Rape and the "Civilized" World

[billvon]

And you're strawmanning again. No one has suggested that rape prevention strategies as a concept are wrong or immoral

So they are not wrong in concept, you just can't execute them?

Well, we can easily say the same for those campaigns to inhibit would-be rapists, then! No problems with them in concept - as long as you don't implement them.

That should make everyone happy.

 

[Balerion]

So they are not wrong in concept, you just can't execute them?

That's quite obviously not what anyone is saying. Prevention strategies are not wrong as a concept, but yours specifically--ie this open-ended philosophy that logically contradicts your assertion that the rapist is always at fault--is.

 

[billvon]

That's quite obviously not what anyone is saying. Prevention strategies are not wrong as a concept, but yours specifically--ie this open-ended philosophy that logically contradicts your assertion that the rapist is always at fault--is.

If you are saying that both sorts of prevention strategies should be implemented - good, we agree! See, that wasn't so hard.

 

[Tiassa]

Not Quite Tangential

Prevention strategies are not wrong as a concept, but yours specifically—ie this open-ended philosophy that logically contradicts your assertion that the rapist is always at fault—is.

It's quite sad, in a way, because from the outset, with the problems of unbounded prevention theory being addressed in the topic post and distilled immediately thereafter in Bells' response, all any of the prevention advocates had to do to avoid this pushback they so obviously feel is unfair is actually mark the outer boundary so that we could consider the real dimensions of the proposition.

And, yeah, we get it. Rape prevention theories should be as easy as locking the front door, or knowing what street you're on. You know, becasue women need to be told these things.

Or something like that.

All we've really gotten from prevention advocates since then is an army of straw men. I mean, one could—in theory—search through these pages easily enough and find all the posts in which prevention advocates accuse that other people are recommending these extreme measures such as segregating social spheres.

The only reason that count is remotely significant, of course, is because of statements those other people have made, such as in #6:

But if we leave the discussion at [LG's] points about self-therapy for rapists and prevention for potential victims, the best way for women to prevent their own rapes is to never associate with males, period.

I tend to think that's unrealistic, but then again, I'm also one who doesn't believe men in general are actually so inherently stupid that cultural repair is beyond their capacities. More fool me? Perhaps.​

The fact that all these people can do is tilt windmills is significant. An affirmative outer boundary would do so much to clear up their point. As it is, the best any of our prevention advocate neighbors have come up with is variable thresholds of human rights and dignity for various women according to unknown criteria.

And sometimes people of common general identity politic band together without attending the detail. Witness, for a large-scale example, the GOP's uneasy courtship with open racists; it's an interesting dynamic, to say the least. But also think of The Animal and his Crazy Dinosaur wife. These are people who advise women to not initiate violence, but also do not believe that sexually accosting a woman is an act of violence.

Perhaps our neighbor doesn't appreciate being counted in with that lot, but it's also the ring he tossed his hat into.

All of it could be cleared up with an affirmative outer boundary that would allow us to consider the merits and implications of a finite prevention theory.

As I've noted before, when we're telling women to not listen to music or use their mobile phones as they move through the city, there is a problem. It's a quality of life issue, a matter of human rights. This is the context against which a finite prevention theory can be tested and measured.

For whatever reason, our neighbors seem to disdain that proposition.

So they leave their theory infinite, and simply identify against the implications.

We need that affirmative boundary. That's all it takes to move past this insanely stupid impasse.

 

[billvon]

We need that affirmative boundary.

It's up to the woman.

Let me ask you this, and see if you can give me a simple, straight answer:

When should a woman get an abortion? What should the boundary be?

 

[Balerion]

It's up to the woman.

Is it that you can't understand how this only affirms the open-ended strategy, or that you won't?

It has been explained to you and others ad nauseum in this thread that by saying "It's up to the woman," you are advocating any and all prevention strategies a woman might adopt--up to and including avoiding all men, being a recluse, separating from family, etc.--and insinuating that any woman who adopts less conservative strategies is ultimately to blame for her attack because she has not done all that was necessary to prevent it.

Now, here is where you'll doubtless invoke your automated response system: "It's the rapist's fault always."

Okay, fine. But it's a contradiction. You cannot say the outer boundary of a woman's responsibility is "whatever she wants" and then logically conclude that when she is not at all responsible when an attack occurs, because "whatever she wants" can be defined as the most extreme possible solution. You must define an outer boundary if you wish to get off of this carousel.

