Rape and the "Civilized" World

[lightgigantic]

"Should", is it? And what are the terms for people who don't do what they should do?

Then they don't do whatever they can. Did you miss the upper case letters?

Are they, perchance, responsible for the consequences?

Its the nature of personal safety that a sane person does whatever they can to prevent it.

Can you think of any situations where you have not done whatever you can to prevent yourself from harm?

Meanwhile, obviously no limits at all on the precautions you advocate -

On the contrary its only you who is going to no limits to try and avoid discussing exactly how they are limited

Saudi Arabia providing a handy and well known model destination of that slide.

You are not making sense, since if there is apparently no limits to precaution in saudi arabia, then obviously there must be some limiting aspects in order to differentiate the difference.
:shrug:

Again the equivalence between adult women and dependent children, in the precaution advocate's view of the world.

will the irony never end?

Or car theft, or dodgy pyramid schemes or slipping over in the bath tub either. The notion of being responsible for one's personal safety is not a new phenoemena, with a recorded history in human civilization for at lest 10 000 years.

And its not just a thing for women - It goes for men too. In fact you could even say much the same for children too, although given that a child is generally held to have others looking after them in quite a few matters, they tend to have a broader network of individuals to be responsible for them (which, funnily enough, usually takes the form of adults teaching children how to be personally responsible for themselves) as far as personal safety goes.

I find it ironic that you talk of freedom for women yet simultaneously insist on granting them a status on lower than children, since you refuse to concede they have the capacity to be personally responsible for themselves.

That is why your assertions that you are not advocating oppressive and misogynistic social norms are not taken seriously. You keep contradicting them, throughout the rest of your posting.

And that's why, instead of dealing with the straight question asked of you, you resort to deflections and bizarre misrepresentations of other people - look at this goofy shit: Note that you put that in quotes, but nobody here is being quoted, paraphrased, or even approximated. Nobody here has posted anything like that. I don't have to do that when responding to your posting, or wynn's, or lg's - I can use the quote function.

And notice how often wynn and lg, as well, have posted in that fashion. You didn't want to be lumped in with them and their wince-inducing symptoms, and no blame for that, but as noted before an erosion of integrity seems inevitable in this rut: you simply have to turn and face the question of limits on precaution advocacy, or be stained with the implications of having none.

Perhaps you can help Tiassa out since he is also having a bit of trouble finding these so-called quotes you are alluding to.

 

[Balerion]

He still doesn't get it.

Then they don't do whatever they can. Did you miss the upper case letters?


Its the nature of personal safety that a sane person does whatever they can to prevent it.

So then if a woman doesn't, say, stop drinking in the presence of men, is she insane? After all, she isn't doing everything she can to prevent rape.

Can you think of any situations where you have not done whatever you can to prevent yourself from harm?

Absolutely. When I get behind the wheel of my car, I am putting myself at risk. Particularly at night. Am I therefore responsible for the drunk driver who wrecks my car and hurts me?

When I eat food I haven't caught or prepared myself, I am putting myself at risk. Am I therefore responsible for the salmonella poisoning I get at a popular restaurant chain?

When I share personal information on the internet, I am putting myself at risk. Am I therefore responsible for the identity theft I suffer when Macy's servers are hacked?

When I use medicine, I am putting myself at risk. Am I therefore responsible when I suffer a deadly stroke as a rare side-effect of taking a cold medicine?

Aside from reverting to the hunter-gatherer life, I'm not doing "all I can" to protect myself. By your own definition, the very fact that I live this 21st century lifestyle makes me insane. Presumably--and evidently, given that you are here, on the interwebs, having this conversation--you are, too.

This the part where, to a normal person, I would say "See the error in your reason?" but I'm well past believing you're either intelligent enough to understand why or willing to accept the fact that you're wrong.

On the contrary its only you who is going to no limits to try and avoid discussing exactly how they are limited

But you said yourself the limit is defined as "all you can," which theoretically entails avoidance of men in social situations, particularly at functions where alcohol is available. It could even be followed through to what has been suggested before, which is the woman locking herself in her house and surrounding herself with only immediate family members. Now, you will probably say "But you're the only one saying that," which will only bring us back to your either inability or unwillingness to follow your own argument through to its logical conclusion: if one is to do "all they can" to protect themselves, then how can something like avoiding all men not be considered one of those "risk management" solutions? Is "all you can do" really only "all you're willing to do?" It certainly doesn't seem like that's how you mean it, so what, exactly do you mean?

I find it ironic that you talk of freedom for women yet simultaneously insist on granting them a status on lower than children, since you refuse to concede they have the capacity to be personally responsible for themselves.

No one is saying women aren't personally responsible for themselves. But when someone is victimized, they're not responsible for that. If you mouth off to me, and I beat you to death, you're not in the wrong for mouthing off to me. You shouldn't be expected to keep your mouth shut simply because there are people like me out there who might kill you for it. That is not an acceptable solution, because it's oppressive. Just as if a woman is getting drunk with classmates, like she has a hundred and fifty times before, and then some drunken jackass rapes her, she's not responsible for that. She shouldn't be expected to stop drinking socially simply because there might be some asshole out there who wants to rape her. That is not an acceptable solution, because it is oppressive.

Suggesting that women use their instincts and give them advice on how to behave when finding themselves in a situation where they feel uncomfortable is perfectly fine. Suggesting that if they do not follow those steps that they are therefore responsible for their own rape is not, nor is suggesting that all (or "virtually all" as the first website you linked to claimed) potential rape scenarios have similar signs that can be picked up upon. The first is not fair, the second is not true.

Perhaps you can help Tiassa out since he is also having a bit of trouble finding these so-called quotes you are alluding to.

Perhaps you should ask for some help reading.

 

[lightgigantic]

He still doesn't get it.



So then if a woman doesn't, say, stop drinking in the presence of men, is she insane? After all, she isn't doing everything she can to prevent rape.

You still don't get it.
Don't know how many times I have to say this:

"man" is not a hazard category
:shrug:

Absolutely. When I get behind the wheel of my car, I am putting myself at risk. Particularly at night.

Do you wear a seatbelt?
Turn on the lights?
Drive on the correct side of the road?
Drive within the speed limit?
Obey traffic signs?

When I eat food I haven't caught or prepared myself, I am putting myself at risk.

Do you eat it if it is on the floor and being eaten by cockroaches?
Do you eat it if it smells bad and has mould?

When I share personal information on the internet, I am putting myself at risk.

Do you put your credit card details on public display?

When I use medicine, I am putting myself at risk.

