Always blame others ... excellent strategy.
Rape and the "Civilized" World
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Always blame others ... excellent strategy.
lightgigantic:
In general, we see lots of prevention advice targeted at potential victims of rape, and hardly ever any advice targeted at potential perpetrators. Why is that? Why do you want most of the responsibility for crime prevention to be on potential victims, and not on perpetrators?
In general, we see lots of prevention advice targeted at potential victims of rape, and hardly ever any advice targeted at potential perpetrators. Why is that? Why do you want most of the responsibility for crime prevention to be on potential victims, and not on perpetrators?
Jack Freakin' Doodle
Wonderful. That and whatever tuition gets you at UNC.
See, the problem in this thread is that prevention advocates refuse to establish an outer boundary. And as you have shown, they tend to divorce that question from the reality.
The prevention theory often presupposes women to be stupid, as if because they have a uterus they wander around blissfully ignorant of where they are. Furthermore, without that outer boundary, the question of what is reasonable remains open; it is a way of making sure to empower those idiots at UNC, or in the Weld County Prosecutor's Office, and the Guardians of Female Chastity throughout my beloved United States, or in Australia, or England, or Canada, or where the hell ever.
You know, that problem that you've been deflecting while refusing to state an applicable outer boundary in the context of anything other than your own damn opinion?
Because the problem is that despite the fact that you and I might believe a simple maxim like, "A rapist rapes a woman. It is the rapist's fault. Period", that means exactly Jack Freakin' Doodle for many rape survivors whose legitimate complaints are dismissed, denigrated, and otherwise diminished by family, friends, neighbors, social commentariat, and even the authorities.
You know, as in the real problem?
And as you continue to hurl straw men about in your pride fight, you're not really helping to improve people's assessment of your outlook, since apparently you didn't see fit to offer a direct explanation of how your principle applies to the episodes recounted in this thread.
These attitudes you're trying to ignore have real consequences. And those consequences, by proxy of the attitudes and outlooks that empower them, are within a society's faculty to change.
Except, of course, that it seems people would rather talk about vague, ineffective "prevention" tips.
Billvon said:
Wonderful. That and whatever tuition gets you at UNC.
See, the problem in this thread is that prevention advocates refuse to establish an outer boundary. And as you have shown, they tend to divorce that question from the reality.
The prevention theory often presupposes women to be stupid, as if because they have a uterus they wander around blissfully ignorant of where they are. Furthermore, without that outer boundary, the question of what is reasonable remains open; it is a way of making sure to empower those idiots at UNC, or in the Weld County Prosecutor's Office, and the Guardians of Female Chastity throughout my beloved United States, or in Australia, or England, or Canada, or where the hell ever.
You know, that problem that you've been deflecting while refusing to state an applicable outer boundary in the context of anything other than your own damn opinion?
Because the problem is that despite the fact that you and I might believe a simple maxim like, "A rapist rapes a woman. It is the rapist's fault. Period", that means exactly Jack Freakin' Doodle for many rape survivors whose legitimate complaints are dismissed, denigrated, and otherwise diminished by family, friends, neighbors, social commentariat, and even the authorities.
You know, as in the real problem?
And as you continue to hurl straw men about in your pride fight, you're not really helping to improve people's assessment of your outlook, since apparently you didn't see fit to offer a direct explanation of how your principle applies to the episodes recounted in this thread.
These attitudes you're trying to ignore have real consequences. And those consequences, by proxy of the attitudes and outlooks that empower them, are within a society's faculty to change.
Except, of course, that it seems people would rather talk about vague, ineffective "prevention" tips.
You are mistaken. We have been attempting to bring the implications of that to your attention for quite a while now - it is an important factor in leading prevention advocacy to oppression and beyond, if the precaution advocates do not draw a line beyond which precaution is not advocated. My own expectation was that eliciting that word - "never" - from a precaution advocate would wake them up, cause them to reconsider their program and its implications - overoptimistic, clearly.billvon said:
Heart attacks would be, ethically and morally, completely different matters - right? You didn't really mean to draw an ethical and moral equivalence between rapists and blood clots, we hope, or advocate the radical and intrusive kinds of precautionary behavior and changes in life appropriate for that kind of threat be adopted in response to the threat of rape - we would like to assume that, but in the past you have drawn some rather disturbing parallels (rape and revenge, child raising and society's treatment of adult women) so certainty is denied us.billvon said:
Moving right along, to something more reasonable: There are limits to the advocacy of precaution in facing the risks of drunken drivers. People don't actually advocate, as a matter of personal adult responsibility, that sober drivers stay off the roads driven by drunks, never drive when drunks are driving, take expensive classes in skilled maneuvering to avoid drunks, buy only cars capable of quick drunk dodging, drive only in packs whenever drunks might be around, have their cars towed and get rides in safer vehicles such as buses or limos rather than risk drunken driver scenes, choose where they live and work and play with drunken driver avoidance in mind, and so forth. Such precautions, although doubtless effective, are not often or seriously advocated because such advocacy would be oppressive, assignations of responsibility to the wrong adults, promotion of practices characteristic of living in fear.