As I've said already, I don't believe you're arguing this nonsense from a position of fear or hatred. I don't really believe you're a misogynist. I think you are, in your own way, attempting to empower women. But in your zeal to battle against what you view as phallosupremacy, you've forgotten to stop and consider what you're actually saying. If you're rabidly holding position because you're worried about bruising your ego, I suggest taking a moment to consider how you'd rather look to the people you're worried about embarrassing yourself in front of: as someone who was wrong, or as a stubborn misogynist. It's okay to change your mind. Otherwise, you're always going to find yourself standing next to misogynist prats like LG, wynn, and the rest.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's up to the woman.

Let me ask you this, and see if you can give me a simple, straight answer:

When should a woman get an abortion? What should the boundary be?

The basic model for the way they deal with problems is this :

A: Assert that the problem has no boundary

B: Explain how it does have a boundary and provide examples of how practically anything you can poke a stick at also has a boundary

A: Respond by misinterpreting the analogy as trying to draw a parallel (eg "how can you say rape is like abortion" yada yada")
... and subsequently moves the discussion away from the point of discussing how rape, much like any other activity that incorporates a victim or some sort of moral decision has a boundary .... and eventually come back to the original question as if it hasn't been discussed yet.

So in short, will Tiassa give a straight answer - I doubt it ....

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Is it that you can't understand how this only affirms the open-ended strategy, or that you won't?

It has been explained to you and others ad nauseum in this thread that by saying "It's up to the woman," you are advocating any and all prevention strategies a woman might adopt--up to and including avoiding all men, being a recluse, separating from family, etc.--and insinuating that any woman who adopts less conservative strategies is ultimately to blame for her attack because she has not done all that was necessary to prevent it.

which for some uncanny reason, seem to only be advocated by persons who are anti-anti-rape advocation ... minus of course any explanation why any individual/organization/contributer to this thread actually involved doesn't incorporate these apparently common and necessary defaults or attitude and/or prevention.

Strawman much?

:shrug:

 

[billvon]

Is it that you can't understand how this only affirms the open-ended strategy, or that you won't?

When should a woman get an abortion?

 

[Balerion]

It's quite sad, in a way, because from the outset, with the problems of unbounded prevention theory being addressed in the topic post and distilled immediately thereafter in Bells' response, all any of the prevention advocates had to do to avoid this pushback they so obviously feel is unfair is actually mark the outer boundary so that we could consider the real dimensions of the proposition.

This point, and your later point about their constant barrage of straw men, speaks to the dishonesty inherent to ideologies such as this. Whether it's bigotry or misogyny or conservative theology, these people simply don't have the integrity to own up to their beliefs in toto. Instead, they insinuate and imply, leaving us agape at the horrific potential depths of their ignorance, fear, and hatred. In a twisted way, it makes you appreciate people like auraca, whom, while obviously detached from reality to a large degree, at least have the spine to identify themselves.

It makes me wonder if LG et al are embarrassed by their beliefs, or just know they stand more to lose in terms of credibility and debate partners if they were to actually grab the chalk and start drawing.

 

[Balerion]

which for some uncanny reason, seem to only be advocated by persons who are anti-anti-rape advocation ... minus of course any explanation why any individual/organization/contributer to this thread actually involved doesn't incorporate these apparently common and necessary defaults or attitude and/or prevention.

Precisely the kinds of straw men Tiassa was talking about.

Strawman much?

Irony much? You seem to be pathologically incapable of debating this topic on the level, resorting to straw men and ducking every direct question posed to you.

When should a woman get an abortion?

I don't know. When should a woman get an abortion?

 

[Randwolf]

And, yeah, we get it.

No you don't. Or more to the point, you pretend not to.

Rape prevention theories should be as easy as locking the front door, or knowing what street you're on.

Such theories can be that easy. Or they can be much more elaborate and difficult. Depends on the individual, because there are boundaries to what you can reasonably expect from any human to prevent violent crime. There are boundaries to what you can reasonably expect from any human to prevent infectious disease also. Just don't tell Howard Hughes that...

You know, becasue women need to be told these things.

Only according to... ??

Or something like that.

Yes Tiassa. Or something like that...

All we've really gotten from prevention advocates since then is an army of straw men. I mean, one could�in theory�search through these pages easily enough and find all the posts in which prevention advocates accuse that other people are recommending these extreme measures such as segregating social spheres.

