Rape and the "Civilized" World

[scifes]

Re: Date Rape

The question of "playing hard to get" is a relic of an older time that has not yet died a dignified death. It comes from the time when women were expected to be wives and mothers exclusively; they "played hard to get" in order to not simply give over to the first suitor who arrived. This was a time when marriage was utilitarian, not romantic; a woman's place was as a cog in her husband's larger function.

However, the question of "playing hard to get" pertains to the right of courtship, the exclusivity one claims when entering a relationship with another. It does not pertain to the right to get laid.

In the twenty-first century, "playing hard to get" is nothing more than a marketplace demonstration. You can certainly be charming, intelligent, and kindly, but if she's looking forward to spending the rest of her life cleaning up after your lazy ass, well, there are better competitors on the market.

From a more liberal perspective, the issue recently arose when a feminist at an Ivy League institution told female college students they should find a husband now. After the first shockwave passed, the professor offered a radio interview in which she explained she was making an odds-based argument instead of a moral assignation. That is, if a woman intends to marry, she will not have a better marketplace than while she is in college.

We liberals get it, but the basic objection at that point is that a woman should not simply be destined for marriage.

We're in a different world, now. In its former day, courtship was a prelude to marriage. Now it's a recreation. The purpose has changed, and therefore the rules change, too.

In the U.S., and I would imagine Canada, England, Australia, and other such nations, courtship is not restricted to marital prelude.

While I agree that courtship nowadays does not always lead to marriage, and that it's done for the fun of it sometimes.
I disagree however, that "playing hard to get" is extinct, or that utilitarian and romantic marriages are mutually exclusive.

Playing hard to get? It's one thing to say, "If you're going to try to romance me, you're going to have to compete." But it's quite another to say that extends to conjugal privilege.

But doesn't it?

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

I didn't really get this part.

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

I find what you're saying strongly out of context when we're dealing with a crime that women are the (more or less) only victim of.

Note:
I raked through my youtube history to bring you this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3ruCaxXrwE

 

[scifes]

Wow..

I actually feel embarrassed for you.

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

:roflmao:
*cough cough*
It feels liberating
But I do have my doubts sometimes.

 

[Tiassa]

Reality and Change

While I agree that courtship nowadays does not always lead to marriage, and that it's done for the fun of it sometimes.
I disagree however, that "playing hard to get" is extinct, or that utilitarian and romantic marriages are mutually exclusive.

No, it's not extinct, and no, marital utility and romance are not mutually exclusive.

But playing hard to get is, as I said, a relic of older times; understanding the dynamic requires a modicum of comprehension about history and psychology. In a society where women are not simply baubles to be traded away for the purposes of gathering in-laws (i.e., fortune and influence), evading the immediate charms in favor of better potential while holding it close enough to remain accessible is a complicated trick that is becoming more stylish than necessary.

But doesn't it?

No.

I mean, certes we might devise some exceptions to the notion here and there, such as within established relationships, but the practical answer is straightforward: No. They are two separate issues.

I didn't really get this part.

Okay, I'm going to introduce a term here that I absolutely loathe. The thing is that the term describes a myth, but an incredibly potent one.

The statistical reality of rape suggests that these "prevention" techniques will only address a slender minority of incidents. You might have noticed my repeated complaint that this prevention theory is "unbounded" or "open-ended". And that's the problem. In order for "prevention" techniques to apply to the vast majority of rapes, they must be constructed and deployed against the men closest to a woman—husbands, boyfriends, fathers, friends, co-workers, neighbors, &c. This is the root of suggestions about women needing to be invisible, and references to the burqua; the "prevention" program becomes all-consuming.

But there is an idea present in many of these seeming rape advocacy arguments that nobody likes to touch, because the term is repugnant: accidental rape.

The idea is that most rapes—marital, date, acquaintance—occur because of something the woman did wrong. It's why people argue about what she was wearing, or how much she drank; how was the poor guy supposed to know that "no means no"? It's a way of sympathizing with the rapist: Hey, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone! I didn't know I was raping her!

I noted to a friend last week:

There is no accidental rape; what prevention advocates are forestalling is a discussion of the circumstances and ideas outlining a "gray area" that shouldn't be there to begin with. There is no accidental rape; what prevention advocates are forestalling is a discussion of the circumstances and ideas outlining a "gray area" that shouldn't be there to begin with.​

One can certainly suggest that "men have a vested interest in protecting the 'accidental rapist'", but I think the more important point here is that if women followed this open-ended prevention protocol, men would find themselves in a world where social spheres are segregated according to the sexes.

In the States, we have what is sometimes derided as the "meat market"—we call the institutions "singles bars", where unmarried people go to hook up socially, sexually, or whatever. And, yes, the term is disparaging, but one thing many feminists will agree with many philistines about is that the meat market is disgusting.

However, there is another aspect to this worth considering.

When I lived in Salem, Oregon, there were essentially three "singles" bars in town. One was a hotel lounge, another a bar at a steak house, and the third a gay bar. Over time, the gay bar became dominated by heterosexuals because the women wanted to be there. And, well, for the guys, once they realize the queer boys aren't going to hit on them, hey, anything to increase the chances of getting laid. But, what would happen if something more severe occurred? Imagine a hundred men from around town showing up at the steak house bar and finding no women at all in attendance.