It is normal for the police to proactively discourage drunken driving - to stop and question drivers exhibiting the common attributes of drunken driving, for example. It is normal for friends of the inebriated to prevent them from driving, to put the car keys in a basket controlled by the host, to chaperone and shuttle them. The people most vulnerable to temptation are known and recognized socially and protected from that temptation. When sober people are hit by a drunk, no one questions their presence on the road, their skill at drunk avoidance, their precautionary behaviors. Drunken driver accident prevention does not consist mostly of dozens of classes and programs and tip lists and precautions and so forth for the sober.
When someone mentions seminars for potential drunk drivers as a response, rather than freeway avoidance by the sober or the like, it's not a rhetorical thing obviously unserious or parody: it's considered.
As long as you are drawing that imperfect parallel, that is - we might as well take a look at it.
Last edited:
Probably because advice targeting potential perpetrators has difficulty framing the learning environment to achieve its desired learning outcomes. IOW if you have a type of individual inclined to perform an act that they already understand to be criminal, you will always have problems trying to give them advice on how to not do it.
Its not so much "what I want" but "why it is".
How many (positive) testimonials from potential rapists do you think the link you provided generates?
iceaura's drunk driving example is quite a good analogy here.
For example, where I live, we have lots of government-paid advertisements on TV advising people not to drink and drive. I suppose you'd say that these are a waste of time and money because people who are already inclined to drink and drive will be resistant to advice not to do so. Is that right? (Note that these ads often spell out some of the consequences of drinking and driving, both for victims and perpetrators.)
You approve of how it is, though. You think how it is is the best way to do things. Right?
Isn't everybody a potential rapist? Could it be that some people decide not to take the step to actually being a rapist once they know a few things about rape?
I'd say that the piece I quoted above provokes thought. That's got to be a net positive, don't you think?
I wonder what would happen if the government ran that piece (or maybe something a little less parodical) on national TV...
Actually I would say the same thing - namely that they also have problems framing the learning environment (since they quite regularly catch people out when they set up random breath testing stations - its not unusual to see them banked up with at least a dozen people who get busted ... all of whom are aware of the risks/fines/etc of drink driving ... and all of whom no doubt try to adopt evasive measures when its apparent there are police ahead doing breath testing).
In regards to being a victim of drink driving however, there is practically nothing one can do to avoid being a victim (unlike rape) so that is really the only avenue open - namely drive home the consequences of the act to the perpetrators ... amongst which is (again, unlike in the instance of rape) the straight-forwardness of prosecution.
IOW it's more about what is possible or more straight forward in the modern world's language of justice. Aside from having legitimately passed a test to get a license, there is no straight forward manner to assess driver capacity/skills after being involved in an accident/traffic violation. There is however strict guidelines determining the maximum amount of alcohol one can have in one's blood while driving.
For instance compare this
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/truckie-not-guilty-over-cyclist-death-20130506-2j2mm.html
with this
http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2013/05/12/242242_local-news.html
So with DUI, unlike regular traffic calamities, it enables a minimum point from which a judgement can be made and penalties enforced, presenting a very clear path for the persecution of offenders, even when the consequences are practically identical.
In the same way, when a legal presentation of rape boils down to "person A says ..." vs "person B says ..." you have a diminished capacity to drive home the message of being held accountable for one's actions to a type of person already intent on evading detection.
So in short, DUI doesn't suffer from the legal difficulties of prosecution typified by rape, and rape prevention doesn't suffer from the difficulties of potential victims adopting effective measures as DUI ... so they both default to different conclusions as to the most popular manner of effectively dealing with the problem.
Well of course.
Given that "the way it is" renders one approach reaps tomes of testimonials from persons who have successfully imbibed the learning outcomes and the other cannot even effectively frame the learning environment for its respective audience, why on earth wouldn't one think it would be the best way to do things?
So what illuminating bits of information do you think a potential rapist could derive from the link you provided (especially given that a person intent on rape is actively and consciously pursuing practically all of them)?
