Bells
Staff member
No Wynn.
You have it all wrong.
But I guess the only way you could believe as you do would be if you were submissive.
Rape and the "Civilized" World
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
No Wynn.
You have it all wrong.
But I guess the only way you could believe as you do would be if you were submissive.
A Streetcar named Myopia
:shrug:
The two arguments actually are this : that victim advocacy is diametrically opposed risk prevention (as exemplified by the efforts of people to imagine stuff) ... and the other being that victim advocacy and risk prevention work in tandem (as exemplified by anyone or any organization that has a professional interest in addressing the hazard)
Hardly a tough one to call IMHO
:shrug:
Is it because you are smarter than them?
Why on earth do you suppose individuals don't subscribe to these fatalistic "all or nothing" preventative models?
:scratchin:
Seriously, given the above, its like the only thing you read are your own contributions to this thread ...
:shrug:
allow me to please remind you all victims do not default to misandry and/or anthrophobia ... even within the guidelines of the prevention strategies they advocate
Not only is risk assessment not a vague term, its impossible to discuss any sort of risk management divorced from it (which, given that you haven't even begun to discuss this elementary foundation, is kind of a good indication where you are at the moment ...)
:shrug:
The only distortion is you and your ilk using it as the exclusive, singular category, since its quite apparent that no one with a professional or academic interest in dealing with this problem follows your suit.
I guess you haven't been paying attention
The two arguments actually are this : that victim advocacy is diametrically opposed risk prevention (as exemplified by the efforts of people to imagine stuff) ... and the other being that victim advocacy and risk prevention work in tandem (as exemplified by anyone or any organization that has a professional interest in addressing the hazard)
Hardly a tough one to call IMHO
:shrug:
then please explain why noone (as in, no one with a professional interest in advocating prevention) advocates that as a strategy?
Is it because you are smarter than them?
And along similar lines of thought, ceasing getting pregnant is also an effective tool to prevent pedophilia, ceasing having sex is a an effective tool to avoid std's, ceasing the production, sale and ownership of motor vehicles is an effective tool to prevent road fatalities and ceasing the consumption of alcohol and drugs is an effective tool to prevent probably 50% of the stupid stuff you read about in the newspaper every day.
Why on earth do you suppose individuals don't subscribe to these fatalistic "all or nothing" preventative models?
:scratchin:
I don't know how much more specific one can be than linking websites that clearly establish how they utilize the tools of (both) prevention (and advocacy), and general run-downs of their approaches to prevention (none of which work with the category of "man" as a hazard, btw), and reviews by people who participate in such seminars (none of whom come across as charlie's angels sort of anthrophobes or whatever)
If that's the case, then obviously magnanimity is not one of your strong points.
Seriously, given the above, its like the only thing you read are your own contributions to this thread ...
:shrug:
Last edited:
I think its something more than that, since even conventional society is not so jack-assed to be blind to risk assessment and management, even if it involves the curbing/restriction or outright prohibition of so-called "sanctified" leisure pursuits (eg : operating heavy machinery while drunk , etc ... nobody kicks up a fuss about heavy machinery operators being oppressed or whatever ... but rather talks of things in moderation, a time and place for everything etc etc)
Logical Delusion. Part VIII
:shrug:
If you want to talk about people not acknowledging things however, we could start talking about your propensity to make claims about things you imagine other people say ....
If you disagree, find a quote where I say it excuses rapists.
:shrug:
Perhaps it would easier to acknowledge if you offer a reference ...
:shrug:
If you want to talk about people not acknowledging things however, we could start talking about your propensity to make claims about things you imagine other people say ....
will the irony never end?
... and yet again, you are arguing about people who are not present here or things that nobody says.
If you disagree, find a quote where I say it excuses rapists.
:shrug:
Nope, they are not equivalent. They do, however, force the anti-rape-prevention people to admit that there are cases where THEY will try to alter a woman's behavior to protect them from rape - even though they claim that any such act means that women are partly responsible for being raped. It is an interesting disconnect in their thinking. When they do it it's OK - but when others do it it's not.