This wouldn't be a problem for neighborhood pubs and heritage bars (e.g., Mike's Chili Parlor in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle, so famous for its chili that movies have filmed there), but there are plenty of nightclubs and hookup spots around Seattle that would be run out of business.

We see how controversial the underlying implication against prevention theory is; people really resent the idea that women should be cautious of all men, though the prevention advocates cannot or will not proscribe the theory with any functional boundaries, thus leaving the question open.

But I do not think that the open-ended prevention theory would bring results that anyone would like. Well, except for the prudes and misogynists who want women back at home, barefoot and pregnant like a good wife.

I find what you're saying strongly out of context when we're dealing with a crime that women are the (more or less) only victim of.

We can shift that context some. What I expect is that a woman should have the same effective freedoms and comfort that men demand. Also, please see posts #15 and #150, two of many posts in which I describe the imbalance between set-and-forget crime prevention like locking my front door and leaving the porch light on, or putting a club lock on my steering wheel, and the implications of unbounded prevention theory.

• Most effective prevention technique against marital rape — Don't get married.

• Most effective prevention technique against date rape — Don't accept invitations for dates.

• Most effective way to prevent a man from thinking a woman is leading him on — Don't talk to men at all.​

In the U.S., at least, men wouldn't like this sort of situation at all. I mean, there's even a Lysistrata joke in there somewhere, but it gets convoluted without the necessary subtext.

And I would ask you to take a look at the prevention advocacy in this thread. The advocates resent the three points I noted above, but also refuse to establish an affirmative boundary for their theory.

Think of it in terms of other crimes. A point I sometimes make in the firearms discussion is that a handgun isn't necessarily going to protect me insofar as a proper sniper could put me down regardless of the handgun; if someone really wants to kill me, they'll find a way.

So let me strap on my flak jacket and helmet, and lock and load. Oh, well, I haven't properly prevented the sniper shooting me in the face, throat, or leg. Okay, let me get a full riot suit to protect myself. The thing that sucks is that right after I checked to make sure my car wasn't rigged with a bomb, I got blown up, anyway, when the bad guy hit me with an RPG.

At what point does that whole consideration get crazy? For me, it's the flak jacket and helmet. Indeed, I'm so unconcerned with my safety that I (gasp!) don't own a gun. (Of course, something about "risk assessment" goes here, for the benefit of others, since that firearm I would have if I was so concerned with my safety is more likely to hurt me or someone close to me than actually stop a crime.)

But, yes, at some point, the precaution against being murdered achieves a disruptive and dysfunctional crisis point of obsession. That kind of worry about being shot so disrupts and degrades normal social function that it would be considered a mental illness.

Yet, when it comes to men and their flesh-rifles, we keep encountering this amorphous prevention theory that seems to demand women willfully adopt that mental illness so that men don't have to think about things they might be doing wrong.

An example is noted in the topic post, sort of. Read through the part about CNN. The network could have answered the criticism of its Steubenville coverage—the tragedy of the rapists' lives being disrupted—with any number of logical points, but they chose not to. More than the coverage itself, what indicts CNN in this case is their response. They had an out, but didn't take it.

As a personal reflection, I might consider a pub just down the street from my house. I adore it because it's run by a beer aficionado; there is no Budweiser or Miller to be found—only good beer. As to the bar scene in general, though, I gave up on the pick-up game a long time ago, which is fine since I was never any good at it, anyway. I should note, as such, that I have had "better luck" when not worrying about it.

But these days, meeting potential dates and mates is not on the list of reasons I go drinking.

However, a strange thing has been happening in recent years. It's not that I've never known women who enjoyed beer, but female bräufans of a certain degree have proven a pleasant surprise to me. Was it a sexist expectation? Probably, but I got over it when reality informed me otherwise. As such, the fun of sitting around and discussing the ins and outs of beer with fellow drinkers at the pub has been enriched. These days, I cannot imagine the discussion without women playing along. Lager or ale? IPA or ESB? Flavored beers? And what's with those sour beers? Was a time when that sort of beer talk was just a cock fight the way some guys might one-up each other about car engines or guns. But when you get into a discussion of better bitters with a woman, well, it's suddenly not a cock fight. And the men? Well, their discussion has improved, too.

The female beer aficionado has enriched my life without even a kiss.

Do I really want to give up that enrichment simply because a woman needs to be cautious about which guy in the bar is going to try to rape her? Do you really want to give up friendships with women because it is their responsibility to make sure you don't try to rape them?

Is that really the world we want?

When I'm sitting at the pub, talking brews with people, I don't have a fear in the world that one of them would try to rape me. Women have the right to the same expectation.

Reality is what reality is, but we will never change that reality if, as prevention advocates seem to want, we simply surrender to it.

 

[Balerion]

That's a great post.

