Rape and the "Civilized" World

[parmalee]

So ... which "family" notion are you referring to? The decay of parental consent? The decline of coverture? The rise of love and choice? Women out of the workplace? The sexual-slave marriage of Ernest R. Groves? The Long Decade, June Cleaver/Harriet Nelson family?

The importance of the family unit is well established; indeed, it is an anthropological and evolutionary outcome, not a political slogan. But there remains the question of how one defines family.

Parmalee has offered identifiable boundaries to the critique of the family, but we have no such markers from you.

It would behoove you, LG, to take some time to consider what your slogans and quips actually mean.

No, really. It would help you make a point if you had one to make in the first palce.

See, I think he has done so--though not necessarily within the confines of this thread, but certainly elsewhere (as in the thread from 2007 to which you linked). But he's making a concerted effort to bury this. And that's what it really bothering me right now.

I like to think I'm an open book: I wear my influences and my own take on, well, pretty much everything on my sleeve. (Is that how that expression goes? I have a lot of trouble expressions of this sort). Accordingly, I bare my biases and presuppositions--whether sane, sound, founded or completely unfounded. I just like honesty and straightforwardness, whether I like what I hear or not--and whether what I say makes me sound a nutter or not.

My take on "family" is unquestionably informed not only by personal experience (not good, obviously), as well as from a range of wordsmiths--from R.D. Laing to Wilhelm Reich to Paul Shepard to the Stanley Diamond, Pierre Clastres, David Graeber types. Take it or leave it, call me a nutter or a naive "idealist" (of sorts). I don't care.

I just wish LG would do the same. He needn't even type it all out again, just give us some links or copy-pasta. Context is everything, and without it we're bound to speculate til our faces turn blue. Red herring or not, that's just a rhetorical tool and the reality is these so-called "red herrings" are by no means extraneous bits or dead ends; they're ofttimes the missing puzzle piece which enable to reader at least a glimpse of the full picture.

 

[lightgigantic]

First, please note that I specified a particular conception of the "family unit":

Communism and the Family

The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

Shall I go on?

If you are trying to say something about parenting in the 21st century and its associated influences, I guess so ...

Also, though not ordinarily regarded as "civilizations" owing to imperialist and technologist bias, traditional hunter-gatherer bands, pastoral nomadic societies, et al do NOT by any means embrace such rigid conceptions of "family" as do your ilk--moreover, they tend to be far more egalitarian and have far fewer problems with violent crimes such as rape.

perhaps we can discuss this in a thread titled "rape and the uncivilized world"
:shrug:

Sure, to a degree. My point was simply that I am far less immersed in and enthralled by this technological society.

even if we want to take your self-assessment on face value, the best you could say is that you are marginally less immersed immersed in it.

When you get sick, do you visit a doctor?
When you have ownership/residence issues (rental agreements, etc ), do you follow them via lawyers and their associated bodies?
Is your water handled by state/local municipality?
Do you buy your grains through a supermarket?
Do you drive a car?
Do you have a bank account?
Do you own a phone?
etc etc

 

[James R]

I'm up to the part of this thread where lightgigantic recommends that women not hang around deserted railway stations in the middle of the night, in order to avoid being raped.

As it happens, it is not my habit to visit deserted railway stations in the middle of the night either. Being male, my primary fear is not rape in this case; it is the possibility of being assaulted by some drunken lout (and maybe his mates, too) who is bored and thinks it might be fun to mug somebody.

But you know what? Rather than my having to avoid visiting railway stations that might have some dodgy denizens, I'd actually prefer it if the railway stations were made safe in the first place. How? Well, there are a lot of possibilities. There are the band-aid patch solutions, such as having police or security patrols on stations. There are crime deterrence measures such as installing extra lighting and/or CCTV. Looking beyond that, we could start addressing the alcohol and drug problems that people have - not by more police and punishment, which comes after the damage is already done, but by viewing problems with alcohol and drugs as health problems. We could also take some of the directionless louts off the streets by addressing some of the root causes of loutdom, like poverty and lack of education. This might involve educating people that it's not good to be violent towards others or to steal from them, for instance.