Do you take medicine that is not prescribed by a registered physician?
If you think medicine is causing you health problems, do you continue to use it?

Aside from reverting to the hunter-gatherer life, I'm not doing "all I can" to protect myself. By your own definition, the very fact that I live this 21st century lifestyle makes me insane. Presumably--and evidently, given that you are here, on the interwebs, having this conversation--you are, too.

Not even hunter-gatherer's interpret "everything I can do to protect myself" as being "having nothing to do with anyone or anything else"
:shrug:

This the part where, to a normal person, I would say "See the error in your reason?" but I'm well past believing you're either intelligent enough to understand why or willing to accept the fact that you're wrong.

will the irony never end?

But you said yourself the limit is defined as "all you can,"

with the addition of "prevent yourself from harm"

If you adopt some measures some times to prevent yourself from harm (and not others) you are already limiting yourself in complete accordance with your powers of risk assessment

which theoretically entails avoidance of men in social situations, particularly at functions where alcohol is available. It could even be followed through to what has been suggested before, which is the woman locking herself in her house and surrounding herself with only immediate family members. Now, you will probably say "But you're the only one saying that," which will only bring us back to your either inability or unwillingness to follow your own argument through to its logical conclusion: if one is to do "all they can" to protect themselves, then how can something like avoiding all men not be considered one of those "risk management" solutions? Is "all you can do" really only "all you're willing to do?" It certainly doesn't seem like that's how you mean it, so what, exactly do you mean?

which again begs the question why these ideas are only advocated by people trying to make the argument against risk prevention advocation (despite it plainly being obvious that they don't abide by such ridiculous precepts in the remainder of their apparently safe and sane lifestyles)


:shrug:

No one is saying women aren't personally responsible for themselves. But when someone is victimized, they're not responsible for that. If you mouth off to me, and I beat you to death, you're not in the wrong for mouthing off to me. You shouldn't be expected to keep your mouth shut simply because there are people like me out there who might kill you for it. That is not an acceptable solution, because it's oppressive. Just as if a woman is getting drunk with classmates, like she has a hundred and fifty times before, and then some drunken jackass rapes her, she's not responsible for that. She shouldn't be expected to stop drinking socially simply because there might be some asshole out there who wants to rape her. That is not an acceptable solution, because it is oppressive.

perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HEd (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty

Suggesting that women use their instincts and give them advice on how to behave when finding themselves in a situation where they feel uncomfortable is perfectly fine. Suggesting that if they do not follow those steps that they are therefore responsible for their own rape is not, nor is suggesting that all (or "virtually all" as the first website you linked to claimed) potential rape scenarios have similar signs that can be picked up upon. The first is not fair, the second is not true.

once again, you are making arguments against people who are not present here.
:shrug:

Perhaps you should ask for some help reading.

Perhaps you should understand that there is a huge difference between holding someone accoutable to things that they say and holding someone accountable to things one imagines someone says.

 

[Balerion]

You still don't get it.
Don't know how many times I have to say this:

"man" is not a hazard category

This seems like an arbitrary and paradoxical exclusion. Men rape, and if a woman is to "do all she can" to protect herself, how is avoiding the gender that rapes not among the risk management protocol?

Unless, as I inquired before, "all she can do" doesn't really mean "all she can do."

Do you wear a seatbelt?
Turn on the lights?
Drive on the correct side of the road?
Drive within the speed limit?
Obey traffic signs?

Yes, but this is not "doing all I can do" to avoid being hit by a drunk driver. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.

:shrug:

Do you eat it if it is on the floor and being eaten by cockroaches?
Do you eat it if it smells bad and has mould?

No, but this is not sufficiently "doing all I can do" to avoid contracting food poisoning. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.

:shrug:

Do you put your credit card details on public display?

No, but this does not constitute "doing all I can do" to avoid having my identity stolen. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.

:shrug:

Do you take medicine that is not prescribed by a registered physician?
If you think medicine is causing you health problems, do you continue to use it?

No, but this does not constitute "doing all I can do" to avoid suffering a side-effect of medication. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.

:shrug:

Not even hunter-gatherer's interpret "everything I can do to protect myself" as being "having nothing to do with anyone or anything else"

You say that without having ever presented this case to an actual hunter-gatherer. Meanwhile, the majority of people in this thread who actually have read your proposals have taken it to mean precisely that.

with the addition of "prevent yourself from harm"

Obviously.

If you adopt some measures some times to prevent yourself from harm (and not others) you are already limiting yourself in complete accordance with your powers of risk assessment

So now you've concocted some imaginary scenario in which a rape victim is raped because she has not adopted "some measures" to prevent a rape. Care to clue us in?

which again begs the question why these ideas are only advocated by people trying to make the argument against risk prevention advocation (despite it plainly being obvious that they don't abide by such ridiculous precepts in the remainder of their apparently safe and sane lifestyles)

Do you not know what it means to advocate? It certainly seems so. To put your mind to rest, not one of us on this side of the discussion has ever advocated any such thing. What we've done is point out that your "risk prevention" logic puts the blame on the woman unless she adopts an extreme measure such as avoiding all men. You can't seem to see it, or perhaps you're unwilling to see it, but it's there. When you say a woman is responsible for herself when she is raped while drunk, you are saying that a woman must stop drinking in order to ensure she is not responsible for her own rape. Perhaps that's not the end you're willing to go to, but this is the natural, logical conclusion of your argument. You can't pretend it isn't so just becasue you don't like it, or because you're too embarrassed to own up to it. Well, you certainly can pretend--no doubt that's what you're doing right now--but it isn't fooling anyone.

perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HEd (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty

Perhaps you could explain why a liberty must be a cornerstone to be valid? I won't hold my breath.

Why is it that women must be held responsible for their drinking habits as it relates to rape, but not men? It's statistically more likely that a male rapist will have consumed drugs or alcohol than his female victim; so why no advocacy on that end? Can I presume your earlier answer ("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") will suffice?

If so, then can I ask why the same attitude ("The notion of women abstaining from alcohol in social settings on the off-chance that they might be raped is more absurd than men abstaining from alcohol in social settings on the off-chance that they might rape someone") doesn't apply the other way?

In other words, why is it always the woman's responsibility? When the man engages in a behavior that lends itself to rape, there's nothing to be done. When a woman does it, she is now responsible and should take preventative measures. That's fuzzy math, LG.

once again, you are making arguments against people who are not present here.