 

[parmalee]

@ Scifes:

One thing that you seem to be missing here is that while rape is a sex crime/sex act, it is not really a sexually motivated act. This confusion is widespread, and somewhat understandable--and taking into account you were raised in a very different culture, it's understandable that you might make this mistake. Nevertheless, it's incorrect.

You've already noted that most rapists don't even recall what their victims were wearing, but often enough, they don't even find their victims especially attractive. Sure, exceptions abound--especially as a significant percentage of rape victims are spouses, girlfriends, or dates of the rapist. Nevertheless, the primary motivation is seldom simply really wanting to have sex badly.

It might be helpful to consider how the term "rape" is used in other contexts, or even metaphorically. It ain't about sex, it's about intimidation, humiliation, and an exercise and display of power over another.

No one here is objecting to being cautious, learning self-defense, etc.--these are potentially effective strategies for all manners of crime; but the question is, where do you draw the line? And why is it that most of these "tactics" pertain only to a very small portion of the types of rape scenarios, and, for all intents and purposes, would be completely meaningless and ineffectual in the vast majority of rape cases?

If one were to peruse the details of a vast number of rape cases, the most effective "tactic" which emerges is also the most patently absurd: avoid contact with men altogether. So, again, where do you draw the line?

And there is the matter of instilling fear and placing limitations upon freedoms: I'm epileptic, and I'm the type who infrequently has the "obvious" types of seizures (tonic-clonic, or in my case, clonic-tonic); rather, I have the "weird" type. For reasons not entirely clear to me, cops and other "official" types in the U.S. are notoriously under-trained, and uneducated, with respect to dealing with these sorts of things. They tend to mistake such for PCP-induced berzerker behavior. I have no freakin' clue as to why that is. Would you tell me that I should consider not going out in public, for fear of getting the crap beaten out of me by cops?

Of course, besides the obvious differences between my situation and what is being discussed here, there is also this salient distinction: going out in public, having a seizure, and getting beaten up by a cop is a likely scenario, and is somewhat predictable; with rape, there are actually very few real and identifiable risk factors--other than that you are far more likely to be raped by a man than by a women.

As an aside, to Wynn's point regarding renunciates: there's quite a difference between simply choosing to do without, and choosing to do without out of fear.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

The term in these communities is not so dynamic as to move outside children being raised by a mother and father ...and even less if you want to talk of the navaho culture not being contextualized by an encroaching paradigm of technology and western culture

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.

Its probably more accurate to discuss the tarahumara, much like the navaho, as (usually underprivileged) ethnic groups within their respective countries (as evidenced by the said standing governments budgeting for their health, food and general well being) as opposed to communities evoking an alternative social influence in the regions they are situated in.

 

[theDoctor]

Actually I have to say that for the majority of human evolution we lived in groups where children were raised in groups and no two individuals were ever identified as their "parents" to the point where even things such as breast feeding and sexual activities were done communally. People did not really have any concept of monogamy and even less the idea of owning a child as their own. Because honestly in a n egalitarian omnigimous society does it really make sense to try and decide what one individual is the father of any given child? Of course not. And we know for a fact that humans never lived alone (With the exception of people who were exhiled for food hording) or even in groups much smaller than twelve or so. And we also Know that the populations of these hunter gatherer groups were predominantly older. As a matter of fact they practiced abortions to the point where only 1 in 7 children actually made it past the first year of life.

If you look into the work of Robert Sapolsky with a baboon tribe you can see how an egalitarian culture can arise in any Great Ape clan. ANd if you look into the Work of Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, you can see very clearly laid out that human have only been monogamous for the past 12,000 or so years, and before that we were simply free loving egalitarians without any societal ranking much less any individualized household structure.

As a matter of fact you dont need to look any further than Christopher Columbus' record of what the natives were like in the Carribean , how people simply walked around naked and had sex with anyone, killing children without second thoughts and not being monogamous and not knowing who was the parent of any child.

 

[parmalee]

Its probably more accurate to discuss the tarahumara, much like the navaho, as (usually underprivileged) ethnic groups within their respective countries (as evidenced by the said standing governments budgeting for their health, food and general well being) as opposed to communities evoking an alternative social influence in the regions they are situated in.

Not at all (if I am reading you correctly), and especially so for the groups mentioned. Yes, the Navajo of present are very much informed by rapidly encroaching Western influence, both literally (as in, physically) and culturally; but Navajo Nation, as the largest land mass reservation in the U.S., and with a sizable population, still manage to resist such with far greater success than do many tribes in a similar situation. For all the individuals and families who move en masse to locales like Phoenix, Albuquerque, or Flagstaff for economic opportunity, there are as many traditionalists who abide the old ways. And the aid from the federal government is a trifling pittance considered alongside what was taken away.

Aid for the Tarahumara goes pretty much entirely to those who've relocated to places like Creel; the people living in the jungles, for whom we have virtually no reliable data--even with regards to estimates of population--receive nothing. They certainly can be considered as an underprivileged ethnic group living within the nation of Mexico, but for most, the external influence (polluted air and waterways aside) is negligible.

Like I said though, I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly--would you mind rephrasing that?