What I'd like to ask lightgigantic and wynn and the others is: why should all the responsibility for preventing rape be put onto potential victims? Isn't rape a social problem that we can all do something about?

To compare, why should I have to be so careful when I walk past that railway station at night? Why does my society put up with violent thugs hanging around train stations at night? Why are those violent thugs there, and why are they violent? Isn't it their problem, and not mine?

 

[parmalee]

even if we want to take your self-assessment on face value, the best you could say is that you are marginally less immersed immersed in it.

When you get sick, do you visit a doctor?

No. Havent' been to a doctor in 25 years.

When you have ownership/residence issues (rental agreements, etc ), do you follow them via lawyers and their associated bodies?

No. I've lived outdoors for most of my adult life: BLM land, National Forests, etc. I don't "own" property.

Is your water handled by state/local municipality?

No.

Do you buy your grains through a supermarket?

On occassion.

Do you drive a car?

No. Although I lived in a van on two different occasions over the past two decades.

[qDo you have a bank account?

No.

Do you own a phone?

Oh yeah, forgot that one--I have a ten year old cell phone that does nothing but make/take calls and tells time (sometimes).

Perhaps not so marginal, eh?
-----

Actually though, I'm making a broader point here, in reference to Wynn's bizarre post #520:

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

Thing is, my whole life I've been called an "ascetic," even a "masochist," but the reality is I'm not any sort of renunciate: I just don't like stuff and I've got peculiar notions about what constitutes "comfort" and a "good time." I'm perfectly happy and comfortable having very little, or almost nothing--and I don't even wear warm clothing when it's cold. To each their own, you know?

Moreover, I couldn't care less what anyone else does so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I kinda get the impression that you might be overly concerned as to what others do, regardless of whether or not it has an impact upon the lives and well-being of others. Which brings us back to my point about suspecting an ulterior motive here, an underlying "moral" agenda.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm up to the part of this thread where lightgigantic recommends that women not hang around deserted railway stations in the middle of the night, in order to avoid being raped.

make sure you don't forget the "after a night of drinking bit too" ... which seems to be something practically everyone has conveniently left out ...

What I'd like to ask lightgigantic and wynn and the others is: why should all the responsibility for preventing rape be put onto potential victims? Isn't rape a social problem that we can all do something about?

I didn't say all.
I said, at least as far as practical endeavors go, taking personal precautions for one's own safety will always be far more popular and empowering than trying to get potentially criminal elements to curb their behavior ... what to speak of the absurdity of sacrificing such personal endeavors for the sake of furthering the program of victim advocacy (an approach that you don't find illustrated in any profesional body that addresses the issue btw ...)

To compare, why should I have to be so careful when I walk past that railway station at night? Why does my society put up with violent thugs hanging around train stations at night? Why are those violent thugs there, and why are they violent? Isn't it their problem, and not mine?

But at the same time, are you willing to disband your capacity to prevent falling victim to them in order to martyr yourself for the moral high ground .... or do you feel that dealing with the problem of violent thugs is somehow inhibited by you taking personal measures to protect your own safety?

 

[wynn]

What I'd like to ask lightgigantic and wynn and the others is: why should all the responsibility for preventing rape be put onto potential victims?

The working assumption is that people generally prefer not to be assaulted, raped, robbed etc.
So it's not about blaming the potential victim, but simply people themselves preferring to see to it that they avoid harm as much as possible.
Surely you already do the same thing, like most people do anyway.

Isn't rape a social problem that we can all do something about?

Sure.

But in the meantime, should women (and men, since men get raped too) pretend that we are living in a perfectly safe society already, give up all precautionary measures, and endure the occasional rape?

To compare, why should I have to be so careful when I walk past that railway station at night? Why does my society put up with violent thugs hanging around train stations at night? Why are those violent thugs there, and why are they violent? Isn't it their problem, and not mine?

If they hurt you, it becomes your problem.