I would say its more accurate to say its a bit tongue in cheek, trying to evoke a reaction by preaching to the converted.
In the absence of the advertisement framing the learning environment for its target audience, it would simply preach to the converted at best or be written off as yet another drab piece of irrelevant self-satirizing propaganda at worst .....
To say the least, rape prevention education focusing on empowering potential victims doesn't appear to have this problem .... and in the absence of educating rapists that they shouldn't slip drugs into their prospective victim's drinks and whatnot, there is certainly no harm in trying to overturn this practical default of rape prevention (such as "Watch the bartender make your beverage, and be sure no one else touches it before you do. " ) in the absence of you being able to offer a substitute that comes even remotely close to being effective.
Do you think that there is any way to protect yourself 100% from any assault? Do you think there is any societal solution that will end assault 100%? Do you think there is such a thing as perfect safety?
Ethically and morally - yes, they are completely different.
Nevertheless, you can be killed tomorrow by one. You can be killed tomorrow by a murderer. You can be killed by a drunk driver. You can do things to reduce the odds of all those things. Wise people do.
Incorrect. Consider the following statements:
"Be really careful tonight, honey. It's New Years Eve, and there will be a lot of people out driving drunk."
"This car has side impact airbags. You may never need them, but if a drunk driver runs a red light and hits you, it could save your life."
"I'll buy that car, but I want a third party mechanic to inspect the brakes and steering, because those are the things that could save my life."
"Dude, you've had too many. Here, I'll call you a cab."
People DO take precautions to prevent being hit and killed by drunk drivers. They DO take defensive driving courses. They DO buy cars that can keep them alive in accidents that are not their fault. They DO try to prevent drunk driving by keeping drunks off the road. All those preventative actions have resulted in a significant decline in drunk driving.
But people like you want to prevent women from taking the same kind of precautions against assault. Odd.
Only you (and your fellow submission advocates) think that. People do in fact take precautions against being killed in accidents that are not their fault. Most people consider it completely normal to say "please be careful tonight, there are a lot of drunks on the road." The person told this generally does not find this "oppressive, assignations of responsibility to the wrong adults, promotion of practices characteristic of living in fear." (Unless, of course, they are submission advocates.)
More ways to prevent drunk driving deaths! You're starting to get it. We'll make a preventionist of you yet.
Exactly. Rape is the fault of the rapist. When a drunk driver hits a pedestrian and kills them, he is at fault. See the parallel?
It actually does. Most driver education courses - which most people take - cover drunk driving and how/why it should be avoided.
Bells
Staff member
Why haven't you?
You see, I find this astounding.
You demand that women take responsibility to prevent being raped, yet you seem to believe it is ridiculous to tell the women in your family that they need to take responsibility to prevent being raped. Why is that?
But in this instance, you are demanding that women take responsibility for the actions of another person, to prevent that person harming her.
A professional victim?
So a woman is raped by another person, you demand that that woman take responsibility for what the rapist does to her and then you question whether she is a professional victim because she did not take responsibility for the actions of another person?
To use Iceaura's drunk driver example. Are you responsible if a drunk driver slams into you as you are walking down the street?
Because you are demanding that women be responsible for a rapist's actions so that they can somehow prevent that rapist from raping.
But you are arguing that a rape victim is responsible for preventing her own rape.
So you are demanding that a victim of a date rape, shares responsibility because you believe it is her responsibility to prevent a man from raping her. Ergo, you expect women to be responsible for the actions of the rapists.
Personal responsibility when it comes to rape - lies with the rapist to not rape. The victim is not responsible to not be raped.
In your date rape example, your argument in this thread would amount to - "Date rape? She tempted me; it wasn't my fault! What was I supposed to do?" - "Well it was her responsibility to stop you from raping her"..
But you wouldn't be saddened by it. Because you have argued that it is her responsibility to stop another person from raping her. That is apparently her job.
And you are so twisted around this obscene argument that you cannot even see what we are saying, and instead coming up with this bizarre argument, a la Wynn, by declaring that I and others want women to be raped. I say rape prevention should be aimed at the rapist and that women should never be held responsible for their rape, whether they are in a position to fight back or not. You view that as rape submission and somehow or other, wanting women to be raped while declaring that it is the woman's responsibility to prevent being raped.
You are following the same argument as Wynn and falling into the same misogynistic trap that she set when she asked me if I would rather be raped or be right. I survived a sexual assault many years ago. So I find your comments and your arguments galling and insulting in the extreme. Now I was sexually assaulted by a man who had, up to that point, been a long and very trusted friend. But by your twisted belief, it was my responsibility to stop him from raping me. And if I had failed to do so or if I had frozen in shock, the expectation would be that I had somehow failed in my responsibility.