 

[Tiassa]

Woman as Rape Advocate

Putting a Woman's Face on Rape Advocacy

see also #359 "Local Update"​

The background is a little complicated for those who really, really, really need to read Anna Minard's discussion of "Why Marital Rape Actually Is a Crime".

But, essentially, the state legislature passed, and the governor signed, a new law to get rid of the marital exemption in third-degree rape charges.

The lone no vote came from a Republican woman, state Senator Elizabeth Scott.

Senator Scott, who was the sole NO vote on this bill (as she likes to brag, she's a BA-holding linguist), defended her vote by saying, "This bill requires absolutely no proof that rape occurred—because there couldn't be any." Scott sent that in an e-mail to a constituent. WRONG. Totally wrong. This bill, in fact, only strikes language saying that if what occurred is legally defined as third-degree rape, then it doesn't matter whether your husband raped you or a stranger did, it's still a crime. Whether or not she believes in the existence of third-degree rape isn't actually relevant here.

"As a linguist, I hate it when words are twisted beyond recognition. Rape used to mean rape," she continued.

First: HAHAHA, WTF.

Second: "Rape" still means "rape," whatever your bullshit linguistic red herring argument is supposed to mean. "Consent" is about communication, and we're not the Borg and we're not telepathic; we have communication breakdowns. Sometimes a rape doesn't look like a made-for-TV movie with a brutal stranger accosting you in a park. Sometimes your rapist is your friend. Sometimes you've had sex before. Sometimes you feel like it's your fault. But that's why there are laws. There's a legal definition of crimes, and there are lawyers and judges and juries involved in deciding whether or not a sexual encounter is against the law. ​

And the rest of the post is just as fascinating, discussing what actually constitutes third-degree rape.

But most curious is Scott's appeal to authority. As a linguist, she recalls when rape used to mean rape. But, as Minard notes:

I took my question to David Martin, a King County prosecutor who heads the domestic violence unit. Third-degree rape is "everything short of using force," he explained. "If someone says 'no,' and you do it anyway, should that be a crime? What legislatures all over the United States have said is 'no' means 'no.'"​

So if we consider the implications for Scott's explanation, it's pretty twisted:

• "As a linguist, I hate it when words are twisted beyond recognition. Rape used to mean [rape]."

• "As a linguist, I hate it when words are twisted beyond recognition. Rape used to mean [forcing someone to have sex when they're putting up adequate physical resistance]."

• "As a linguist, I hate it when words are twisted beyond recognition. Rape used to mean [forcing someone other than your wife to have sex]."​

So what, exactly, does Scott object to? That a husband can be convicted of "raping" his wife? That it shouldn't be called rape if she doesn't fight back enough?

Seriously, this is an archaic exemption that, quite clearly, needed to be corrected. The legislature finally found a few minutes to figure out that the problem still existed, and a few more to fix it. Setting aside that this is impressive if only for the rarity of our state legislature doing anything useful, what the hell is Senator Scott's problem?

But notice her phrasing: "Rape used to mean rape". What does that even mean?

The silver lining here is that Scott's amazing stupidity puts the spotlight on the most obvious of questions:

People talk about fighting off an attacker—but is that the only way to deny consent?

"Should a victim have to fight? Do they have to use violence?" he asks rhetorically. "Or do they get to say, 'I get to do with my body what I feel is appropriate'? If you tell someone, 'You can’t come in my home, I have property rights,' if they do, they’re committing trespassing." You don't have to physically fight them for that to be a crime. Why should that be different when it comes to your body?​

Consider prosecutor Martin's question: "Should a victim have to fight? Do they have to use violence?"

Sounds familiar to me:

Think for a minute about the self-defense argument.

While, say, jiu jitsu techniques can be very useful when a situation so demands, the statistical reality is that a woman so trained in rape prevention theory is far more likely to need to use those techniques against a husband or friend than a random stranger.

Madam, you just fended off your attacker? Good on you.

Madam, your husband just assaulted you, so you had to fend him off? Well, hey, at least you fended him off.

From the outset, in this discussion, prevention advocates have attempted to steer this discussion away from the rape phenomenon itself in order to make this about women ....

.... You're demonstrating the problem:

• In order for a woman to defend herself against attack, there actually needs to be an attack taking place.​

Look at all the practical advice, all the ounces of prevention, and now all this talk about women defending themselves.

Consider the moment of assault.

• Before: Prevention measures for women including attire, questions of attendance and participation, physical and psychological training.

(1) Don't dress like a slut; don't drink, walk alone, or talk to strangers.

(2) Whatever precautions one is comfortable with in trading out the risk of being raped.​

• During: Self-defense (see prevention measures above).​

Now, what is missing from that?

• Initiation: Holy shit! Dude's attacking someone!​

"Should a victim have to fight?" asks Martin. "Do they have to use violence?"

According to some of our prevention advocates, the answer is yes.