And it's a problem you can predict and often do something about it.

 

[wynn]

Actually though, I'm making a broader point here, in reference to Wynn's bizarre post #520:

Thing is, my whole life I've been called an "ascetic," even a "masochist," but the reality is I'm not any sort of renunciate: I just don't like stuff and I've got peculiar notions about what constitutes "comfort" and a "good time." I'm perfectly happy and comfortable having very little, or almost nothing--and I don't even wear warm clothing when it's cold. To each their own, you know?

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly possible to be an ascetic and a materialist at the same time.

That post was aimed specifically at LG, and he knows exactly what I mean.

Moreover, I couldn't care less what anyone else does so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I kinda get the impression that you might be overly concerned as to what others do, regardless of whether or not it has an impact upon the lives and well-being of others. Which brings us back to my point about suspecting an ulterior motive here, an underlying "moral" agenda.

A side-effect of engaging in a discussion is that it may give rise to impressions that were not intended by the poster.
So it can be that some posters here interpret the persistence of other posters as evidence of an ulterior motive - as opposed to simply as continuing to participate in a discussion, clarifying points.

 

[parmalee]

perhaps we can discuss this in a thread titled "rape and the uncivilized world"
:shrug:

So are you suggesting that societies in which egalitarianism is the norm, rape is infrequent, and which are "governed" largely by principles of equality, fraternity, and liberty are uncivilized?!

 

[parmalee]

A side-effect of engaging in a discussion is that it may give rise to impressions that were not intended by the poster.
So it can be that some posters here interpret the persistence of other posters as evidence of an ulterior motive - as opposed to simply as continuing to participate in a discussion, clarifying points.

Sure, but--as has been noted--a person's history precedes them. And links have been provided (by Tiassa, I believe, on the preceding page or the one before that) which support this interpretation. A person can't say one thing in one thread and then something else in another, and pretend that what they had said previously has absolutely no bearing upon what they are saying now.

Unless they wish to state that they have since changed their mind, as regards what they had said previously.

 

[wynn]

Sure, but--as has been noted--a person's history precedes them. And links have been provided (by Tiassa, I believe, on the preceding page or the one before that) which support this interpretation. A person can't say one thing in one thread and then something else in another, and pretend that what they had said previously has absolutely no bearing upon what they are saying now. Unless they wish to state that they have since changed their mind, as regards what they had said previously.

I think the crux of the matter here is that myself, LG, Bill, wellwisher and scifes are pointing out something that is so obvious that it should go without saying, namely that it is a no-brainer that people watch out for themselves, looking after themselves.
And yet some posters find this downright pathological, criminal.
It's not clear why they do so, given that they most likely watch out for themselves too, just like most other people.

 

[Bells]

make sure you don't forget the "after a night of drinking bit too" ... which seems to be something practically everyone has conveniently left out ...

So..

1) Don't drink.
2) Don't go out at night.
3) Don't talk back.
4) Don't wear clothes that might attract the attention of someone who may or may not rape you.
5) Don't catch trains at night.
6) Be prepared for any man in your vicinity turning out to be a rapist.
7) Avoid staying alone in the company of a male.
8) From Wynn's argument - avoid having sex in general or enjoying sex.

What a way to live one's life.

Is bacon allowed? Or might the smell of bacon near one's person also possibly attract a rapist?

 

[Bells]

I think the crux of the matter here is that myself, LG, Bill, wellwisher and scifes are pointing out something that is so obvious that it should go without saying, namely that it is a no-brainer that people watch out for themselves, looking after themselves.
And yet some posters find this downright pathological, criminal.
It's not clear why they do so, given that they most likely watch out for themselves too, just like most other people.

You identified women as being the problem in rape.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Really?

 

[Tiassa]

Weekly Dose

I think the crux of the matter here is that myself, LG, Bill, wellwisher and scifes are pointing out something that is so obvious that it should go without saying, namely that it is a no-brainer that people watch out for themselves, looking after themselves.
And yet some posters find this downright pathological, criminal.
It's not clear why they do so, given that they most likely watch out for themselves too, just like most other people.

