the learning environment.



IOW much like your earlier attempt to profile rapists with photographs, you insist on working exclusively with patterns of information that make you look like a nutcase (which is no doubt your brilliant strategy, since your actual vested interest lies in trying to belittle prevention programs for your own small minded, online discussion orientated ends).
Just like a collection of photographs is not enough to compound an effective prevention strategy program neither is working with the category of "husband" ....

Which is the rapist?

Have you told the women in your life that they must take "rape prevention classes" because you or another male in the family or circle of friends may rape them one day?

At what point can a woman not expect to be raped?

Not hard questions LG. Why have you consistently dodged them for over 20 pages now?

 

[Balerion]

Which is the rapist?

Have you told the women in your life that they must take "rape prevention classes" because you or another male in the family or circle of friends may rape them one day?

At what point can a woman not expect to be raped?

Not hard questions LG. Why have you consistently dodged them for over 20 pages now?

He's dodged every question directed at him for over 20 pages. At some point, we need to smarten up and stop bothering. Obviously he's not interested in supporting his own point; rather, he's using this an excuse to regurgitate misogynistic boilerplate over and over. This is internet forum trolling at its lowest.

 

[lightgigantic]

We now have a consensus, among the precaution advocates (two different representative ones) that when I ask for their limits on the precautions necessary for a woman to be considered a responsible adult, a query concerning my own limits on the precautions I would advocate for my own dependent child is relevant - not only relevant, but apparently a telling and argument settling response. The two situations are equivalent, in their minds.

And these people insist they are not advocating oppression of women.

So you would be willing to protect your daughter from rape but not your mother, sister, work colleagues or any other person classified as an adult?

Or is this simply yet another strawman you are offering, since its pretty obvious that the act of any risk prevention strategy for any sort of incident aimed at protecting any sort of living entity from any time in the past, present or future from anywhere in the universe is necessarily limited at the initial stages of risk assessment?

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Which is the rapist?

It doesn't really matter since the act of having an effective strategy doesn't work on some sort of system of analyzing photographs, ..... or analyzing body weight, or dental hygiene, or football team affiliation, or bellybutton fluff ... just in case you were planning to quiz us on these too ...

So for instance there are not rape prevention strategies for antagonists that have beady eyes or brown hair ... but there are rape prevention strategies that may include (ie ; not to use this as the definitive singular example of rape prevention, but rather as an example of but one of a host very broad possibilities ... just to pre-empt your re-trolling on the subject) not jeopardizing one's safe escape by sticking around to "win" the fight (in order to salvage one's pride/martyr one'self for the moral high ground/ payback the culprit their due for attacking or whatever).

This strategy is not limited by their hair colour, the type of car they drive, their previous criminal history, their race, them being a known person or a stranger or even in them being a male or an earthling for that matter.

:shrug:

Have you told the women in your life that they must take "rape prevention classes" because you or another male in the family or circle of friends may rape them one day?

No ... mainly because if they did go to such classes they wouldn't actually come away with the notion of working with the category of "male" as a hazard category (unless they went to some misandrist/androphobe seminar aimed at heightening fear through ineffective risk assessment .... you're not in yellow pages are you?)

Its only you who imagine they get taught this stuff
:shrug:

At what point can a woman not expect to be raped?


Not hard questions LG. Why have you consistently dodged them for over 20 pages now?

So we are back to this again now? .... copy/paste time I guess ...

Basically Slobber Chops, you are asking how prevention issues are limited. I explain it is due to risk assessment, and proceed to explain how this works not just in the negotiation of rape prevention, but also in negotiating absolutely any risk from absolutely any time that will, can or did happen to absolutely any person absolutely anywhere. (which includes not only car theft, but also polar bear attacks, getting squashed by space stations or aggravating an ingrown toenail)

Then you pretend that I am equating women with cars, polar bears et al.
When I call you up on this bullshit you then again return to asking how risk assessment is limited.

You are simply being a dickhead.

:shrug:

No doubt you will use this an invitation to again start on the misandrist/androphobe bells-through-wonderland-imagination program about "men" being the singular, effective hazard category for rape prevention and I will again have to painfully remind you that you are still being a dickhead since you are the only one who insists on such fear-mongering ineffective categories for risk prevention

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

He's dodged every question directed at him for over 20 pages. At some point, we need to smarten up and stop bothering. Obviously he's not interested in supporting his own point; rather, he's using this an excuse to regurgitate misogynistic boilerplate over and over. This is internet forum trolling at its lowest.

will the irony never end?

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

IOW much like your earlier attempt to profile rapists with photographs, you insist on working exclusively with patterns of information that make you look like a nutcase (which is no doubt your brilliant strategy,

since your actual vested interest lies in trying to belittle prevention programs for your own small minded, online discussion orientated ends).

I think her (and a few others') vested interest is to defend their romantic notions of how life and relationships should be.

 

[lightgigantic]

Does this mean women should simply not drink in the presence of males or be near men when they are drinking?

apparently ....not ....

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

He's dodged every question directed at him for over 20 pages. At some point, we need to smarten up and stop bothering. Obviously he's not interested in supporting his own point; rather, he's using this an excuse to regurgitate misogynistic boilerplate over and over.

Well, he has a misogynistic history here at Sciforums that he's not interested in acknowledging. At this point, he's running on pure ego defense.

Take, for instance, this point about drinking. Apparently, a woman who goes out and has a drink is a binge drinker. Or maybe that's not what the rapists' rights advocates had in mind, but the reality is that the question of binge drinking is a widespread social health concern, and well it should be, and that problem is actually denigrated when people hold it up as an excuse for rapists.

To wit ....

• • •​

No doubt you will use this an invitation to again start on the misandrist/androphobe bells-through-wonderland-imagination program about "men" being the singular, effective hazard category for rape prevention and I will again have to painfully remind you that you are still being a dickhead since you are the only one who insists on such fear-mongering ineffective categories for risk prevention

Allow me, please, to remind you that you are not the victim, here.

The problem with your prevention strategy is its incoherence. You stick to vague principles and terminology, and now that you've repeatedly refused to develop that thesis, we're left with the original problem presented against prevention advocacy: It is open-ended.

The result is that you don't get to complain about "'men' being the singular, effective hazard category for rape prevention", because that is a willful distortion of the point. This is a logical process we've gone over before.

There are two basic arguments clashing in this thread. One side says men shouldn't rape, and that society needs to change the attitudes that empower such behavior. The other says it's up to the woman to employ prevention techniques.

Very well: If it is up to the woman to prevent her own rape, then the most effective strategy would be to cease all social contact with men.

It is through these social contacts that the most part of rapes in first-world societies occur.

Now, perhaps if the prevention advocates wanted to be a bit more specific, there would be something of use to consider in their argument.

We're to the point that the most generous assessment people can offer your posts is that you are incapable of comprehending the issues you're attempting to address. A more realistic assessment, however, is that you have an interest in preserving male privilege. The idea that you're simply trolling is one people maintain because the alternatives are horrific.

 

[wynn]

LG -

We're to the point that the most generous assessment people can offer your posts is that you are incapable of comprehending the issues you're attempting to address.

Well, perhaps we're indeed incapable of comprehending the issues here.
We're talking here to people who believe that eat-drink-and-make-merry (especially the Western kind) is the most life can offer.
To talk about the benefits of renunciation (to whatever small degree) to someone immersed in sensual pleasures is ... not so smart ...