According to Senator Scott? Well, we're not entirely sure what part of the bill she objected to, so it's hard to say. But our rape advocate neighbors can celebrate, because the just under seven-tenths of a percent of legislators in Washington who agree with them happens to be a woman. Sure, she's a woman with a linguistics degree who cannot even express herself coherently, but, hey, every little bit helps, right?
____________________

Notes:

Minard, Anna. "Why Marital Rape Actually Is a Crime". Slog. May 10, 2013. Slog.TheStranger.com. May 10, 2013. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/05/10/why-marital-rape-actually-is-a-crime

 

[lightgigantic]

Not at all (if I am reading you correctly), and especially so for the groups mentioned. Yes, the Navajo of present are very much informed by rapidly encroaching Western influence, both literally (as in, physically) and culturally; but Navajo Nation, as the largest land mass reservation in the U.S., and with a sizable population, still manage to resist such with far greater success than do many tribes in a similar situation. For all the individuals and families who move en masse to locales like Phoenix, Albuquerque, or Flagstaff for economic opportunity, there are as many traditionalists who abide the old ways. And the aid from the federal government is a trifling pittance considered alongside what was taken away.

Aid for the Tarahumara goes pretty much entirely to those who've relocated to places like Creel; the people living in the jungles, for whom we have virtually no reliable data--even with regards to estimates of population--receive nothing. They certainly can be considered as an underprivileged ethnic group living within the nation of Mexico, but for most, the external influence (polluted air and waterways aside) is negligible.

Like I said though, I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly--would you mind rephrasing that?

I am saying that they are not "leading the way" as far as effecting alternative social models go .... and even then, I think you would be hard pressed to present them as producing a model for gender/family roles divorced from standards of provision, subservience/obligation, child rearing etc.

I think the amish are a more forthright example of resisting technological encroachment since it requires a quite aggressive and disciplined ideological stance to be actually independent and capable of resisting the so-called luxuries modern life affords.

Native populations appear to be more concerned with issues of identity and partake of western culture and its trappings as it does and doesn't suit their needs or values (for which they tend to pay by modifying their cultural institutions at best or losing what is left of them at worst). And even then, you can discuss this in a sort of social darwinistic subtext - so for instance there are arguments that it is best to preserve traditional ways of these people versus its best for them to adapt to western ways so that they can "speak the language" of the dominant culture threatening to utterly make them extinct and thus advocate their ethnic needs in the right forums/circles of power etc.

I was making the point that the so-called "civilized" world (aka "technologically adept" and "centralized management" )has a carry-on effect that fractures the family unit, and that its the family unit that is effectively the cornerstone of civilization. So as far as trying to push home some sort of higher moral improvement in the civilized world (such as a world without rape or whatever), that will be challenged by the very unit capable of evoking such values tending to be eroded.

IOW if you live in a community where the network for dependence, sustenance and protection is orchestrated by "your people", it tends to strengthen the family unit. If you live in a community where this is orchestrated by "your government" , then suddenly the family unit becomes one of those things that one can take or leave according to one's needs (so the bonds of obligation become weaker).
The plus side of having "your people" is that it provides a powerful social tool for evoking normative behavior (for instance I recall one incident where an individual from a native community was pulled in line by the threat of shame that his family and everyone in his village being told what he has been up to .... which is a tact that would hardly work in a big city).
The downside is that it can commonly give rise to racism (ironically, prison is another example where you have communities of "your people" that establish a sort of social security).

Anyway, its quite a complex catch 22 situation.

 

[lightgigantic]

Too many Words makes you Slyly Blurred

According to some of our prevention advocates, the answer is yes.

:shrug:

If you could actually reference this first, you might be able to save us the pain of having to wade through your waffle.

:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

If You Could Actually Get a Clue ....

If you could actually reference this first ....

Silly me. I mean, I already know it's unfair to ask you to read and think—as you demonstrated the last time you asked me for a reference—but it really is kind of simple.

Here, I'll use a picture, so you don't have to read:

​

Now, I am aware I said I know it's unfair to ask you to read, but don't worry, I'm not asking you to read. Rather, I'm just asking you to look at the words that are underlined and blue. They say, "to me".

That blue underline signifies a hyperlink.

A hyperlink is essentially an electronic button you can click with your mouse, and the computer will show you the information stored at that destination. In this case, it's a thread. So you can either click the picture above, or click these underlined words, in order to see what's at the destination indicated by the hyperlink signified by the two underlined blue words.

If you click that hyperlink, then it will show you the post I excerpted.

Now, here's the tricky part. This is where you'll have to read again; sorry, nothing I can do about that, since written words are the primary communication tool we use at this website.

But in that post is a quote, which is derived from another person's post (click these blue, underlined words to view that post, though, again, it involves reading).

If you read the post I linked to in the picture and the words within the picture, then you will see the other person's post, the analysis of which I excerpted in the post that led you to once again ask for a reference that is already on record.

Of course, here it gets even trickier, because you have to think. Now, we're all aware that you are willfully oblivious to the idea of implications, but thinking is an inherent requirement of reading.

Ever read A Tale of Two Cities? Did you stop at the first line and say, "The best of times and the worst of times? Come on, Charlie, it can't be both!"

Maybe you should pick up Clive Barker's Weaveworld, which would also stop you at the first sentence: "Nothing ever begins." Oh, come on, Clive, that's the beginning of the book, proving that the statement is false.

Of course, in either case, if you keep reading, you can understand what those sentences mean by thinking about them.