What confuses you is your own rabid arrogance.

If we are to take your post seriously, then the crux of the matter is that yourself, LG, Bill, and Wellwisher are utter morons°. Specifically, what you're claiming is that it is not clear to you why people say something they don't say, that would happen to be in opposition to what they actually said.

Last month, both you and LG tried to make this about personal issues; LG ducked points complaining that there were too many words for him to figure out, and you tried diverting a question by complaining:

"You have a long history of dislike for LG (and myself, and anyone who is not part of your camp) ...."​

I can tell you this much: When you compare adult women to two year-olds, people aren't going to think well of you. When you disregard what people say in order to tilt windmills and complain, people aren't going to think well of you. When you whine and troll because you don't actually know what's going on in the discussion, people aren't going to think well of you. And for certain, when your response to the issue of how to alter the ideas and outlooks that empower the rape phenomenon is to prescribe open-ended prevention theories for women, people aren't going to think well of you.

Are you noticing the trend here?

That I find the character you play here loathsome is independent of the fact that you are factually and morally wrong in this discussion.

So let's try the point I raised with LG, and which you went out of your way to invoke in order to dodge (and he faithfully followed your example):

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

Or perhaps you might answer a straightforward question for once: What is the outer boundary of this prevention theory? Of those in "your camp", only Billvon has attempted a response, and the proposition that prevention ends when a woman decides she's comfortable with being raped ... well, it isn't exactly helpful. But you and LG? Who complain that ... er ... well, I can't say it nearly as well as you did:

"And in the meantime, do you think that the best women can do is just behave as if there are no dangers anywhere, and thus endure the occasional rape?"​

See, when you make up shit out of thin air and then ask people to justify your twisted fantasies, people aren't going to think well of you.

But do give it a try. Ask her the question: "Bells, I don't think you're being fair. Why aren't you mad at Iceaura and Tiassa like you are at LG and me for suggesting women undertake precautionary measures?"

Try it. You might find it a helpful perspective to account for. And it's relatively safe, too; the only thing you can hurt by being honest is your own ego.
____________________

Notes:

° yourself, LG, Bill, and Wellwisher are utter morons — I omit Scifes because, while the outlook he advocates is certainly problematic, he at least has the courage to be honest about it; see #491.

 

[lightgigantic]

So..

1) Don't drink.
2) Don't go out at night.
3) Don't talk back.
4) Don't wear clothes that might attract the attention of someone who may or may not rape you.
5) Don't catch trains at night.
6) Be prepared for any man in your vicinity turning out to be a rapist.
7) Avoid staying alone in the company of a male.
8) From Wynn's argument - avoid having sex in general or enjoying sex.

What a way to live one's life.

Is bacon allowed? Or might the smell of bacon near one's person also possibly attract a rapist?

yet we don't see any of those recommendations arising from professional academics on the subject (who's views, in turn, tend to be endorsed by a host of organizations providing grass roots sort of awareness, education and advocacy on the subject).

Infact the only persons advocating such recommendations are persons who actually have a strong agenda against prevention advocacy.
Strawman much?

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

yet we don't see any of those recommendations arising from professional academics on the subject (who's views, in turn, tend to be endorsed by a host of organizations providing grass roots sort of awareness, education and advocacy on the subject).

Infact the only persons advocating such recommendations are persons who actually have a strong agenda against prevention advocacy.
Strawman much?

:shrug:

Considering you are the one saying to not drink, to not go out at night, linking to sites that say to not talk back, etc.. I have to wonder who you think you are fooling here?

Backtracking much LG?

 

[lightgigantic]

So are you suggesting that societies in which egalitarianism is the norm, rape is infrequent, and which are "governed" largely by principles of equality, fraternity, and liberty are uncivilized?!

I am saying that those societies are practically extinct.

call it social darwinism, a negative consequence of industrial expansion or whatever, but hunter gatherer societies are more a subject of ancient history than models for developing current social models or communities.