Maybe. I haven't memorized every post in this and similar threads, but... BUT... I would be mildly (to put it mildly) surprised if you could "search through these pages easily enough and find all the posts in which prevention advocates accuse that other people are recommending these extreme measures such as segregating social spheres". I know I haven't recommended "extreme" measures. Can you find something I have suggested that is "extreme"? And I am not going to start recommending such but neither am I going to quietly assume that there is absolutely nothing that one can do on their own to minimize risk...

In all reality, I have learned a lot from these debates in the last five + years. I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which it would even be remotely possibly to rationally assign any modicum of blame to a victim of violent crime, even in absurd circumstances. This does not detract from the idea that even after all macro-solutions have been applied, even after society has done all that is reasonably possible, after all the education programs in the world... The question remains - "What can I, as an individual, do to prevent violent assault?"

This is the question that those that oppose any sort of affirmative action on the part of "potential victims" seem to abhor. I don't get it. Other members have mentioned that the strategies advocated towards rape prevention on the perpetrators (or society as a whole) are not mutually exclusive from those of personal empowerment. This approach is somehow always met with degradation and pigeonholing of the worst kind. "Oh, you're a misogynistic SOB that is trying to transfer responsibility to the victim!" Really? No...

It seemed such a simple concept many years ago.. We can't stop, or even anticipate, when we might become a victim of rape or any other violent crime. This doesn't mean that we have absolutely no control over our behavior. It doesn't mean that our behavior can not influence our future. Even if most crime can not be attributed to "stranger danger" that doesn't (or shouldn't) imply that we ignore the minority of cases.

Wow. No offense intended. Just wow. I didn't, and don't want to make any victim anywhere feel guilty or responsible for the violence perpetrated on them. What I also do not want to do is perpetuate the idea that we as individuals are powerless and totally ineffectual in protecting ourselves from life, the universe and everything. As offended as the "anti-prevention" camp seems to get over this simple idea, I refuse to subscribe. Sorry...

Having said all that, Tiassa and friends make a great point. Pushed too far, the idea of self empowerment could be construed as an attempt to transfer blame to victims of a very horrendous crime, one perhaps without parallel. (Hence, no analogies) Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that any human could totally avoid advocating prevention strategies on a pragmatic, practical, everyday level. Maybe I'm wrong there. Will someone please just stand up and put this misconception to rest? Please... Just say "I endorse people indulging in attempting to fulfill rape fantasies.' And be done with it.

Any takers?

 

[billvon]

I don't know. When should a woman get an abortion?

You can't even answer so simple a question, and yet you continue to demand answers to questions that have already been answered.

Quite a double standard you have there.

 

[lightgigantic]

Precisely the kinds of straw men Tiassa was talking about.

pointing out how you are lodging an argument that no one is even making, either in this discussion or in the real world amongst professionals, is a strawman?
I'm not sure how that works

Irony much? You seem to be pathologically incapable of debating this topic on the level, resorting to straw men and ducking every direct question posed to you.

will the irony never end?

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

You can't even answer so simple a question, and yet you continue to demand answers to questions that have already been answered.

Quite a double standard you have there.

I'm trying to figure out what the hell this question has to do with what we're talking about. You're apparently leading to some larger point, so why not just go ahead and make it? Why is it like pulling teeth with you people?

And as soon as you address any of the points I raised in my reply to you, feel free to criticize me for ducking questions. Until then...what's that bit about glass houses?

pointing out how you are lodging an argument that no one is even making, either in this discussion or in the real world amongst professionals, is a strawman?
I'm not sure how that works

But you are making it. By advocating an open-ended rape prevention strategy, there is no plausible way for a woman to avoid blame if she is raped. Is that really so hard to understand? If you're not saying that, the solution is simple: establish an outer boundary for rape prevention.

will the irony never end?

Are you autistic?

 

[Tiassa]

Brief Notes

It's up to the woman.

Let me ask you this, and see if you can give me a simple, straight answer:

When should a woman get an abortion? What should the boundary be?

You make my point for me.

• • •​

This point, and your later point about their constant barrage of straw men, speaks to the dishonesty inherent to ideologies such as this.

I always thought human rights were pretty much human rights. It is not the easiest thing trying to figure out what this variable human rights standard from woman to woman even means.