And that is the issue with prevention theory. You have set no boundaries and have not stated when it ceases to be the woman's responsibility to prevent being raped. In my example, we were in a dark car park outside a fairly busy restaurant, where we were dining with friends and I was going back to my car to get my jacket and he, being the person who declared he would walk me to my car because 'it's not safe for a woman to walk alone in the dark', tried to rape me when we got to my car. I managed to fight him off and run screaming and battered and bruised back to the restaurant as he took off. So where did my responsibility begin and end? Was it my responsibility to have kept myself safe by not walking alone in the car park at night? Which I fully met by being accompanied. However, he turned out to be my attacker, so I failed my responsibility there, if I were to take your rape prevention ideology seriously. The reality is that I would have been safer and unharmed had I gone alone. But then, twisted little people like you would have judged me as being irresponsible if I had been attacked while I was alone..
Which is why I ask and you can't answer.. At what point should I expect to not be raped? At what point should I stop being responsible for the harm another person may do to me or set out to do to me? Because that is what you are demanding women do. You are demanding that women be held responsible and be responsible for the actions of another person against her. And that to me is totally unacceptable.
So you can, in effect, take your strawman insult and shove it.
While demanding that it is up to women to prevent being raped.
Making It Obvious
This is how people can tell you're in over your head, that you have no idea what you're dealing with in the rape phenomenon.
The list isn't really for the rapists. It's for everyone else, in order to make the point.
Lightgigantic said:
This is how people can tell you're in over your head, that you have no idea what you're dealing with in the rape phenomenon.
The list isn't really for the rapists. It's for everyone else, in order to make the point.
Like I said, I love those fantastic strawmen. Perhaps I also demanded that rapists be given medals? Or that I approve of pedophilia or something. Surely you can make some even better stuff up.
Nope. A professional victim refuses to take responsibility for her OWN actions. A rapist who was a professional victim, for example, would claim that it was the woman's fault that she was raped. "She wore those clothes and she didn't object much at first! What was I to think? It's her fault, not mine!" (Fortunately such criminals don't see much success with theses sorts of claims any more, and thus their profession would be short lived.)
Nope. But you might not want to walk in the middle of the highway at midnight wearing black clothing.
I know, I know, suggesting that people don't walk down the middle of a highway at midnight is EXACTLY THE SAME as demanding they never leave their homes, and is the same as blaming them for their own deaths.
Nope. Rapists are responsible for their actions.
Nope. They can choose to take precautions. They are not responsible for their own rape.
Nope.
Nope. You're 0 for 6. Want to go for 10?
Wrong again. 0 for 7.
Nope. Not arguing that. 0 for 8.
It INSTANTLY ceases to become the woman's responsibility to prevent being raped, since there was never any responsibility to begin with.
The assault was his responsibility. Period.
The next time you saw him, would you walk alone with him to your car?
Never. You can ALWAYS be raped. That's life in the real world. You can do things to lower your chances of that. As a society we can reduce the odds of that happening to you. But your odds are never zero.
At what point can you expect not to die? Same answer.
Never. You are NEVER responsible for what someone else does. You are only responsible for what you do.
And let me congratulate you on hitting the magic 10! You have now made 10 incorrect assumptions based on your strawman. I wasn't sure if you could do it, but you came through.
Cool! Irrational, furious AND abusive; a great combination.
Right. Because suggesting that men take courses to prevent rape is exactly the same as saying it is up to women to prevent rape.
The Secret of Success : Dumb it Down
Unless and until behavioral changes are imbibed by the desired audience, any measure of prevention bears practically zero impact.
So for instance making teetotalers aware of the dangers of drink driving, training tribesmen of the sahara desert how to prevent getting attacked by a polar bear or instructing individuals who are already disgusted by the notion of slipping roofies into women's drinks to not slip roofies into women's drinks provide a benefit close to nil (especially when you compare such endeavours to preventative tacts that effectively distribute learning outcomes to relevant populations ... such as teaching women skills for rape prevention) ...
And even if one wants to say that we have to fine tune the pedagogical strategy for getting men not to rape, that endeavour is not inhibited in the slightest by populations defaulting to more practical courses while others try and make the learning curve.
:shrug:
Don't know what you are talking about.
Unless and until behavioral changes are imbibed by the desired audience, any measure of prevention bears practically zero impact.