You will find that most alternative communities (ie communities that entertain the value of being dis-associated from the mainstream through very rudimentary channels eg - health, education, finance, technology and sustenance) in western society are short lived and its rare to encounter more than one successive generation. IOW the very nature of raising children or looking after elderly people presents such pressing needs that it is rare for an alternative community to have the tools to cater for their needs, interests and concerns (exceptions that come to mind are the amish - who are technically not hunter-gathers but agrarian, and perhaps to a lesser extent - on account of their loose and varied philosophy regarding incorporating aspects of western trappings .. like casinos, navaho reservations and the like).

 

[lightgigantic]

Considering you are the one saying to not drink, to not go out at night, linking to sites that say to not talk back, etc.. I have to wonder who you think you are fooling here?

Backtracking much LG?

Well slobber chops, considering you are yet to find a quote where I or even a site I link says that, I have to wonder who you think you are fooling with these imaginative accusations .... (aside from the same people who have the same vested interest in driving your strawman home)
:shrug:

 

[scifes]

You're obviously both wrong because you're both right.

Um, if we're not talking about date rape anymore then wynn's post #650 really resonates with me.

I do kinda understand that what Bells et alD) are pushing for is that the out-loud acknowledgement of the victim's lack of |extra unwarranted| precaution, in the context of blame for the crime, will reinforce and support the idea that men are less to blame if the women they rape enticed them by being sexy. Which will lead to more rape, or less freedoms for women.

So even though the blame for carelessness may DO exist, it should not be bringed to the upfront, or even uttered.
Because then people would construct a two side scale of sexiness vs danger of rape, and people would see women walking around the street with their scales above their heads, "Oh look at how that lady is so sexy and sultry, she must not give a damn whether she gets raped or not", "Oh look at how modest that lady is, she must have some real regard for her safety". Once men and women start thinking that way, men would dare rape more, and other men and women would excuse the victim less.
So, Bells et al are trying to abolish, destroy, disintegrate and burn that scale, so that nobody would ever use it again.

Is it ok to take the victim aside, after beating the rapist to near an inch of his life and locking him up, and whisper in her ear, "I'm sorry darling this happened to you, I will do everything I can to make that guy's life miserable, and to prevent this from happening again to other women. But -and I'm saying this out of care for you- if you were my daughter, I wouldn't have let you go out with that outfit.", can we say that or not?
Can we add a touch of extra blame on the victim for carelessness? Blame unrelated to the blame on the criminal, blame which would be omitted if the victim has taken all reasonably imaginable safety precautions?
Or is all blame a single pie, and whatever small piece we give the victim, it was supposed to be the criminal's share, which is the whole pie?

This is all if you guys really want to understand each other and give it a rest, which I don't think you do.

Personally? I LOVE the two side scale , I love the sexiness for rape tradeoff, I treasure modesty, and love that kid with the "you deserve rape" sign, basically cuz he's saying it on the street and not on an online forum. I hate slutty attention whore whores, who revel in the idea that guys are getting erections upon sight of them, finding daily purpose in the filthy adortion they get, appealing to guys' dicks instead of their brains, using skin as their cheap shortcut to social desirability. And those dumb enough to be oblivious to said erections? who only see innocent admiration in the looks of carnal hunger? I hate their stupidity even more.
Aaanyway, I don't really hate the world that much. But that rant felt good, my personal radical POV.

What I really do? Avert my gaze. Does it work? Lets just say it's harder in some countries than others.
You may relate to this guy's account more.

 

[Bells]

Um, if we're not talking about date rape anymore then wynn's post #650 really resonates with me.

I do kinda understand that what Bells et alD) are pushing for is that the out-loud acknowledgement of the victim's lack of |extra unwarranted| precaution, in the context of blame for the crime, will reinforce and support the idea that men are less to blame if the women they rape enticed them by being sexy. Which will lead to more rape, or less freedoms for women.