So, the issue in this discussion is fairly simply stated:

In the end, the real solution is that people should not treat one another in such a manner. The key to stopping rape is to not commit rape. It's a small effort, in the end, but one many are unwilling to undertake.​

And the response? Well, we've seen the arguments about before and during, and those amount to it's a woman's job to predict and thus prevent a rape attempt, and it's a woman's responsibility to learn jiu jitsu, carry a gun for defense, or whatever the hell. What prevention advocates simply refuse to deal with is the fact that the assault is happening in the first place.

See, you might disagree with my outlook, but you need to be able to comprehend it before you can criticize it.

I know. It's so unfair. Poor you.

As Bells noted, women "have a right to not live our lives in fear and terror that any of the men around us could be a rapist".

It was only too predictable that the advocates of unbounded rape prevention theory would complain about that. Hell, it took you less than thirty minutes.

 

[lightgigantic]

Leave it to Boofhead

Silly me. I mean, I already know it's unfair to ask you to read and think—as you demonstrated the last time you asked me for a reference—but it really is kind of simple.

Here, I'll use a picture, so you don't have to read:

​

Now, I am aware I said I know it's unfair to ask you to read, but don't worry, I'm not asking you to read. Rather, I'm just asking you to look at the words that are underlined and blue. They say, "to me".

That blue underline signifies a hyperlink.

A hyperlink is essentially an electronic button you can click with your mouse, and the computer will show you the information stored at that destination. In this case, it's a thread. So you can either click the picture above, or click these underlined words, in order to see what's at the destination indicated by the hyperlink signified by the two underlined blue words.

If you click that hyperlink, then it will show you the post I excerpted.

Now, here's the tricky part. This is where you'll have to read again; sorry, nothing I can do about that, since written words are the primary communication tool we use at this website.

But in that post is a quote, which is derived from another person's post (click these blue, underlined words to view that post, though, again, it involves reading).

If you read the post I linked to in the picture and the words within the picture, then you will see the other person's post, the analysis of which I excerpted in the post that led you to once again ask for a reference that is already on record.

Of course, here it gets even trickier, because you have to think. Now, we're all aware that you are willfully oblivious to the idea of implications, but thinking is an inherent requirement of reading.

Ever read A Tale of Two Cities? Did you stop at the first line and say, "The best of times and the worst of times? Come on, Charlie, it can't be both!"

Maybe you should pick up Clive Barker's Weaveworld, which would also stop you at the first sentence: "Nothing ever begins." Oh, come on, Clive, that's the beginning of the book, proving that the statement is false.

Of course, in either case, if you keep reading, you can understand what those sentences mean by thinking about them.

So, the issue in this discussion is fairly simply stated:

In the end, the real solution is that people should not treat one another in such a manner. The key to stopping rape is to not commit rape. It's a small effort, in the end, but one many are unwilling to undertake.​

And the response? Well, we've seen the arguments about before and during, and those amount to it's a woman's job to predict and thus prevent a rape attempt, and it's a woman's responsibility to learn jiu jitsu, carry a gun for defense, or whatever the hell. What prevention advocates simply refuse to deal with is the fact that the assault is happening in the first place.

See, you might disagree with my outlook, but you need to be able to comprehend it before you can criticize it.

I know. It's so unfair. Poor you.

As Bells noted, women "have a right to not live our lives in fear and terror that any of the men around us could be a rapist".

It was only too predictable that the advocates of unbounded rape prevention theory would complain about that. Hell, it took you less than thirty minutes.

as I said :

If you could actually reference this first, you might be able to save us the pain of having to wade through your waffle.

:shrug:

IOW if you want to say that I said something, it pays to reference it (as opposed to linking something that doesn't reference it) ... in the absence of this, drowning the (imagined) opposition in words per minute is a dreadful substitute ......

The tragedy of your situation is that for the most part you are simply responding to ideas that no one (aside of you) is advocating.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

You identified women as being the problem in rape.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Really?

You keep misinterpreting what some posters here say, including myself.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Really?

 

[wynn]

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°.

And you think that an attitude like you're displaying above is condicive to respectful, open communication?

I can tell you this much: When you compare adult women to two year-olds, people aren't going to think well of you.

You and Bells read my post as comparing women to two-year olds.

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

If you already believe you have the moral and cognitive highground, then what's the problem?

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.

I asked a question: "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?"

Nobody has answered it.



As for your insistence on how open-ended the prevention theory is and how this is a problem:
It's only a problem for someone who is first and foremost interested in assigning blame, and to whom concerns over people's wellbeing (ie. the wellbeing of potential victims) is a distant secondary concern.

 

[wynn]

In the end, the real solution is that people should not treat one another in such a manner. The key to stopping rape is to not commit rape. It's a small effort, in the end, but one many are unwilling to undertake.​

And the response? Well, we've seen the arguments about before and during, and those amount to it's a woman's job to predict and thus prevent a rape attempt, and it's a woman's responsibility to learn jiu jitsu, carry a gun for defense, or whatever the hell. What prevention advocates simply refuse to deal with is the fact that the assault is happening in the first place.