Since you have been shown multiple times exactly how your arguments lead to certain conclusions, I can only assume you mean that you lack the mental capacity to support yourself in this discussion and I am therefore spinning my wheels.

Will the irony never end?

Perhaps you should understand that there is a huge difference between holding someone accoutable to things that they say and holding someone accountable to things one imagines someone says.

Perhaps you should understand that a person can imply things without saying them explicitly. For instance, when a person says he is superior, he infers or implies that another is inferior. And when one says a woman must do "all she can to protect herself from harm" in the context of rape, he is inferring or implying that she is responsible for the rape when she fails, or argues that nothing could have been reasonably done.

And you really should stop pretending that these things aren't being said explicitly by others in this thread, because several have.

 

[lightgigantic]

This seems like an arbitrary and paradoxical exclusion.

Then why is it that you ,as opposed to anyone with a professional interest in the problem, are the only one who advocates it?

Men rape, and if a woman is to "do all she can" to protect herself, how is avoiding the gender that rapes not among the risk management protocol?

its not standard because its ineffective.

for instance, if you look at actual preventative strategies advocated by actual professional people, you can see that most of them do not lose any effectiveness regardless of the gender of the assailant.

Unless, as I inquired before, "all she can do" doesn't really mean "all she can do."

If one interprets "all one can do" to include incorporating non-existent/ineffective hazard categories, then yes, any analysis of risk assessment starts looking pretty strange (since now suddenly one is required to wear flotation life jackets when going to sleep in one's house .....)

Yes, but this is not "doing all I can do" to avoid being hit by a drunk driver. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.





No, but this is not sufficiently "doing all I can do" to avoid contracting food poisoning. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.





No, but this does not constitute "doing all I can do" to avoid having my identity stolen. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.





No, but this does not constitute "doing all I can do" to avoid suffering a side-effect of medication. Of course, if you've defined "all you can do" as something specific, then perhaps it is. But you haven't provided an alternative definition, so I can only go by what your words naturally suggest.

If you don't do any of these things you are either not doing all you can do or are facing extraneous circumstances that radically affect your otherwise standard powers of risk assessment (so you might eat spoiled food if you were starving, or drive a car without headlights at night time to aoiv an issue of immediate personal urgency etc etc).

IOW if you are not doing these things in all circumstances it either boils down to a refinement of risk assessment (either fine tuning risk management to meet special circumstances or simply plodding along to ignorance or a poor fund of knowledge ) or a transgression of common sense.

Either way, you are providing yet another clear example of how you utilize risk assessment to limit the extent you take precautionary measures

You say that without having ever presented this case to an actual hunter-gatherer.

and you have?

But that aside, its the nature of risk assessment that it is so integral to survival and protection from harm that one can safely say that individuals wholeheartedly subscribe to it in all circumstances (sanity pending). Even the so-called advocates of anti-risk prevention advocacy such as yourself.

Meanwhile, the majority of people in this thread who actually have read your proposals have taken it to mean precisely that.

meanwhile such people don't waver for an iota of a moment in their risk assessment/management strategies. The only detail that differs is the fund of knowledge one is calling upon to implement such strategies.

Obviously.



So now you've concocted some imaginary scenario in which a rape victim is raped because she has not adopted "some measures" to prevent a rape. Care to clue us in?

err ... no ???

I just said that your act of adopting specific measures for precaution (such as turning on the headlights of a car at night time) and not performing the exact same measures at another moment (such as not doing so during clear daylight) clearly illustrate that you are capable of limiting preventative measures ... and furthermore, you are comfortable doing this without having to resort to extreme risk hazard categories (such as avoiding driving a car altogether - since if you remove automobiles, you also effectively remove all automobile related injury and accident) for the sake of avoiding an incident.

Do you not know what it means to advocate? It certainly seems so. To put your mind to rest, not one of us on this side of the discussion has ever advocated any such thing.

Don't be daft.

Its clear exactly who is advocating "man" as the essential hazard category for rape ..... none of whom are actually involved in professionally dealing with the problem, for some uncanny reason ....


Hell you even say it again in your next breath ....

What we've done is point out that your "risk prevention" logic puts the blame on the woman unless she adopts an extreme measure such as avoiding all men.

which again gets back to begging the question, why these ideas (namely the adoption of "man" as a hazard category) are only advocated by people trying to make the argument against risk prevention advocation (despite it plainly being obvious that they don't abide by such ridiculous precepts in the remainder of their apparently safe and sane lifestyles)

You can't seem to see it, or perhaps you're unwilling to see it, but it's there. When you say a woman is responsible for herself when she is raped while drunk, you are saying that a woman must stop drinking in order to ensure she is not responsible for her own rape. Perhaps that's not the end you're willing to go to, but this is the natural, logical conclusion of your argument. You can't pretend it isn't so just because you don't like it, or because you're too embarrassed to own up to it. Well, you certainly can pretend--no doubt that's what you're doing right now--but it isn't fooling anyone.

I don't say those things.

I say a person is responsible for drinking alcohol.

This involves them assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior (also explaining why being under the influence of drugs enjoys such a wide embellishment in risk prevention strategies).
Its even socially marketed like that (ironically, even against being a drunk asshole ... If you still want to champion the cause for drinking disassociated from any the consequences) :

BTW whats your advice to the girl in the image?
Continue drinking until you are shit-faced?

Perhaps you could explain why a liberty must be a cornerstone to be valid? I won't hold my breath.

well for a start, it kind of robs one of having a point for leveraging any sort of dialogue about rights either to be upheld or that are in risk of being trampled.

:shrug:

Why is it that women must be held responsible for their drinking habits as it relates to rape, but not men?

why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?

It's statistically more likely that a male rapist will have consumed drugs or alcohol than his female victim; so why no advocacy on that end?

But they do.

In fact they even discuss under the same tab (ie the "prevention" tab) of some websites that you haven't, can't and won't read ..... right alongside their discussion points for the role alcohol plays in setting one up to be a victim.

I guess one of the bonuses in not having to argue for the sake of saving face on online discussions is that one can freely synchronize concepts (like advocacy and prevention) as opposed to establishing them in some sort of schism
:shrug:

Can I presume your earlier answer ("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") will suffice?

Not if you think such initiatives can only prosper at the necessary expense of individuals jeopardizing their personal safety through prevention.

If so, then can I ask why the same attitude ("The notion of women abstaining from alcohol in social settings on the off-chance that they might be raped is more absurd than men abstaining from alcohol in social settings on the off-chance that they might rape someone") doesn't apply the other way?

You could if I ever set them (advocacy and prevention) as being diametrically opposed.