So even though the blame for carelessness may DO exist, it should not be bringed to the upfront, or even uttered.
Because then people would construct a two side scale of sexiness vs danger of rape, and people would see women walking around the street with their scales above their heads, "Oh look at how that lady is so sexy and sultry, she must not give a damn whether she gets raped or not", "Oh look at how modest that lady is, she must have some real regard for her safety". Once men and women start thinking that way, men would dare rape more, and other men and women would excuse the victim less.
So, Bells et al are trying to abolish, destroy, disintegrate and burn that scale, so that nobody would ever use it again.

Is it ok to take the victim aside, after beating the rapist to near an inch of his life and locking him up, and whisper in her ear, "I'm sorry darling this happened to you, I will do everything I can to make that guy's life miserable, and to prevent this from happening again to other women. But -and I'm saying this out of care for you- if you were my daughter, I wouldn't have let you go out with that outfit.", can we say that or not?
Can we add a touch of extra blame on the victim for carelessness? Blame unrelated to the blame on the criminal, blame which would be omitted if the victim has taken all reasonably imaginable safety precautions?
Or is all blame a single pie, and whatever small piece we give the victim, it was supposed to be the criminal's share, which is the whole pie?

This is all if you guys really want to understand each other and give it a rest, which I don't think you do.

Personally? I LOVE the two side scale , I love the sexiness for rape tradeoff, I treasure modesty, and love that kid with the "you deserve rape" sign, basically cuz he's saying it on the street and not on an online forum. I hate slutty attention whore whores, who revel in the idea that guys are getting erections upon sight of them, finding daily purpose in the filthy adortion they get, appealing to guys' dicks instead of their brains, using skin as their cheap shortcut to social desirability. And those dumb enough to be oblivious to said erections? who only see innocent admiration in the looks of carnal hunger? I hate their stupidity even more.
Aaanyway, I don't really hate the world that much. But that rant felt good, my personal radical POV.

What I really do? Avert my gaze. Does it work? Lets just say it's harder in some countries than others.
You may relate to this guy's account more.

Wow..

I actually feel embarrassed for you.

How does it feel to be such a hateful, sexist, misogynistic and uneducated, socially backward twat?

 

[parmalee]

I am saying that those societies are practically extinct.

call it social darwinism, a negative consequence of industrial expansion or whatever, but hunter gatherer societies are more a subject of ancient history than models for developing current social models or communities.

You will find that most alternative communities (ie communities that entertain the value of being dis-associated from the mainstream through very rudimentary channels eg - health, education, finance, technology and sustenance) in western society are short lived and its rare to encounter more than one successive generation. IOW the very nature of raising children or looking after elderly people presents such pressing needs that it is rare for an alternative community to have the tools to cater for their needs, interests and concerns (exceptions that come to mind are the amish - who are technically not hunter-gathers but agrarian, and perhaps to a lesser extent - on account of their loose and varied philosophy regarding incorporating aspects of western trappings .. like casinos, navaho reservations and the like).

That's better.

Nevertheless, "family" is hardly a static concept even within--or rather, I should say especially within--something as far-reaching as "Western society." I've lived in Navajo Nation, and spent a fair amount of time traveling through, over the years, and I've often noted that there are two other places one can visit that share a whole lot with Navajo culture; namely, Sweden and Finland. No, I don't stay in a hogan when in Sweden (nor do I always in Navajo land--they tend to keep those place unbelievably fucking hot); I'm referring to other attributes, many of which pertain to familial concerns.

And while I don't wish to downplay the gradual genocide of hunter-gather and pastoral societies, they are, in fact, far more abundant than most are inclined to think--a lot of them, the Tarahumara come immediately to mind, make a concerted effort to avoid any and all contact with the other world (including the taking of censuses (censi?))--for obvious reasons. But my point regarding the Swedes and Finns (among others) is not only that "family" is not a uniform notion, but that some cultures--even Western ones--have successfully incorporated other models, even over a long multi-generational term, which may or may not be in emulation of non-industrialized societies. And when considering the cultural antecedents and influences of Sweden and Finland, one cannot preclude influence of the latter.