Rape and the "Civilized" World

[Randwolf]

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.

No. Absolutely not. No way. You are not misconstruing my statement that way.

What I meant, and I'm pretty sure you know what I was referring to, is there any inner boundary to reasonable behavior before it's considered out of bounds?

Meaning, is any prudence unacceptable? The smallest bit of common sense somehow dictates that victims are responsible for the crimes committed against them? Really?

I thought long and hard about what would be the most benign, most obvious bit of "prevention" that could be offered and this the best you can do?

 

[Randwolf]

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

Nothing. There should be, and are, outer boundaries. Similar boundaries exist regards prevention of assault and murder. But I know better than to attempt to draw parallels or analogies while discussing this topic.

 

[Randwolf]

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?

Yes. Lets reiterate this.

No. No way. Diametrically opposite, actually. Do we really need to rehash all this? Again? You'll get the same answer as always. Advocating common sense does not equate to believing people should live in fear, or that anyone is responsible for mayhem inflicted upon them by a criminal. Rather, it's a matter of choosing to believe that one's own actions can impact the probability of violence being propagated upon their bodies. Do you disagree?

 

[Tiassa]

What Are Those Outer Boundaries You Claim Exist But Don't Identify?

What I meant, and I'm pretty sure you know what I was referring to, is there any inner boundary to reasonable behavior before it's considered out of bounds?

Actually, I didn't realize what you were referring to because it's a stupid question.

Let us start with this: Just how stupid do you think women are?

Meaning, is any prudence unacceptable?

Where do you find all this straw? I know of some farmers in the midwest who wouldn't mind an opportunity to buy some of it.

The smallest bit of common sense somehow dictates that victims are responsible for the crimes committed against them?

This question makes absolutely no sense. Is there a word missing, somewhere?

I thought long and hard about what would be the most benign, most obvious bit of "prevention" that could be offered and this the best you can do?

Well, that's the problem you will encounter with anti-identification. That is, telling people, "No, that's not what I mean," only goes so far. At some point, people need to say what they actually mean, and prevention advocates won't even try to affirmatively assert that outer boundary.

Think about the most benign, obvious bit of prevention advice that could be offered, and ask yourself if you really believe women in general are too stupid to figure it out.

Nothing. There should be, and are, outer boundaries. Similar boundaries exist regards prevention of assault and murder. But I know better than to attempt to draw parallels or analogies while discussing this topic.

There should be, and are outer boundaries? Very well. Could you please advise us as to what they are?

Advocating common sense does not equate to believing people should live in fear, or that anyone is responsible for mayhem inflicted upon them by a criminal.

Presuming that women need to be instructed in common sense is demonstrably misogynistic.

And you might recall that juries have acquitted rapists before because the of the woman's attire. And you might recall that in Colorado a prosecutor refused to charge a confessed rapist because he felt the woman deserved it.

Rather, it's a matter of choosing to believe that one's own actions can impact the probability of violence being propagated upon their bodies. Do you disagree?

I would only agree in a finite context. Without an outer boundary to this prevention theory, such a suggestion is problematic. As I have noted:

• 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.​

Now, pretty much all of us would accept that this is a bridge too far, but the statistical reality is that the "common sense" prevention techniques we've heard so much about in these discussions don't really do anything to address the vast majority of rapes. Those three points above? They do.

Yet as much as people want to complain that this isn't what they mean, they simply refuse to say what they actually do mean, thus leaving the question open.

The flip side, of course, being that the "common sense" prevention techniques we've heard so much about frequently presuppose that women are inherently stupid.

I mean, really, at one point we even have one of our prevention advocates comparing women to toddlers. Yeah, you know, just like you have to teach a baby to not burn itself on the stove, you have to teach women how to be aware of the immediate facts of their existence. Because, you know, apparently women wander around with no clue where they are, what they're doing, or who else is around.

And then, when people are pushing these advocates to establish an outer boundary, in waltzes the next guy to put the question back onto women, and pretend his annoyance at his own straw man.

Yeah, people find that offensive and misogynistic.

But, hey, we can set that aside:

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

Very well. What are they?

 

[Randwolf]

Actually, I didn't realize what you were referring to because it's a stupid question.

If it's so stupid, why do you have such a hard time with it?

Let us start with this: Just how stupid do you think women are?

I think all people are equally capable of being brilliant. Or stupid. Stop trying so hard.

Where do you find all this straw? I know of some farmers in the midwest who wouldn't mind an opportunity to buy some of it.

Do they pay well?

This question makes absolutely no sense. Is there a word missing, somewhere?

I apologize. Let me rephrase...
[Does advocating] The smallest bit of common sense somehow dictates that victims are responsible for the crimes committed against them?