To be considered an adult? She has to be old enough.
To be considered responsible? She has to be sane and she has to accept responsibility for her own actions.
What specific precautions does she have to take to maintain the above definitions? None.
What specific precautions might she WANT to take? Up to her.
Any other questions?
How you come to think my stance is submissive, is beyond me.
If anything, I'd expect you to consider me a dyke.
Perhaps in Tiassa's mind and the minds of a few others, any mentioning of a precautionary measure in fact means excusing the rapist and blaming the victim.
Perhaps this is just how their personal dictionary operates.
There is a psychological concept that would explain this, as well as their insistence in their stance: an external locus of control. People with an external locus of control believe that their wellbeing depends primarily on other people and outside factors, and not on their own actions. Hence they focus so much on what other people do. They resent to take the initiative. They believe they generally can't do much on their own. Their focus on reputation is also congruent with this explanation.
While there are few taboos or none on operating heavy machinery, there are many taboos around sex and anything that has to do with sex, always have been. I think that today, there are as many, if not even more, taboos on sex as there have been in the past.
Some people act in line with those taboos, thus furthering them, some do not.
Nowadays, we as a culture do seem to have an air of openness about sex - but it's often just an air, not actual openness. The taboo remains.
Perhaps you believe that if a strategy is suggested, this means it is suggested that it be employed at all times, regardless of circumstances.
So, for example, if someone ever suggests non-confrontation, you take this to mean that they are suggesting one should always be non-confrontational.
But even animals practice a wide variety of strategies as responses to threat - anything from full-frontal attack to fleeing - but why should humans limit themselves to just one?
Bells
Staff member
Because the manner in which you deem rape to be rape and different kind of rape - as though some are more worthy of being referred to as rape than others, and also the fact that you seem to have a real issue with the fact that women are free and equal human beings and instead prefer to suggest restrictions in how women behave and what they do.
And why do you think your sexuality matters here?
What you and your fellow rape apologists are doing in this thread is making the rape victim somehow responsible for the actions of the rapist.
So you suggest that women, in particular, limit themselves to a certain set of behaviour to fit into the particular social interpretation you have about women in society and as individuals themselves.
And frankly, the versions of "rape prevention" being peddled in this thread work towards one goal. That of control. It demands that women act a certain way, do certain things, not do certain things, to prevent themselves from being raped. One that LG linked even went so far as to advise women to not talk back to men. Hence the glaring misogyny that all have caught except those who are rape apologists. LG views it as liberating. I guess if you tell women they have to live in fear to be liberated....?
Because to rape apologists, to demand that rapists be held fully responsible and that boys be taught to not rape ridiculous. As LG even pointed out at the start of this thread. Because to do that would mean that women would no longer have to live in a culture of fear of rape - which to rape apologists would be something obscene.
This and That
I presented that to you last month, as part of this discussion.
Your response was to duck the point.
And now you're asking for it to be reiterated?
Very well: "Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever" (Oct., 2007).
Honest up, LG. You may not like how people view you, but, then, their assessment is based on your conduct.
You're tilting windmills, Wynn. But, hey, it's not like anyone is surprised.
Lightgigantic said:
I presented that to you last month, as part of this discussion.
Your response was to duck the point.
And now you're asking for it to be reiterated?
Very well: "Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever" (Oct., 2007).
Honest up, LG. You may not like how people view you, but, then, their assessment is based on your conduct.
• • •
Wynn said:
You're tilting windmills, Wynn. But, hey, it's not like anyone is surprised.
I'm starting to wonder if there's something else in play here. The repetitive phrasing and obsessive usage of the :shrug: emoticon bring to mind certain disorders that might help explain why he's unable to budge from his position despite the fact that he's never been able to effectively elaborate upon it, and has been made aware of how this failing is a fatal weakness in said position. I mean, sure, we could assume it's pure ego defense driving this pages-long exercise in credibility-suicide--certainly his partner in crime, whose posts I can (thankfully) no longer read except as quotes in the posts of others, fits neatly into this category, with her lame attempt to piggyback his points and her own staggering failure to support the arguments without liberal use of straw man and non-sequiturs (such as her "submissive or dyke" false dichotomy)--but I can't ignore the red flags.