Since you have no qualms about working with such a dichotomy however, perhaps you would like to explain why the notion of women abstaining from alcohol in order to surmount the issues of risk surrounding rape is absurd whereas men abstaining from alcohol for the same end isn't?

In other words, why is it always the woman's responsibility? When the man engages in a behavior that lends itself to rape, there's nothing to be done. When a woman does it, she is now responsible and should take preventative measures. That's fuzzy math, LG.

In the absence of you being able to find quotes where I actually say "there is nothing to be done regarding the behaviour of men who rape" we can only assume that you are once again arguing with people who are not present here.

the alternative involves you diametrically opposing advocacy and prevention - a notion that finds no practical precedent outside of contributors for online discussions.

Which is it?
:shrug:

Since you have been shown multiple times exactly how your arguments lead to certain conclusions, I can only assume you mean that you lack the mental capacity to support yourself in this discussion and I am therefore spinning my wheels.

Will the irony never end?

Perhaps you should understand that a person can imply things without saying them explicitly. For instance, when a person says he is superior, he infers or implies that another is inferior. And when one says a woman must do "all she can to protect herself from harm" in the context of rape, he is inferring or implying that she is responsible for the rape when she fails, or argues that nothing could have been reasonably done.

Then please explain why practically all professional agencies that deal with this problem don't follow your line of thought, and in fact have no hesitation about simultaneously incorporating prevention and advocacy?
:shrug:

And you really should stop pretending that these things aren't being said explicitly by others in this thread, because several have.

You should really examine the real world and try and explain why anyone who isn't involved in these discussions purely for the half-assed sake of saving face on the internet has a radically different point of view than yourself.
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Then why is it that you ,as opposed to anyone with a professional interest in the problem, are the only one who advocates it?

Again, no one here advocates it. What we're doing is pointing out where your own argument naturally leads. I'm not saying that men should be considered a risk category, I'm saying your logic mandates that they must be for a woman to ever be absolved of responsibility in her own rape. The fact that you say this isn't so only demonstrates your own inconsistency, not my advocacy of the notion. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by following it to its natural end.

its not standard because its ineffective.

No, it would be incredibly effective. If men are nowhere near women, then the amount of rapes occurring would decrease dramatically.

for instance, if you look at actual preventative strategies advocated by actual professional people, you can see that most of them do not lose any effectiveness regardless of the gender of the assailant.

One of the strategies you've endorsed was to shut up and run away from larger men who made unwanted advances. Not only is that gender-specific, but it's only a few short steps from women locking themselves in their homes to avoid all contact with men.

If one interprets "all one can do" to include incorporating non-existent/ineffective hazard categories, then yes, any analysis of risk assessment starts looking pretty strange (since now suddenly one is required to wear flotation life jackets when going to sleep in one's house .....)

For one, "men" is not a non-existent category. You included it originally when you linked to Animal's website (one of them "professionals" you keep appealing to), which frames rape as being exclusively between small aggressive females and large amorous males. This is why all of its "prevention techniques" centered around the idea of running away; it even justified this by claiming that no woman can hope to defeat a larger man who wants to rape her. Secondly, as I've already said, excluding males from one's social calendar would be the most effective technique, since they are the gender that commits the majority of rapes. So your reasons for now excluding it are both contradictory of your earlier position as well as factually incorrect.

If you don't do any of these things you are either not doing all you can do or are facing extraneous circumstances that radically affect your otherwise standard powers of risk assessment (so you might eat spoiled food if you were starving, or drive a car without headlights at night time to aoiv an issue of immediate personal urgency etc etc).

IOW if you are not doing these things in all circumstances it either boils down to a refinement of risk assessment (either fine tuning risk management to meet special circumstances or simply plodding along to ignorance or a poor fund of knowledge ) or a transgression of common sense.

Either way, you are providing yet another clear example of how you utilize risk assessment to limit the extent you take precautionary measures

You've apparently forgotten how to read. I replied sensibly to each of the questions, and demonstrated that even still I am not doing "all that I can" to protect myself from harm. The point, which must have landed, otherwise you would have been responding to words I clearly did not write, is that sensible risk management isn't enough to prevent harm from befalling you, and it doesn't result in you being held responsible for that harm. Like I said, I'm not responsible for the drunk who hit me simply because I was out driving on St. Patrick's Day. And a rape victim isn't responsible for her attack simply because she was out drinking with friends.

and you have?

Nope. But then, I'm not the one whose argument relies on the claim that hunter-gatherers agree with me.

But that aside, its the nature of risk assessment that it is so integral to survival and protection from harm that one can safely say that individuals wholeheartedly subscribe to it in all circumstances (sanity pending). Even the so-called advocates of anti-risk prevention advocacy such as yourself.

I am not, nor is anyone in this thread, anti-risk prevention. I am anti-blame-the-victim.

meanwhile such people don't waver for an iota of a moment in their risk assessment/management strategies. The only detail that differs is the fund of knowledge one is calling upon to implement such strategies.

There are countless differences. The salient one to this discussion is that "such people" don't blame the victim for the rape. A close second is their inability to accept the lie that women can reduce their risk of being raped to "virtually zero" through means other than locking oneself in the house--a strategy you advocated earlier in the thread.

I just said that your act of adopting specific measures for precaution (such as turning on the headlights of a car at night time) and not performing the exact same measures at another moment (such as not doing so during clear daylight) clearly illustrate that you are capable of limiting preventative measures ... and furthermore, you are comfortable doing this without having to resort to extreme risk hazard categories (such as avoiding driving a car altogether - since if you remove automobiles, you also effectively remove all automobile related injury and accident) for the sake of avoiding an incident.

I don't know who you're supposed to be arguing with, but it's certainly not me. I've never questioned anyone's ability to assess risk or take subsequent action. I've said that by choosing to drink with friends, a woman isn't choosing to risk rape and is therefore responsible for the attack.

Don't be daft.

Its clear exactly who is advocating "man" as the essential hazard category for rape ..... none of whom are actually involved in professionally dealing with the problem, for some uncanny reason ....

Your friend Animal certainly did, and you endorsed his philosophy wholeheartedly. Why the change?

which again gets back to begging the question, why these ideas (namely the adoption of "man" as a hazard category) are only advocated by people trying to make the argument against risk prevention advocation (despite it plainly being obvious that they don't abide by such ridiculous precepts in the remainder of their apparently safe and sane lifestyles)

Again, you yourself linked to a site that does exactly that. The second site you linked to offered sensible advice for women who believed they were entering potentially hazardous situations, but it falls far afield from your arguments for responsibility and prevention. (I'm guessing you simply googled and linked the second site without reading it, since it didn't reflect your views in any way whatsoever)

I don't say those things.