Well, that's the problem you will encounter with anti-identification. That is, telling people, "No, that's not what I mean," only goes so far. At some point, people need to say what they actually mean, and prevention advocates won't even try to affirmatively assert that outer boundary.

At some point, people need to take what is said at face value, regardless of their own predisposition to find snakes behind every log...

Think about the most benign, obvious bit of prevention advice that could be offered, and ask yourself if you really believe women in general are too stupid to figure it out.

It never occurred to me that women in general would be too stupid to figure it out, only certain participants in this thread...

There should be, and are outer boundaries? Very well. Could you please advise us as to what they are?

They are subjective and determined by the individual, the same as every other violence prevention boundary. You don't like this answer. Fine. I'm not trying to prove anything here except that application of common sense is not a bad thing. One word - "prudence". Is that concept anathema to you?

Presuming that women need to be instructed in common sense is demonstrably misogynistic.

Absolutely.

And you might recall that juries have acquitted rapists before because the of the woman's attire. And you might recall that in Colorado a prosecutor refused to charge a confessed rapist because he felt the woman deserved it.

You are quite correct. In my opinion these people are little more than troglodytes. So? Stupidity abounds...

I would only agree in a finite context. Without an outer boundary to this prevention theory, such a suggestion is problematic. As I have noted:

• 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.​

Absurd. The most effective way to prevent murder is to not associate with other human beings. So?

Now, pretty much all of us would accept that this is a bridge too far, but the statistical reality is that the "common sense" prevention techniques we've heard so much about in these discussions don't really do anything to address the vast majority of rapes. Those three points above? They do.

You're absolutely right. So what? Shall we dismiss the minority of cases?

Yet as much as people want to complain that this isn't what they mean, they simply refuse to say what they actually do mean, thus leaving the question open.

I can't speak for all "people".

The flip side, of course, being that the "common sense" prevention techniques we've heard so much about frequently presuppose that women are inherently stupid.

Frequently doesn't equate with all. Nice try though...

I mean, really, at one point we even have one of our prevention advocates comparing women to toddlers. Yeah, you know, just like you have to teach a baby to not burn itself on the stove, you have to teach women how to be aware of the immediate facts of their existence. Because, you know, apparently women wander around with no clue where they are, what they're doing, or who else is around.

Yeah, they're idiots. I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm trying to say that all people, in all circumstances, would be better off if they exercised common sense and observed a modicum of prudence. Some wish to say that this statement is false, misleading and transfers the blame to the victim. BS.

And then, when people are pushing these advocates to establish an outer boundary, in waltzes the next guy to put the question back onto women, and pretend his annoyance at his own straw man.

Wrong. In waltzes the next guy who has watched this debate from the beginning to try, perhaps futilely, to once again observe that we can, to an extent, reduce our risk of being a victim. Shame on us....

Yeah, people find that offensive and misogynistic.

Really? You find common sense and prudence "offensive and misogynistic"?

 

[Tiassa]

The Least Surprising Omission

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

Very well. What are they?

 

[Randwolf]

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

Very well. What are they?

Originally Posted by Tiassa
There should be, and are outer boundaries? Very well. Could you please advise us as to what they are?

Originally posted by Randwolf
They are subjective and determined by the individual, the same as every other violence prevention boundary. You don't like this answer. Fine. I'm not trying to prove anything here except that application of common sense is not a bad thing. One word - "prudence". Is that concept anathema to you?

Patiently reiterating a very simple concept to a very sophisticated individual that simply refuses to read what is posted at face value.

Why?

 

[Tiassa]

Enumerate them

Patiently reiterating a very simple concept to a very sophisticated individual that simply refuses to read what is posted at face value.

Why?

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

Very well. What are they?

And no, you don't get to dodge the question as you're trying to.

Enumerate them.

No, really. You sound like an idiot when you say they exist but won't tell anyone what they are.

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

It's your assertion. So enumerate those boundaries.

Enlighten us.

 

[Randwolf]

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

Very well. What are they?

And no, you don't get to dodge the question as you're trying to.

Enumerate them.

No, really. You sound like an idiot when you say they exist but won't tell anyone what they are.

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

It's your assertion. So enumerate those boundaries.

Enlighten us.

Let's see... Which word do you not understand?

They are subjective and determined by the individual, the same as every other violence prevention boundary

Is it "subjective" that you're having a hard time with? As in, "varies according to the individual"? Please help me out here. I can't read your mind, even as brilliant a light as it shines...

 

[Tiassa]

Sit Down, Waldo

Is it "subjective" that you're having a hard time with? As in, "varies according to the individual"? Please help me out here. I can't read your mind, even as brilliant a light as it shines...

You do not get to assert that something exists and then refuse to point it out.

You're taking a cowardly route.

"There should be, and are, outer boundaries."​

I guess you were lying, then, since you can't enumerate them.