Just a thought.
Another Brick in the Wall
It's another brick in the wall of masculine privilege. All men have a stake in the outcome, but there are some who just don't want to budge an inch.
For instance, he need not be an aspiring rapist, but if he loses the rape threat to keep women in their place, the wall of masculine privilege loses its stability.
As he argued in 2007:
Or, perhaps:
(Note the straw man in that one about Christianity, which is a distortion of the point he was responding to.)
He even argued that liberating women from the yoke of sexism is cruel manipulation:
But even back then, it was ego defense; he had to argue against straw men he built from hyperbolic exaggerations portraying human rights for women as a denigration to "tenth class", which notion he is actually incapable of explaining.
In the end, for many of the "rape apologists" and "rape advocates", it's more about preserving a broader male privilege.
Or so it seems to me.
Balerion said:
It's another brick in the wall of masculine privilege. All men have a stake in the outcome, but there are some who just don't want to budge an inch.
For instance, he need not be an aspiring rapist, but if he loses the rape threat to keep women in their place, the wall of masculine privilege loses its stability.
As he argued in 2007:
"the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)"
Or, perhaps:
"I mean even if you succeed in winning us around that anything christian is automatically unwholesome etc that still leaves us with the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)"
(Note the straw man in that one about Christianity, which is a distortion of the point he was responding to.)
He even argued that liberating women from the yoke of sexism is cruel manipulation:
"I would say that the loosening of established gender roles has enabled a class of women to be more thoroughly manipulated to a greater extent in greater numbers than ever precedented"
But even back then, it was ego defense; he had to argue against straw men he built from hyperbolic exaggerations portraying human rights for women as a denigration to "tenth class", which notion he is actually incapable of explaining.
In the end, for many of the "rape apologists" and "rape advocates", it's more about preserving a broader male privilege.
Or so it seems to me.
Damn. That's a "quiver" full of "kids."
Though considering this:
elicited this in response:
I won't be holding my breath for a coherent response.
I suppose this might answer many of our unanswered questions regarding precautions and acquaintance rape though: if a woman is married, well then--obviously-- it ain't rape; it's just populating the planet.
And yet you still can't provide a single reference to anyone of us actually saying that.
Well, if you think that being raped is such fun: suit yourself.
I agree, I just wondered if the exercise itself was part of some larger disorder, rather than a vehement opposition to women's rights. I mean, there are plenty of people who share at least LG's side of the debate, if not the inane non-sequiturs and incomprehensible details of his position, but they drop in and out of any given discussion like the rest of us. LG is almost bionic in his ability to repeat and restate his position in dozens, even hundreds of posts, which is why I wondered if there was something else going on.
But even as I say that, I remember him dropping out of a discussion in which he couldn't defend his metaphysical worldview to me, so I suppose it boils down to how much he really has the stomach to make himself look silly in defense of a cause. Apparently, he feels keeping women in their place is more important than his everlasting soul. Who knew?
:shrug:
(Insert Title Here)
Well, there's LG at #3—
—which, functionally speaking, ignores the vast majority of rapes in affluent, industrialized nations like the U.S., Australia, and so on.
Well, I suppose he could be implying that a significant proportion of men are simply sociopathic, psychotic, or otherwise dissociated.
The underlying point, of course, is that men are going to rape and it's all up to women to prevent them.
In #178, LG compares rape victims to crime perpetrators—
—though you passed over that aspect in favor of a contextually tweaked tangent.
There's the bit in #289 in which LG managed this lovely distillation:
You know, just for starters? But my favorite so far is #28:
The problem is that one puts the onus for a lack of crime on the perpetrator.
The point did not go unnoticed. As I noted then:
His response was to say he never said it.
And you? Well, you seem to be wearing the "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt. In truth, it's hard to tell what you actually think you're doing, because all you're managing to do is embarrass yourself. Should people continue to review the thread for you, since your posts seem so sickly ignorant of the record?