But then you say:

I say a person is responsible for drinking alcohol.

This involves them assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior (also explaining why being under the influence of drugs enjoys such a wide embellishment in risk prevention strategies).
Its even socially marketed like that (ironically, even against being a drunk asshole ... If you still want to champion the cause for drinking disassociated from any the consequences) :

In other words, she's responsible for her own rape.

If she's responsible for "assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior" (which you make a point of claiming are "socially marketed" clearly) then she is responsible for her own rape. There is no other logical conclusion.

BTW whats your advice to the girl in the image?
Continue drinking until you are shit-faced?

If she wants to. A woman shouldn't have to end her night early just because some douchebag is hanging all over her. She can complain to the bartender or bouncer and have him removed (in reality, anyone slobbering like that on a girl who isn't interested is almost always tossed before she has time to say no twice) or, failing that, find a new hangout.

well for a start, it kind of robs one of having a point for leveraging any sort of dialogue about rights either to be upheld or that are in risk of being trampled.

The question was why a right must be a cornerstone to be valid. I don't see how this is an answer to that.

why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?

The more germane question would be why I think your brand of risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy. It would also be a stupid question, since I've answered it half a hundred times already: You blame the victim for the crime. One cannot be an advocate and accuser. It's a conflict of interest.

But they do.

But you don't. You've said as much explicitly. Again:

"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"​

Not if you think such initiatives can only prosper at the necessary expense of individuals jeopardizing their personal safety through prevention.

Another incomprehensible non-sequitur.

You could if I ever set them (advocacy and prevention) as being diametrically opposed.

You absolutely have, many times, as I and others have showed you. So go ahead and answer the question.

Since you have no qualms about working with such a dichotomy however, perhaps you would like to explain why the notion of women abstaining from alcohol in order to surmount the issues of risk surrounding rape is absurd whereas men abstaining from alcohol for the same end isn't?

When did I say men abstaining from alcohol on the chance that one of them will commit rape while under its influence isn't absurd?

I asked you why you were being inconsistent; why you demanded that only women engage in this risk management, yet scoffed at the notion of a man doing so.

In the absence of you being able to find quotes where I actually say "there is nothing to be done regarding the behaviour of men who rape" we can only assume that you are once again arguing with people who are not present here.

Again:

"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"​

the alternative involves you diametrically opposing advocacy and prevention - a notion that finds no practical precedent outside of contributors for online discussions.

Which is it?

It finds no precedent here, either, aside from your ludicrous straw men, which are built apparently for no other reason than to give you an excuse to scratch your obsessive itch to use the :shrug: emoticon. We do not say that there are no steps women can take to protect themselves. We do not say that one cannot advise and teach women while being an advocate for victims.

We say you cannot be, because your concept of "rape prevention" is warped, and your concept of "risk management" makes it impossible for the woman to absolve herself of responsibility without taking an extreme measure such as avoiding drinking in public.

Will the irony never end?

Will you ever learn what irony is?

Hint: It's not like rain on your wedding day.

Then please explain why practically all professional agencies that deal with this problem don't follow your line of thought, and in fact have no hesitation about simultaneously incorporating prevention and advocacy?

I've seen two sites that you've linked to. One offered sensible advice without suggesting that the woman could prevent rape from occurring, while the other advised women to avoid arguing with men lest they get raped in a dark parking lot for their trouble.

You should really examine the real world and try and explain why anyone who isn't involved in these discussions purely for the half-assed sake of saving face on the internet has a radically different point of view than yourself.

I would suggest the same to you, except I already know that you don't care. This really is all about ego defense for you. That, and some form of mental disorder. (the shrugs have to be a tick of some sort)

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, no one here advocates it

You certainly are.
No one else is advocating "men" as a necessary hazard category in risk assessment

What we're doing is pointing out where your own argument naturally leads. I'm not saying that men should be considered a risk category, I'm saying your logic mandates that they must be for a woman to ever be absolved of responsibility in her own rape.

Yes, I have already pointed out the humour of you being solely responsible for advocating a position you don't even agree with ..

The fact that you say this isn't so only demonstrates your own inconsistency, not my advocacy of the notion. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by following it to its natural end.

what I am saying is that [/QUOTE]
But it is precisely your position since no one else - at least no one with a professional interest in the issue - is working with it as a hazard category

No, it would be incredibly effective. If men are nowhere near women, then the amount of rapes occurring would decrease dramatically.

Which then begs the question, if it is so effective, how come it is only you talking about it (and not persons professionally involved)
:shrug:

One of the strategies you've endorsed was to shut up and run away from larger men who made unwanted advances.

Doesn't matter if a victim runs away from a larger woman or even a space alien for that matter.
It's still effective.

Not only is that gender-specific,

No its not.
Its not even species specific

but it's only a few short steps from women locking themselves in their homes to avoid all contact with men.

Once again, then the next question is why is it you who thinks this is the logical consequence and not any professional or even a great many assault survivors for that matter.

For one, "men" is not a non-existent category.

Granted.
However given that "men" as a category only exists in the imagination of persons advocating spurious arguments for the sake of saving face during online discussions, it operates in a dimension quite close to the non-existent.

You included it originally when you linked to Animal's website (one of them "professionals" you keep appealing to), which frames rape as being exclusively between small aggressive females and large amorous males.

if the only adjectives you could come up with are "large" and "amorous", its simply more evidence you don't read stuff

This is why all of its "prevention techniques" centered around the idea of running away;

Ditto above
the article was about pro's and con's of a variety of approaches you doofus

it even justified this by claiming that no woman can hope to defeat a larger man who wants to rape her. Secondly, as I've already said, excluding males from one's social calendar would be the most effective technique, since they are the gender that commits the majority of rapes. So your reasons for now excluding it are both contradictory of your earlier position as well as factually incorrect.

which then brings us back to why you are the only idiot who offers such so-called solutions.
What is that you have that a professional doesn't .... apart from alack of relevant skills and background information on the subject?