See, you might disagree with my outlook, but you need to be able to comprehend it before you can criticize it.

I know. It's so unfair. Poor you.

As Bells noted, women "have a right to not live our lives in fear and terror that any of the men around us could be a rapist".

It was only too predictable that the advocates of unbounded rape prevention theory would complain about that. Hell, it took you less than thirty minutes.

Tiassa, Bells, and whoever else agrees with you:


Feel free to risk getting raped, killed, evicted, assaulted, fired, robbed etc. etc. for the sake of defending your beliefs.

Feel free to die for your revolution.


Nobody here opposes that you do that. But not everybody is going to join you. Call us weaklings then, if that makes you feel better.

 

[Tiassa]

Try Actually Making a Point, Sometime

The tragedy of your situation is that for the most part you are simply responding to ideas that no one (aside of you) is advocating.

It is already observable that you and Wynn are insensate toward the implications of your own words, and it is well-established that your laments that people dare consider the implications of your words are a one-way principle, as you're both tilting windmills and burning straw men at the stake.

But it is also striking how observable your egocentrism is. Your response at #673 is an example. It's all about you, and not about the subject of discussion. Wynn's troika of posts at #674 - 676 are all about her, and not the subject at hand. And this is not a new phenomenon.

To clear away the implications, what you need to do is attempt an affirmative argument. The most effective in this sense would be to answer the years-old question of what is the outer boundary of this seemingly open-ended prevention theory.

You can tell us all you want what you don't mean, but you refuse to tell us what you actually do mean.

And until then, people are left to work with the implications that you are either unwilling to acknowledge or are incapable of perceiving. And the result is not so much that people would call your set weaklings, but, rather, cowards and rape advocates.

This is easy enough to clear up, but you refuse to.

Make an affirmative argument. What is the outer boundary of this seemingly open-ended prevention theory?

 

[billvon]

Let us see if you can grasp this simple concept: It's not about women seeing themselves as helpless victims, but, rather, a question of why a society gives them so much to defend against.

Excellent question. A different question, but an excellent one nonetheless.

Think of it this way: Sure, a self-defense course might be helpful for a woman who finds herself in a bad situation, but so far you seem just fine with the idea that a woman should find herself in a bad situation.

Not at all. People find themselves in bad situations and that is a bad thing. It's unfortunate, and I advocate trying to keep oneself from such situations, although accomplishing that 100% of the time is impossible.

Oddly, you seem to take offense to the very idea that one should avoid bad situations. Presumably you'd rather a woman find herself in a bad situation than her avoiding that situation to begin with, because that might make other women think they could avoid such situations, when they might not be able to. Or something.

Think for a minute about the self-defense argument.

While, say, jiu jitsu techniques can be very useful when a situation so demands, the statistical reality is that a woman so trained in rape prevention theory is far more likely to need to use those techniques against a husband or friend than a random stranger.

Agreed. And it is just as effective.

Now, what is missing from that?

• Initiation: Holy shit! Dude's attacking someone!​

Perhaps, as we approach six hundred posts in this discussion, you might be able to shed some light on why questions of how to address that moment of initiation are so problematic to some people.

Sure. The biggest problem most people have during the "moment of initiation" is shock; they cannot believe what's happening. The best way to overcome this is with training. We do what we are trained to do.

See, it's my understanding—although, to be honest, it's quite obviously an unreliable understanding, since I'm stupid enough to pay attention to what sex assault survivors say—that the negative effects of a rape don't wait to start until the assault is successfully completed. That is to say, whether it's a father or husband, longtime friend or random stranger attempting to sexually assault a woman, it's not quite the same feeling as some men—myself included—describe after getting in a fight or standing down some asshole in a nightclub. Even after a sexual assault attempt is successfully disrupted, it still has negative effects on the survivor's life.

Agreed. And you honestly would not prevent that sort of trauma if you could?

Now, maybe your understanding is different, but I find it curious that prevention advocates are so focused on disrupting the success of an attempted rape specifically in lieu of discussing how we might disrupt the processes that lead to the initiation of these attacks.

You are creating a false dichotomy. We should not choose one over the other - we should do both.

We're six hundred posts and over a month into the discussion, and prevention advocates still want people to look away from this fundamental question. You're all for it? Sure, we believe you; after all, since you're all for it, that's why you're focusing on that question instead of advocating some stupid, open-ended "prevention" theory. Right?

Nope. I think we should both answer that question AND keep women from being raped. I'm funny that way; I try to prevent rape both through solving the underlying problem AND keep women from being raped in today's world.

For a quick peek back into the real world, here is today's evil rape preventionist:
=====================
Woman fights off rapist in her home

04/29/13

SAN DIEGO — A Rancho Penasquitos woman woke up early Monday to find a stranger in her bed demanding sex.

The attack happened at the woman’s home near Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard and Via del Sud at about 1:30 a.m. The intruder entered the home while the woman was sleeping. Police said he was armed with a handgun and covered his face with a towel.

The victim, who is not being identified because she is a sexual assault victim, said the man hit her and said he wanted sex.