Wynn said:
Well, there's LG at #3—
"The notion of a rapist somehow engineering their own 10 step process or whatever of not raping someone is more absurd than a burglar engineering their own program of theft prevention."
—which, functionally speaking, ignores the vast majority of rapes in affluent, industrialized nations like the U.S., Australia, and so on.
Well, I suppose he could be implying that a significant proportion of men are simply sociopathic, psychotic, or otherwise dissociated.
The underlying point, of course, is that men are going to rape and it's all up to women to prevent them.
In #178, LG compares rape victims to crime perpetrators—
"Or can any behavior that can be interpreted with some sort of moral imperative automatically be disregarded in any assessment of a hazard bearing scenario (so we can suddenly disband the role alcohol plays in car accidents, since its obviously a ruse from a bunch of teetotalers) ?"
—though you passed over that aspect in favor of a contextually tweaked tangent.
There's the bit in #289 in which LG managed this lovely distillation:
"Yet you find this general guideline untenable:
"Drinking can set you up to be a victim of sexual assault. Will this risk combine with any others to result in a scenario I wish to avoid. Am I comfortable making this decision?
"???"
"Drinking can set you up to be a victim of sexual assault. Will this risk combine with any others to result in a scenario I wish to avoid. Am I comfortable making this decision?
"???"
You know, just for starters? But my favorite so far is #28:
"Basically the problem with what you are presenting is that you put the onus for an individuals protection on someone else (namely the perpetrator .... of all people 
).
"Actually even then, that is not a problem.
"It only becomes a problem when you present it at the expense of an individual protecting themself."
). "Actually even then, that is not a problem.
"It only becomes a problem when you present it at the expense of an individual protecting themself."
The problem is that one puts the onus for a lack of crime on the perpetrator.
The point did not go unnoticed. As I noted then:
I would like you to think through your formulation of the above.
Please.
You keep coming back to a circumstance where women essentially need to avoid interacting with men, or men simply need to be locked away.
There are reasonable precautions anyone can take against "crime" in general. But the inability of rape prevention theory advocates to establish an idea of reasonable precautions is more than a little disconcerting.
Please.
You keep coming back to a circumstance where women essentially need to avoid interacting with men, or men simply need to be locked away.
There are reasonable precautions anyone can take against "crime" in general. But the inability of rape prevention theory advocates to establish an idea of reasonable precautions is more than a little disconcerting.
His response was to say he never said it.
And you? Well, you seem to be wearing the "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt. In truth, it's hard to tell what you actually think you're doing, because all you're managing to do is embarrass yourself. Should people continue to review the thread for you, since your posts seem so sickly ignorant of the record?
Bells
Staff member
Perhaps you two should get your stories straight.
As Tiassa pointed out above, he did say it.
Which goes directly to my point.
You directly attribute people's behaviour to rape and you feel they should somehow be responsible for their own sexual assault. After all, look at this comment from you. Because you expect and demand that women adhere to certain behaviours for your own bizarre set of reasons. And if they do not or if they dare to assume they are equal, you come out with:
"Well, if you think being raped is such fun: suit yourself."
And this is your response to my saying that rapists should be fully responsible for their crimes and that women be treated as equals and not be restricted to behaving as sexually repressed and submissive females to ensure that men retain their privilege and status in society - in short, how dare women expect to be equal. That was your response to my saying that rape prevention advocates in this thread are pushing ways in which women can be controlled in society and you think that is acceptable.
Who's Hustling Whom?
:shrug:
:shrug:
Bringing to your attention that you are not responding to things people actually say is ducking?
:shrug:
and once again, how much of that thread shows you actually responding to things people actually say?
:shrug:
Ok - let's see where Tiassa references me saying "its okay for someone to be a rapist
Do rapists in these countries stop themselves raping?
that men are going to rape and its up to the justice system to prevent them?
welcome to the real world .......
:shrug:
I am talking about hazards - in this case alcohol consumption - that contribute to an incident.
Nothing there about drinking automatically equating with criminal activity.