You've apparently forgotten how to read. I replied sensibly to each of the questions, and demonstrated that even still I am not doing "all that I can" to protect myself from harm. The point, which must have landed, otherwise you would have been responding to words I clearly did not write, is that sensible risk management isn't enough to prevent harm from befalling you, and it doesn't result in you being held responsible for that harm. Like I said, I'm not responsible for the drunk who hit me simply because I was out driving on St. Patrick's Day. And a rape victim isn't responsible for her attack simply because she was out drinking with friends.

and like I said, if you don't do those things, then you are not actually doing all that you can do to avoid an incident .... and as a further detail, your ability to correctly discern the appropriate situation to do and not do these things shows how you are fully capable of limiting such preventative measures (when you don't have the pending dilemma of saving face during online discussions of course )

Nope. But then, I'm not the one whose argument relies on the claim that hunter-gatherers agree with me.

well you did just make a claim about hunter-gatherer individuals being some sort of epitome of precautionary existence ... I guess that its now safe to assume that this point of yours, much like 90% of everything else, is simply a crock of shit that has no basis outside of your imagination

I am not, nor is anyone in this thread, anti-risk prevention. I am anti-blame-the-victim.

If that was the case, you wouldn't be blowing all this hot air about prevention being necessarily oppressive and wotnot

There are countless differences. The salient one to this discussion is that "such people" don't blame the victim for the rape.

Given that you have given countless references for persons blaming the victim for no other reason than they are implementing/advocating a preventative strategy, this so called salient difference is coming more as a convenient double standard

A close second is their inability to accept the lie that women can reduce their risk of being raped to "virtually zero" through means other than locking oneself in the house--a strategy you advocated earlier in the thread.

Once again, you are talking about ideas that no one has brought to the discussion except you (which, again, is funny because apparently you don't agree with them)

I don't know who you're supposed to be arguing with, but it's certainly not me. I've never questioned anyone's ability to assess risk or take subsequent action. I've said that by choosing to drink with friends, a woman isn't choosing to risk rape and is therefore responsible for the attack.

I am just playing the stupidity of your own so called brilliant idea ....

I mean you do understand how not driving a car is the only logical effective end of all road safety campaigns, yes?

Your friend Animal certainly did, and you endorsed his philosophy wholeheartedly. Why the change?

feel free to reference this claim : warning ... it may involve you actually having to read stuff

Again, you yourself linked to a site that does exactly that.

yet you can't reference it outisde of your imagination for some mysterious reason ...

The second site you linked to offered sensible advice for women who believed they were entering potentially hazardous situations, but it falls far afield from your arguments for responsibility and prevention. (I'm guessing you simply googled and linked the second site without reading it, since it didn't reflect your views in any way whatsoever)

actually I followed the link from an article titled "I won't live in fear" ... which tends to fly in the face of your ideas about preventative measures defaulting to fear and having logical consequences that obviously have no precedent outside of your fertile brain.

But then you say:

Sure
Notice how I didn't say they are responsible for not getting raped.

In other words, she's responsible for her own rape.

errr ... no

I believe I just said someone is responsible for indulging in drinking ...

If she's responsible for "assessing the concomitant risk factors associated with the behavior" (which you make a point of claiming are "socially marketed" clearly) then she is responsible for her own rape. There is no other logical conclusion.

lol
The only logical conclusion?
Well if she is assaulting herself I guess .....

If she wants to.

I see you have a high regard for her personal safety

A woman shouldn't have to end her night early just because some douchebag is hanging all over her. She can complain to the bartender or bouncer and have him removed (in reality, anyone slobbering like that on a girl who isn't interested is almost always tossed before she has time to say no twice) or, failing that, find a new hangout.

yes

Quite a fine selection of suitable preventative measures (none of which, for the record, involved using "men" as a hazard category btw ... since the bartender and bouncer would probably be male).

But your inability to consistently follow through on ridiculous ideas you advocate aside, how is it that you think continuing to get shit-faced doesn't pose any pending hazard issues (since you have already indicated a bevy of other strategies brought to the fore for the obvious task of dealing with a hazard.)

To put it bluntly, if there is no problem, why advocate complaining to the bouncer or going to a different place.
And if there is a problem, what on earth makes you think proceeding to get shit faced isn't going to complicate issues down the track?

The question was why a right must be a cornerstone to be valid. I don't see how this is an answer to that.

I did just answer it.

If a right is not an essential thing expected to be extended to all people all the time (ie a "cornerstone"), you don't have a leverage point for protecting it.
IOW if getting shit faced is not an essential right, then you can't come back with the half-assed argument of an individual being oppressed due to others trying to change their behaviour that revolves around getting shit faced.

The more germane question would be why I think your brand of risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy.

Lol

I don't.
I have said I don't.
I have linked sites that say they don't
I have cited references of people incorporating preventative strategies who say they don't.
I have challenged people like yourself to find any reference where I say anything other than "I don't"

Yet despite all this, you think I do.

You on the other hand, have clearly demonstrated that you do.

Which is why I ask, why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?

It would also be a stupid question, since I've answered it half a hundred times already: You blame the victim for the crime. One cannot be an advocate and accuser. It's a conflict of interest.

But you can't find any quotes where I or anyone else says that.

On the other hand, I can find numerous quotes where you cite adopting a preventative measure being akin to rape apology, misogyny, etc etc
Which is why I ask, why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?

But you don't. You've said as much explicitly. Again:

"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"​

and if you go to the next bit after that, beginning with "IOW ..." you can see exactly in what manner it becomes absurd

Another incomprehensible non-sequitur.

Yes
An apt description for a summary of your position on the subject ...

You absolutely have, many times, as I and others have showed you. So go ahead and answer the question.

You have one quote that appears that way when you edit out the next line after it. (Backed up by about 300 other references by myself to clarify exactly what is being said)
Aside from that, you have nothing.


You on the other hand practically come back to the same point in every single contribution to this thread.
Which is why I ask, why is it that you think risk prevention is diametrically opposed to victim advocacy?

When did I say men abstaining from alcohol on the chance that one of them will commit rape while under its influence isn't absurd?

I wasn't aware that you did say that either ...

thats why I asked you :

Since you have no qualms about working with such a dichotomy however, perhaps you would like to explain why the notion of women abstaining from alcohol in order to surmount the issues of risk surrounding rape is absurd whereas men abstaining from alcohol for the same end isn't?

I asked you why you were being inconsistent; why you demanded that only women engage in this risk management, yet scoffed at the notion of a man doing so.

I only scoffed at it when it is made at the expense of something.

If you read the entire reference .. or even anything subsequent you would understand that.

Again:

"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"​

and again, put the quote back in its context, and you have nothing.

It finds no precedent here, either, aside from your ludicrous straw men, which are built apparently for no other reason than to give you an excuse to scratch your obsessive itch to use the :shrug: emoticon. We do not say that there are no steps women can take to protect themselves. We do not say that one cannot advise and teach women while being an advocate for victims.