• • •​

Only according to... ??

Seattle Police Department, for instance. You know, as discussed in the topic post?

 

[Balerion]

Maybe. I haven't memorized every post in this and similar threads, but... BUT... I would be mildly (to put it mildly) surprised if you could "search through these pages easily enough and find all the posts in which prevention advocates accuse that other people are recommending these extreme measures such as segregating social spheres".

Read almost any of lightgigantic's posts.

I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which it would even be remotely possibly to rationally assign any modicum of blame to a victim of violent crime, even in absurd circumstances.

Yet you advocate a prevention philosophy ("it's up to the woman") that mandates blame be assigned to the victim.

I honestly can't get over this. Okay, the cognitive dissonance is one thing--"I say X, but don't believe in X, so therefore I must not be saying X"--but where the hell did you learn that accountability and responsibility are such elastic terms? You say women are accountable for their behavior, that they can keep themselves out of harm's way, so where does the idea come from that they are then somehow not responsible for what happens to them when they're raped?

To put it simply, you can't have it both ways. If women are responsible and accountable for what happens to them, then they are accountable and responsible when they are raped.

This does not detract from the idea that even after all macro-solutions have been applied, even after society has done all that is reasonably possible, after all the education programs in the world... The question remains - "What can I, as an individual, do to prevent violent assault?"

Sure. But the answer is, "Not much." Nor should such measures be expected. Even setting aside the ridiculous strategies advocated in this thread, such as abstaining from alcohol in public and dressing conservatively, why should it be a woman's responsibility to take self-defense classes or carry a weapon? Why can't she live her life with the reasonable expectation that she won't be raped? You wouldn't advise that women shut their mouths around their husbands on the off-chance that he might hit her, would you? Then why would you advocate a woman learning the proper way to kick a man in the balls to avoid rape?

I think if a woman wants to take self-defense courses or carry a weapon, that's fine, but that's not her responsibility. She's not accountable on that. It can't be said that in failing to take those measures, she is putting herself at risk for rape.

This is the question that those that oppose any sort of affirmative action on the part of "potential victims" seem to abhor. I don't get it. Other members have mentioned that the strategies advocated towards rape prevention on the perpetrators (or society as a whole) are not mutually exclusive from those of personal empowerment. This approach is somehow always met with degradation and pigeonholing of the worst kind. "Oh, you're a misogynistic SOB that is trying to transfer responsibility to the victim!" Really? No...

Ugh. More straw.

No one--literally no one--is opposed to affirmative action on the part of the victim. No one has decried any sensible measures, like being aware of one's surroundings. (Though, and rightly so, Tiassa and Bells have pointed out that these aren't actions that anyone needs to be told) The complaint is against the notion that women should be expected to do something of this sort, because the implication is that if she doesn't, she is culpable when she is attacked. Again, this is where you and bilvon seem to keep getting stuck: there is no way to divorce responsibility from accountability. If a woman must take positive action, failing to take those steps results in the victim being blamed for the attack. And if there are no outer boundaries to what she is expected to do, then there is no way for her to be attacked and not be considered partly responsible for it.

If that's not specific enough, let's try an example. Let's say you advocate an outer boundary of women taking self-defense classes. You say that this is the most a woman can reasonably do to prevent rape. Now, we still would disagree on the basic premise that she has the responsibility to do something, but at least I'd know you aren't advocating that women hide in their homes until all the men go away.

It seemed such a simple concept many years ago.. We can't stop, or even anticipate, when we might become a victim of rape or any other violent crime. This doesn't mean that we have absolutely no control over our behavior. It doesn't mean that our behavior can not influence our future. Even if most crime can not be attributed to "stranger danger" that doesn't (or shouldn't) imply that we ignore the minority of cases.

And here you are blaming the victim again. Women are not powerless -> women control their own behavior -> behavior influences our future -> our future is rape -> women control whether or not they are raped.

This is the fallacy you keep falling back on, and you somehow can't even see it!

Wow. No offense intended. Just wow. I didn't, and don't want to make any victim anywhere feel guilty or responsible for the violence perpetrated on them. What I also do not want to do is perpetuate the idea that we as individuals are powerless and totally ineffectual in protecting ourselves from life, the universe and everything. As offended as the "anti-prevention" camp seems to get over this simple idea, I refuse to subscribe. Sorry...

Another straw man.