Rape prevention efforts targeting women's behavior have been criticized as unfairly requiring women as potential victims to alter their behavior and restrict their freedom in exchange for their safety (see Ullman, 2002). Although the goal of the approach we advocate is to alter women's behavior, it seems difficult to argue that preventing women from drinking to the point of incapacitation restricts their freedom or involves a loss. On the contrary, it offers many additional benefits. Advocating drinking reduction for women as a way of reducing their vulnerability to rape implies neither that women are to blame for their own victimization nor that prevention directed toward male perpetrators is unnecessary.
which then begs the question why no one who is professionally or even academically involved in advocating rape prevention give that advice?
IOW why are the only people advocating this as the one and only method of prevention restricted to being people who don't actually support advocating prevention?
Strawman much?
If its only you saying those things, why am I wrong in saying I never did?
:shrug:
In fact if you go for the latest contribution, we can see that you are still failing to actually address people on the strength of what they say.
The only people making these statements of misogyny are you ...... which is kind of funny since its apparently an idea you don't agree with.
:shrug:
why?
Do rapists in these countries stop themselves raping?
Actually I am implying that if someone is criminally motivated, the best of all possible plans doesn't revolve around such assailants approximating themselves as some sort of "good person in control of themselves"
as opposed to what?
that men are going to rape and its up to the justice system to prevent them?
welcome to the real world .......
:shrug:
Huh?
I am talking about hazards - in this case alcohol consumption - that contribute to an incident.
Nothing there about drinking automatically equating with criminal activity.
Perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HED (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal freedom
Rape prevention efforts targeting women's behavior have been criticized as unfairly requiring women as potential victims to alter their behavior and restrict their freedom in exchange for their safety (see Ullman, 2002). Although the goal of the approach we advocate is to alter women's behavior, it seems difficult to argue that preventing women from drinking to the point of incapacitation restricts their freedom or involves a loss. On the contrary, it offers many additional benefits. Advocating drinking reduction for women as a way of reducing their vulnerability to rape implies neither that women are to blame for their own victimization nor that prevention directed toward male perpetrators is unnecessary.
which, as I said, becomes plainly idiotic when you put you present it [/I]at the expense of an individual protecting themselfYou know, just for starters? But my favorite so far is #28:
"Basically the problem with what you are presenting is that you put the onus for an individuals protection on someone else (namely the perpetrator .... of all people
"Actually even then, that is not a problem.
"It only becomes a problem when you present it at the expense of an individual protecting themself."
The problem is that one puts the onus for a lack of crime on the perpetrator.
which then begs the question why no one who is professionally or even academically involved in advocating rape prevention give that advice?
IOW why are the only people advocating this as the one and only method of prevention restricted to being people who don't actually support advocating prevention?
Strawman much?
If you look at those links, its only you saying that rape prevention involves women avoiding men and that rape prevention is not limited.
If its only you saying those things, why am I wrong in saying I never did?
:shrug:
In fact if you go for the latest contribution, we can see that you are still failing to actually address people on the strength of what they say.
Will the irony never end?
The only people making these statements of misogyny are you ...... which is kind of funny since its apparently an idea you don't agree with.
:shrug:
Uh, no, they "force" the people who request limits on the advocacy of precaution in responsible adults to "admit" that they would advocate some precautions for their own dependent children. The fact that you regard that as somehow relevant to the issues here is extraordinary.billvon said:
The fact that you responded thus rather than answer a straight question about the your proposed limits to the precautions you expect from a responsible adult woman, is no longer extraordinary - it's been many pages and several days now, without even an attempt at that.
No one has made any such claim here.billvon said:
So you apparently (as you still refuse to directly answer the question, the matter is vague) are making significant changes to, for example, this:billvon said:
In the latest, the woman is apparently only to be held responsible for her own actions. In the earlier version, she was responsible for the risk and the consequences as well - her own safety, a matter of other people's actions.billvon said:
Ar we to assume the old mode there is no longer operative?
And are we now approaching an answer to the recurrent question of the thread - the limits precaution advocates have in mind for their advocacy, to avoid oppressing women?
- Status