“I told him you will have to kill me. I will not do what you want,” the victim told FOX 5 News.

The victim put up a struggle and the man fled.
=====================================

Anti rape preventionists - ATTACK!

 

[Randwolf]

Make an affirmative argument. What is the outer boundary of this seemingly open-ended prevention theory?

How about an inner boundary? I would advise anyone (including women) not to set up simulated rape situations.

Two weeks ago, my gentle and loving boyfriend of three months held me down and forced me to have sex with him against my will, and then told me I had asked for it. And technically, he was right.
Jacob and I had only been dating about a month and a half when I intimated that I had a rape fantasy. Over the years, I’d had my share of experience with role-playing and rough sex. I vividly recall a male friend of mine in college telling me that I had a distinct air of “sexual prey” about me, and me thinking that this was a huge compliment. Being dominated and playing the innocent who secretly wasn’t had been my currency and had guided the sexual dynamic I forged with partners for the last 10 years. But only for the last few months had I allowed myself to entertain what I considered to be the final frontier — a simulated rape.

Regardless of the veracity of this account, let's just assume that somewhere, sometime, somebody has been empowered enough to actually carry out this scenario. Would I be remiss in saying it would be inadvisable for anyone (man or woman) to express an interest in this activity? Argumentum ad absurdum perhaps, but...

Five years later it still irks me that recommending that people exercise common sense whilst negotiating everyday life's perils amounts to misogyny. I appreciate the argument and see how macrostategies are needed but what of the micro-perspective?

 

[Tiassa]

Ygtbfkm

How about an inner boundary? I would advise anyone (including women) not to set up simulated rape situations.

Yes, rape fantasies are potentially problematic, but, really, an inner boundary?

I mean, come on, dude, please tell me you did not just turn the whole rape phenomenon back onto women.

You were around five years ago when we had the "Counterproposal" fiasco that included men arguing that men are like machines, so it's up to women. You were there to witness the absolute refusal of prevention advocates to establish an outer boundary to the theory.

Seriously? You want to turn the subject back to women's responsibility to prevent men's behavior?

Really?

Five years later it still irks me that recommending that people exercise common sense whilst negotiating everyday life's perils amounts to misogyny. I appreciate the argument and see how macrostategies are needed but what of the micro-perspective?

And five years later it still irks the hell out of me that this all comes back to what women owe the rape culture.

What is the outer boundary?

And your response is to turn that back onto women?

And to justify that by invoking a straw man?

Okay, let's try it this way: What would you like me to say to you here?

Because, frankly, the first thing to mind is, "You've gotta be fucking kidding me, dude."

So help me out, please: What, exactly, irks you so much about the notion that rape prevention theories should have a reasonable outer boundary?

Here, let us reiterate this part:

Think of it in terms of other crimes. A point I sometimes make in the firearms discussion is that a handgun isn't necessarily going to protect me insofar as a proper sniper could put me down regardless of the handgun; if someone really wants to kill me, they'll find a way.

So let me strap on my flak jacket and helmet, and lock and load. Oh, well, I haven't properly prevented the sniper shooting me in the face, throat, or leg. Okay, let me get a full riot suit to protect myself. The thing that sucks is that right after I checked to make sure my car wasn't rigged with a bomb, I got blown up, anyway, when the bad guy hit me with an RPG.

At what point does that whole consideration get crazy? For me, it's the flak jacket and helmet. Indeed, I'm so unconcerned with my safety that I (gasp!) don't own a gun. (Of course, something about "risk assessment" goes here, for the benefit of others, since that firearm I would have if I was so concerned with my safety is more likely to hurt me or someone close to me than actually stop a crime.)

But, yes, at some point, the precaution against being murdered achieves a disruptive and dysfunctional crisis point of obsession. That kind of worry about being shot so disrupts and degrades normal social function that it would be considered a mental illness.

Yet, when it comes to men and their flesh-rifles, we keep encountering this amorphous prevention theory that seems to demand women willfully adopt that mental illness so that men don't have to think about things they might be doing wrong.​

Yeah, there are "inner boundaries", but for fuck's sake, dude, really?

And let us also reiterate this:

What I expect is that a woman should have the same effective freedoms and comfort that men demand.​

Do you object to this?

And how about this:

When I'm sitting at the pub, talking brews with people, I don't have a fear in the world that one of them would try to rape me. Women have the right to the same expectation.​

Because therein lies the problem with all these arguments looking for inner boundaries and explaining what women are doing wrong.

When you say that it still irks you "that recommending that people exercise common sense whilst negotiating everyday life's perils amounts to misogyny", well, why are you irked by your own damn straw man?

And, as I noted to Scifes above, please see posts #15 and #150, two of many in which I describe the imbalance between set-and-forget crime prevention like locking my front door and leaving the porch light on, or putting a club lock on my steering wheel, and the implications of unbounded prevention theory.

Because, well, are you really asserting that women are so stupid?

I mean, look at some of the advice. Be aware of your surroundings? Really? People think women need to be told this?

What "common sense" suggestions to you have to help women "whilst negotiating everyday life's perils amounts to misogyny" that they don't already know?

And what is that outer boundary?