So for instance making teetotalers aware of the dangers of drink driving, training tribesmen of the sahara desert how to prevent getting attacked by a polar bear or instructing individuals who are already disgusted by the notion of slipping roofies into women's drinks to not slip roofies into women's drinks provide a benefit close to nil (especially when you compare such endeavours to preventative tacts that effectively distribute learning outcomes to relevant populations ... such as teaching women skills for rape prevention) ...
And even if one wants to say that we have to fine tune the pedagogical strategy for getting men not to rape, that endeavour is not inhibited in the slightest by populations defaulting to more practical courses while others try and make the learning curve.
:shrug:
Right. But let's say that you have a group of people. Some will move to the Sahara, some to Barrow, Alaska. You're not sure who will move where. In that case, giving basic training to everyone on how to avoid polar bear AND lion attacks will make sense. Sure, the training will be useless to many people. But for a few it will be very useful. It would be even better if you could identify ahead of time, and tailor your training for them, but sometimes you can't.
That's why it makes sense to teach rape prevention in schools. Men will get the training even if they never plan to rape anyone. Women will get the training even if they never plan to be raped. And while the great majority will never need the training, the minority that will will benefit greatly from it.
So then we have to ask, how effective is the link James R provided in communicating to the broader community?
Does this :
1. Don’t put drugs in a woman's drink in order to control her behaviour.
2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.
3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her.
4. If you are in an elevator and a woman gets in, don’t rape her.
5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not rape her.
6. Never creep into a woman’s home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or rape her. establish a new precedent in people's moral barometer to effect a social impact?
etc etc
..... challenge the moral barometer of people in general?
Or is it simply relegated to the realm of the ineffective since it has immense problems framing a learning environment?
Almost zero. It's intended as a rhetorical device. "If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her" is as useful as "if you have unprotected sex with strangers, remember to not get HIV." As is typical in Internet forums, he's trying to make a point, not contribute useful advice.
However, things like this:
Definitions of rape i.e. if she's passed out and you have sex with her it's still rape even if she seemed to be OK with it earlier
Things that can impair your judgment i.e. if both people are very drunk consent is almost impossible to give and understand accurately
Peer foolishness i.e. "everyone has sex with Jane, she complains but she likes it afterwards" is not a valid replacement for consent
can be useful.
I would challenge your assertion that putting the onus on women to prevent their own rape is the more practical approach. You endorsed a website that claimed no woman can, without years of specialized training, hope to physically deter a larger man who wants to rape her, and stranger rape (your "grabby douchebag at the bar" example) represents only a small minority of rape cases; where is the effectiveness? Most people are raped by people they know, most often people they have no reason to mistrust. Your open-ended advocacy necessarily makes it impossible for a woman to avoid blame without resorting to extreme measures.
To support this dangerous theory, you seem to rely on there being more positive testimonials for self-defense strategies than for male-centric "don't rape" strategies...and I'm tempted to leave it at that, in the knowledge that you're fully aware of how stupid that is. But, for the sake of others who might have the misfortune of stumbling across this thread, I should retort: It would be absurd to expect would-be rapists who have been dissuaded from committing the act to tell their stories publicly. While one might take some personal pride in resisting the urge to sexually assault another human being, I imagine anyone who hears the story would be too concerned that this person they know had actually entertained such a thought to give kudos.
And you're strawmanning again. No one has suggested that rape prevention strategies as a concept are wrong or immoral, let alone that the problem with them is that they inhibit campaigns to prevent would-be rapists from raping. As you have been told numerous times before, the primary issue is that you and your cronies have repeatedly failed to set an outer boundary to your prevention advocacy. If you wish to endorse only common-sense strategies, fine. But you and several others have either said or implied that women are responsible for what happens to them, so there is no reason to believe you wouldn't blame the woman who is raped by her cousin during a family reunion after she had a few glasses of wine. If you wish to find yourself on the right side of this issue, then simply close the loop. Tell us the outer boundary.
First of all, go talk to those people who actually blame the victims. None of those people are posting here, though.
Secondly,
Is there any area of life where this doesn't happen?
Blaming victims and dismissing their plight is common - whether it's the victims of rape, robbery, assault, drunk driving, mobbing in the workplace or whatever.
Acknowledging that it is common, however, does not mean that the acknowledger agrees with it or endorses it.
Given that it is so common, many people resort to more immediately applicable strategies for dealing with injustice - rather than waiting that the whole societal system will change.
Seeking those other strategies is not mutually exclusive to making efforts for the whole societal system to change.
In your estimation, who is the person who is primarily responsible for your wellbeing?
- Status