Your earlier ideas about the logical implications of prevention clearly suggest you do have issues with the double pronged approach of advocacy and prevention ... or at the very least, your inability to entertain "alcohol" as a hazard category establishes a precedent for your views being markedly distinct from those in the professional arena ...

We say you cannot be, because your concept of "rape prevention" is warped, and your concept of "risk management" makes it impossible for the woman to absolve herself of responsibility without taking an extreme measure such as avoiding drinking in public.

and once again, perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HED (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty.

Will you ever learn what irony is?

Hint: It's not like rain on your wedding day.

"Irony is wasted on the stupid"
:shrug:

I've seen two sites that you've linked to. One offered sensible advice without suggesting that the woman could prevent rape from occurring, while the other advised women to avoid arguing with men lest they get raped in a dark parking lot for their trouble.

Your inability to find references from websites to support your ideas aside, the one that you concur to be sensible is apparently doing something that is not allowed in your books - establishing "alcohol" as a hazard category while making the great blunder of ignoring the so-called obvious one of "man".

Are we to assume that by your own admission, your ideas are not sensible?

I would suggest the same to you, except I already know that you don't care. This really is all about ego defense for you. That, and some form of mental disorder. (the shrugs have to be a tick of some sort)

The problem is that I am not the one having difficulty explaining why my views are not incorporated into professional strategies to deal with the problem of rape.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps you should stop making a bigger fool of yourself and actually read the posts in this thread. Because when someone says:

"Women should do WHATEVER THEY CAN to avoid getting raped"..

What do you think they are saying?

Because I am not the one saying it. So perhaps you should take it up with them, hmm?

In that case, you seem to be simply stuck on the "should" and don't really register anything that comes after it.


I posted this earlier, but you didn't reply to it:

Even toddlers can be taught some preventative measures and can act accordingly.
It is possible to teach a 2-year old not to touch a hot stowe plate, for example, and to keep some distance toward strangers.


Have you told your children, even before they could walk and talk well, that they should not eat this, or not touch that?
Once they could walk, have you ever told them not to go to this or that place?
Have you ever told them not to accept candy from strangers?


If you have done that,
have you done it for the sake of blaming them, for the sake of finding fault with them, for the sake of pointing out that they are bad persons,

or have you told them that in the hopes to protect them from harm,
and in the hopes of teaching them to do everything in their power to protect themselves from harm?

 

[wynn]

No Wynn. Where did I say that?

I said if faced with the choice of death or rape, I'd pick rape because I would rather live.

And that is something women are told at self defense courses. The primary goal is survival at all cost. There is no expectation or demand that women must prevent their own rape. Because the main message is always '"No matter what you do or don't do, it is not your fault.".. but hey, rape apologists expect and no, demand that women fight back. Not all women can and such expectations is another form of control.. As though women who do not share responsibility or have somehow failed.

And that to me is disgusting.

Would you like to protect yourself, as much as possible, from getting raped?

 

[Bells]

In that case, you seem to be simply stuck on the "should" and don't really register anything that comes after it.

The issue with such words as "should" used in this context is that it places the onus and responsibility on women to not be raped.

I posted this earlier, but you didn't reply to it:

Oh did you?

I stopped reading your gibberish a while ago.

Even toddlers can be taught some preventative measures and can act accordingly.
It is possible to teach a 2-year old not to touch a hot stowe plate, for example, and to keep some distance toward strangers.

Yes. And?

Now how would you explain to a 2 year old that they should never remain alone in the company of adults they know because they will more than likely be sexually abused by someone they know and trust than by a stranger?

Have you told your children, even before they could walk and talk well, that they should not eat this, or not touch that?
Once they could walk, have you ever told them not to go to this or that place?
Have you ever told them not to accept candy from strangers?

Certainly.

Are you saying we should treat adult women like children?

Set down rules for adult women as to what they can and cannot do and who they can and cannot talk to, etc?

Do you like to be treated and spoken to as though you were 2 years of age?

If you have done that,
have you done it for the sake of blaming them, for the sake of finding fault with them, for the sake of pointing out that they are bad persons,

Well of course. Why else would we tell our children to not touch a hot stove? So we can blame them for being burned of course!

The open wide fault in your ridiculous logic is that you are even comparing the two.

You are demanding that women be treated like small children.

or have you told them that in the hopes to protect them from harm,
and in the hopes of teaching them to do everything in their power to protect themselves from harm?

Well not really. I just don't wish to have to clean their burnt skin from my stove top.

Now perhaps you can tell the class Wynn, why women must now be treated like 2 year old's and rules be laid down for them as though they were toddlers?

Because that wouldn't be controlling, would it?

 

[wynn]

This is why it appears your real issue is simply something born of spurious internet gusto.

Apparently, he just can't stand that anyone would suggest to him what to do, much less tell him what to do - regardless of what the topic is, whether it's about paperclips or whether it's about rape.

Some people just shut down the moment they hear the word "should", or "must," "ought to" and "need to." They experience any use of the imperative as oppressive.

 

[Bells]

Would you like to protect yourself, as much as possible, from getting raped?

And?

The thing with rape prevention theory that is being sold here in this thread is that women are somehow expected to be responsible for preventing the actions of another person. Your freakish argument throughout this thread have been that women must curb their behaviour and live their lives a certain way if they don't want to be raped. And the manner in which you ask about whether I would rather be raped or be right and the frankly obscene comments and arguments used by you in this thread shows that you do think a woman who behaves a certain way is somehow asking for it or wanting it to happen to her.

Even this question shows just how desperately you are grasping at straws and kind of pathetically submissive if you ask me. Who are you trying to impress here? Why lower yourself to this kind of misogyny?

At what point do we get to stop living our lives based solely on the actions of men? No, really, when?

 

[wynn]

The issue with such words as "should" used in this context is that it places the onus and responsibility on women to not be raped.

Oh did you?

I stopped reading your gibberish a while ago.


Yes. And?

Now how would you explain to a 2 year old that they should never remain alone in the company of adults they know because they will more than likely be sexually abused by someone they know and trust than by a stranger?


Certainly.

Are you saying we should treat adult women like children?

Set down rules for adult women as to what they can and cannot do and who they can and cannot talk to, etc?

Do you like to be treated and spoken to as though you were 2 years of age?


Well of course. Why else would we tell our children to not touch a hot stove? So we can blame them for being burned of course!