 

[billvon]

You do not get to assert that something exists and then refuse to point it out.

Sure you can. People have limits on what they are OK with during sex. What are those limits? If you can't put a limit on it, does that mean that limits do not exist? Or are they different from person to person?

 

[Tiassa]

Sick, Twisted, and Wrong

Sure you can. People have limits on what they are OK with during sex. What are those limits? If you can't put a limit on it, does that mean that limits do not exist? Or are they different from person to person?

That is warped. Sick. Downright evil.

Or perhaps it is simply too difficult for you to discern the difference between the limits of what a person will consent to and what a person has to do in order to not accidentally tempt someone who doesn't give a fuck about consent.

What we have here is an assertion that there is an outer boundary to the prevention theory.

Well, what is it?

Apparently, the person who made that assertion is unable or unwilling to say.

So what he comes up with is that there is some mysterious outer boundary for one woman, and a separate mysterious outer boundary for another.

In the end, what it appears to come down to is that prevention advocates will do and say anything to keep their theory unbounded.

In the end, it just looks like you're all just advocating for rapists.

And, yes, that advocacy is sick and sleazy and horrible.

Then again, there comes a point when it's not surprising.

So let us put a direct question to you, Billvon: Do you agree with Randwolf that there are, in fact, outer boundaries to proscribe the prevention theory?

If the answer is yes, I would invite you to enumerate them, since our neighbor can't.

 

[Randwolf]

You do not get to assert that something exists and then refuse to point it out.

Yes I do. I get to assert that subjective ideals, limits and boundaries exist without having to enumerate them. Only you can enumerate and delineate your own subjective values.

I guess you were lying, then, since you can't enumerate them.

Tiassa, why? All I'm saying (can't speak for the others in this thread) is that we all take precautions. Whether we are consciously aware of this or not, whether we (at some level) believe this is transferring responsibility to a victim or not, we all try to avoid harm. Every form of life tries to avoid harm. There's nothing shameful about it, nor should it imply that victims should be responsible for the harm inflicted upon them.

It is what it is...

 

[Randwolf]

Do you agree with Randwolf that there are, in fact, outer boundaries to proscribe the prevention theory?.

What about "inner" boundaries? Would you advise your daughter to participate in rape fantasies? No? Of course not. No sane individual would.

WTF is wrong with just using common sense? I'm not saying people should wear burkahs, or that men should be viewed as a risk category and avoided at all costs. I'm merely advocating that you be aware. Use common sense. Have a modicum of prudence. Wow.

Don't pack me up with the rest of the idiots....

 

[billvon]

That is warped. Sick. Downright evil.

Good! Glad to see you disagree with me; I must be doing something right!

What we have here is an assertion that there is an outer boundary to the prevention theory. Well, what is it?

It differs from person to person - just as what people are OK with during sex differs from person to person.

Each person gets to determine what they are comfortable with. You don't. I know that might be somewhat bruising to your ego, but you are really not in charge of what risks women want to take. The only person you get to decide that for is you.

So what he comes up with is that there is some mysterious outer boundary for one woman, and a separate mysterious outer boundary for another.

Sorry that you find personal choice a mystery.

In the end, it just looks like you're all just advocating for rapists.

No, actually we want to stop them (hence the "rape prevention" thing.) But keep arguing against that if you like.

So let us put a direct question to you, Billvon: Do you agree with Randwolf that there are, in fact, outer boundaries to proscribe the prevention theory?

Of course, and they are up to each person.

If the answer is yes, I would invite you to enumerate them, since our neighbor can't.

Sure, right after you give me a list of what sex acts are OK.

 

[Balerion]

What about "inner" boundaries? Would you advise your daughter to participate in rape fantasies? No? Of course not. No sane individual would.

How is that an "inner" boundary?

WTF is wrong with just using common sense? I'm not saying people should wear burkahs, or that men should be viewed as a risk category and avoided at all costs. I'm merely advocating that you be aware. Use common sense. Have a modicum of prudence. Wow.

I have to wonder what prudence has to do with being raped. Again, it appears as if a rape prevention advocate is putting the blame for the rape on the victim by insinuating that she--what--dress too provocatively? Flirts too aggressively?

Don't pack me up with the rest of the idiots....

Then don't behave like one.

 

[Balerion]

Nothing. There should be, and are, outer boundaries. Similar boundaries exist regards prevention of assault and murder. But I know better than to attempt to draw parallels or analogies while discussing this topic.

There's nothing wrong with drawing parallels or using analogies between rape and other common crimes. The problem in this thread is simply that the examples offered by those on the prevention side are either non-existent (i.e. women aren't raped because they figuratively left the front door unlocked) or are based on false premises from the get-go. (People aren't robbed because they literally left the front door unlocked) But you shouldn't be concerned with that. You have far greater problems at the moment.

Advocating invisible outer boundaries to rape prevention is no different than advocating the open-ended strategy LG and his cadre of buffoons promote. It puts the blame squarely on the victim; when she fails to prevent a rape, it's because she didn't feel comfortable taking the steps necessary to protect herself, not because those strategies are oppressive or demeaning. The only way to disassociate yourself from the morons you're currently siding with in this discussion is to do as Tiassa has asked, and enumerate the outer boundaries you champion, and hope they stop well short of "Stop dressing like a whore" or "Stop arguing with men."

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

It differs from person to person - just as what people are OK with during sex differs from person to person.

Each person gets to determine what they are comfortable with. You don't. I know that might be somewhat bruising to your ego, but you are really not in charge of what risks women want to take. The only person you get to decide that for is you.

It's almost astounding that rape advocates have managed to turn the question back onto women, but then again, you're rape advocates.

And if you don't like that characterization, change your behavior.

This isn't about when a woman is comfortable being raped. This is about a societal expectation, an unlimited prevention theory whose advocates at once are offended by the implications and refuse to establish boundaries, and now you're piling that societal expectation onto women.

You're deliberately trying to change the context of the abstraction.

The prevention theory question arises in the first place because there is a widespread myth that blames rape victims for the actions of the rapist. So the question arises: Just how much does a woman have to do before society will stop blaming her for being raped?

It's not a matter of determining what one is comfortable with.

Sorry that you find personal choice a mystery.

This isn't a matter of personal choice. This is a matter of comprehending and resolving a myth that does much to empower the rape phenomenon.

No, actually we want to stop them ....

No. No, you don't. You have had plenty of chances to behave as if you want to help prevent rape. You do not get to start that lie now.

Of course, and they are up to each person.

I see. So what society thinks of a rape victim is up to the rape victim. I must admit, that's a new level of desperation.

Sure, right after you give me a list of what sex acts are OK.

Anything to keep the theory unbounded.

Anything to help the rapists.

• • •​

I have to wonder what prudence has to do with being raped.

Depends on how one defines the word; that's what makes it such a fun term.

Of course, you're also trying to discuss the point with one who asks a question like, "Would you advise your daughter to participate in rape fantasies?" As a matter of basic, healthy psychosocial differentiation, I'm hard-pressed to imagine the dialogue in which it would come up.

I mean, there are questions about sexuality that one might discuss with their child. "Dad, is masturbation a sin?" Sure, it's enough to tell my daughter that it's "okay" to masturbate. I can even tell her that, to a certain degree it is a physically and psychologically healthy thing. But I wouldn't give her tips. I mean, what, am I going to accidentally walk in on her one day, sigh heavily, and say, "You're doing it wrong"?

By the time she's up to rape fantasies, well, that's not mine to deal with.

But, back to prudence ... it isn't actually a sexual term; here we're thinking of prudery.

But the underlying suggestion is that if a woman has the ability to govern and discipline herself by use of reason, she can prevent being raped. And, as prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues, it's simply a reminder of the stupid belief that virtuous women don't get raped.

In the end, though, note that he, like LG, Wynn, and Billvon, is tilting windmills.

And where we're at in this discussion is that the prevention advocates just don't want to admit that they haven't a clue how to devise that reasonable outer boundary. Since this is all being put up as a counterpoint to the ideas that men shouldn't commit rape, and that civilized society can alter the attitudes and behaviors reinforcing the rape phenomenon, one wonders how they can possibly be puzzled at accusations of advocating for rapists.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's almost astounding that rape advocates have managed to turn the question back onto women, but then again, you're rape advocates.

Risk assessment and management (once again, not just dealing with the question of rape but also polar bear attacks or any other scenario that in any shape, manner or form incorporates a "victim") is full of such questions.

IOW its the questions a (potential) victim asks themselves about risk assessment and management that limits the said measures of prevention
Whats astounding is that you expect it to be otherwise .....

And if you don't like that characterization, change your behavior.

You are simply drawing a parallel between rape prevention and rape advocacy that only exists in your imagination.
To say the least, actual professional people engaged in dealing with issue don't seem to entertain your fanciful ideas

This isn't about when a woman is comfortable being raped. This is about a societal expectation, an unlimited prevention theory whose advocates at once are offended by the implications and refuse to establish boundaries, and now you're piling that societal expectation onto women.

about 6 different people have given you the same answer.
You simply make things difficult for yourself when you ask questions you aren't interested hearing the answers for.


:shrug:

 

[wynn]

It's almost astounding that rape advocates have managed to turn the question back onto women, but then again, you're rape advocates.

And if you don't like that characterization, change your behavior.

Apparently, you are unable to have a conversation about this topic without construing the other party, rightfully or wrongfully, as your enemy.