The open wide fault in your ridiculous logic is that you are even comparing the two.

You are demanding that women be treated like small children.


Well not really. I just don't wish to have to clean their burnt skin from my stove top.

Now perhaps you can tell the class Wynn, why women must now be treated like 2 year old's and rules be laid down for them as though they were toddlers?

Because that wouldn't be controlling, would it?

It seems that you are simply unable or unwilling to understand well-meaning advice.

 

[wynn]

Because what we have in this thread are men, demanding that women act or behave a certain way to stop themselves from being raped and then having the cheek to declare it as being liberating.
/.../
But at its core, it is not the woman's responsibility to prevent herself from being raped. If she is placed in that situation, then it is her call on how she reacts. What she should not do is react as men want or demand she reacts, which is exactly what is going on this this thread.
/..../
So again, how can a woman avoid being assaulted or raped in her own home by a man known to her? How does she prevent it? And why should she be held responsible for the actions of another against her person?
/.../
By your logic, if she is raped and 'loses', then to apply your twisted argument, she obviously failed and has lost.
/.../
Not at all. My issue stems from so called "preventionists" who expect and demand that women be responsible for not being raped. That women act a certain way or do certain things to prevent being raped, when the reality is that that is not always possible. Because it is about control. Keep women afraid of rape and ensure she adheres to certain behaviours and actions..

And this is all in your mind.

Nobody here in this thread demands women not to be raped.

If a person doesn't care about whether they get raped or not, that is their prerogative.

Great, Bells, you are willing to get yourself raped or killed in the name of protecting your beliefs.
Few people are willing to do that.
More powah to you!

No Wynn. Where did I say that?

I said if faced with the choice of death or rape, I'd pick rape because I would rather live.

And that is something women are told at self defense courses. The primary goal is survival at all cost. There is no expectation or demand that women must prevent their own rape. Because the main message is always '"No matter what you do or don't do, it is not your fault.".. but hey, rape apologists expect and no, demand that women fight back. Not all women can and such expectations is another form of control.. As though women who do not share responsibility or have somehow failed.

And that to me is disgusting.

Clearly, you are averse to any and all precautionary measures that a person may take.

 

[wynn]

And?

Then why are you averse to precautionary measures as taught in various seminars?

The thing with rape prevention theory that is being sold here in this thread is that women are somehow expected to be responsible for preventing the actions of another person.

You are the one expecting that.

Your freakish argument throughout this thread have been that women must curb their behaviour and live their lives a certain way if they don't want to be raped.

That's not "freakish," it's realistic.

Just like people need to "curb their behavior and live their lives a certain way" if they want to get and keep a job, stay relatively healthy, have a family and friends etc. etc.

Everything in this world comes at the cost of "curbing one's behavior and live one's life a certain way."

And the manner in which you ask about whether I would rather be raped or be right and the frankly obscene comments and arguments used by you in this thread shows that you do think a woman who behaves a certain way is somehow asking for it or wanting it to happen to her.

You are the one interpreting it that way.

Even this question shows just how desperately you are grasping at straws and kind of pathetically submissive if you ask me. Who are you trying to impress here? Why lower yourself to this kind of misogyny?

Actually, and this may come as a surprise, you are the misogynist here.

You'd rather that women be helpless idiots than try to do things to improve their situation.

At what point do we get to stop living our lives based solely on the actions of men? No, really, when?

For you, this is apparently when there are none around left on planet Earth or in this Universe.

 

[wynn]

At what point do we get to stop living our lives based solely on the actions of men? No, really, when?

What is this really about, Bells?

Are you angry with yourself for feeling so irresistibly attracted to men?

Are you upset that your notions of normalcy are such that they put you at the mercy of men?


And now you're taking this out on people on the internet?

 

[quinnsong]

I have been following this thread for a few days now and I have pondered both sides of this debate. Rape is the rapists fault(man) so let man fix it! Men not women need to got to rape seminars, how to prevent yourself from raping classes, you do not have to rape to feel you have power and are still in control classes, her vagina is not your watering hole classes, she is drunk so she wants me classes, she is wearing that bikini because she wants some classes, boy that baby in that crib sure does turn me on classes and so on and so forth.....


Patriarchal societies has placed this onus squarely on womens' backs and the prevention argument is another way of saying in the words of a Bruce Hornsby song, That's Just the Way It Is.

 

[quinnsong]

I am serious break down the specific circumstances of the rape and depending on why, what, who and where send the rapist to very specific classes, along with their prison sentences of course. If it is especially violent I recommend the method in A Clockwork Orange!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What is this really about, Bells? Are you angry with yourself for feeling so irresistibly attracted to men? Are you upset that your notions of normalcy are such that they put you at the mercy of men? And now you're taking this out on people on the internet?

No one can make a discussion more utterly, uselessly, pointlessly, unbelievably personal than Wynn. When she can't disprove the message she will invariably attack the messenger.

Bells's point is well made. Even in its most enlightened corners, Western civilization is still a phallocracy. In this country, a woman would have to set up a self-sufficient survivalist hideout in the remotest corner of Arizona, in the process forgoing 99% of the benefits of civilization, in order not to have to ask herself some version of the question "How are the men who run things going to feel about what I'm doing now?" at least once a day.

Right now, in the USA, men are making decisions about women's reproductive rights. And over in Rome, the world's most famous Holy Phallocracy is ready to step in and discipline American nuns for expressing a woman's point of view on current issues. Women still make less money than men do for the same job. They're a zillion times more likely to wind up as single parents than men are.

And yes, they're far more likely to be raped. The only place where men are raped often enough to comprise a meaningful statistic is in our prisons, where there simply aren't any women to do it to.

I'm not ashamed to be male because I try to improve women's lives whenever I have a chance, from the parlor to the office to the street to the voting booth. But some of my fellow men make me so angry that I can understand how hard it is not to become a typical male and solve a problem with violence. It's probably only my sense of irony that rescues me.

 

[billvon]

I have been following this thread for a few days now and I have pondered both sides of this debate. Rape is the rapists fault(man) so let man fix it! Men not women need to got to rape seminars, how to prevent yourself from raping classes, you do not have to rape to feel you have power and are still in control classes, her vagina is not your watering hole classes, she is drunk so she wants me classes, she is wearing that bikini because she wants some classes, boy that baby in that crib sure does turn me on classes and so on and so forth.....

Does that mean that you do not consider the possibility of assault at all in anything you do in your life?

Do you ever lock your door, for example? If you do lock your door, does that make you feel like if you are assaulted in your home, it will be your fault?