Having said all that, Tiassa and friends make a great point. Pushed too far, the idea of self empowerment could be construed as an attempt to transfer blame to victims of a very horrendous crime, one perhaps without parallel. (Hence, no analogies) Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that any human could totally avoid advocating prevention strategies on a pragmatic, practical, everyday level. Maybe I'm wrong there. Will someone please just stand up and put this misconception to rest? Please... Just say "I endorse people indulging in attempting to fulfill rape fantasies.' And be done with it.

Any takers?

Your own ideas of empowerment do exactly that. You've made it impossible for the victim to be absolved of blame by insisting that she has power over what happens to her, and by refusing to define an outer boundary for what she should be expected to do to prevent her own rape. You won't even acknowledge that people can't totally prevent it. To you, total prevention is just a matter of taking the proper steps.

 

[lightgigantic]

But you are making it. By advocating an open-ended rape prevention strategy, there is no plausible way for a woman to avoid blame if she is raped.

which then begs the question why its only anti-anti-rape prevention advocates who are exclusively the one's to default to these so-called plausible strategies .... and no one is the real world ?

Is that really so hard to understand?

On teh contrary its quite easy to understand why you push this strawman ....

If you're not saying that, the solution is simple: establish an outer boundary for rape prevention.

We've given you tons of explanations how its limited and provided tons of similar examples of how risk is limited.

You on the other hand, cannot provide a single example of any sort of risk prevention that meets your own ridiculous standard.

:shrug:

Are you autistic?

straw man plus insult ... quite some style you have there ...
:shrug:

 

[Bells]

This is the question that those that oppose any sort of affirmative action on the part of "potential victims" seem to abhor. I don't get it. Other members have mentioned that the strategies advocated towards rape prevention on the perpetrators (or society as a whole) are not mutually exclusive from those of personal empowerment. This approach is somehow always met with degradation and pigeonholing of the worst kind. "Oh, you're a misogynistic SOB that is trying to transfer responsibility to the victim!" Really? No...

Have you read some of what has been prescribed under the name of "rape prevention"?

From not talking back to men in case they rape you, to not listening to music when walking in public, to women's posture when we walk down the street, to our hair styles, to times we should and should not walk down the street alone, to how we dress, how much we drink in public (and one would assume, in our own homes since we are most likely to be raped by our spouse or partner in our own beds) to understanding the psychology behind why men to allow women to identify their potential rapists, to urinating and vomiting on our rapist (which would entail always maintaining a full bladder at the very least), to simply not having sex unless it is for procreation, to apparently not picking men who are likely to rape us, and all that can possibly go inbetween.

And this is supposed to be personally empowering?

Really?

I am supposed to take this seriously and be empowered by it?

And all this is termed "rape prevention" and I am told that if I want to avoid being raped, then it is my responsibility to not be raped by employing these "empowering" strategies and then I am told that if I am raped, well it's not really my fault, with the underlying message that it is my responsibility to not be raped.

It seemed such a simple concept many years ago.. We can't stop, or even anticipate, when we might become a victim of rape or any other violent crime. This doesn't mean that we have absolutely no control over our behavior. It doesn't mean that our behavior can not influence our future. Even if most crime can not be attributed to "stranger danger" that doesn't (or shouldn't) imply that we ignore the minority of cases.

It is when people use words like "our behaviour" when it comes to rape that will result in being told to stuff you. What behaviour should we control to not be raped? Keep in mind the stupid amount of evidence which shows that how women behave, how they dress, wear their hair, how they walk, where they are, will have no bearing on whether she is raped or not.

Wow. No offense intended. Just wow. I didn't, and don't want to make any victim anywhere feel guilty or responsible for the violence perpetrated on them. What I also do not want to do is perpetuate the idea that we as individuals are powerless and totally ineffectual in protecting ourselves from life, the universe and everything. As offended as the "anti-prevention" camp seems to get over this simple idea, I refuse to subscribe. Sorry...

When I read through the "rape prevention" ideas presented and linked in this thread, when I find myself being compared to a car along the lines of 'well you'd lock up your car, wouldn't you?', when I am told by men that it is my responsibility to not be raped and if I do not employ such tactics then I get this insipid :shrug:, as though I am somehow failing in my responsibility and somehow or other desire or want to be raped, yes, I will be offended by it.

Having said all that, Tiassa and friends make a great point. Pushed too far, the idea of self empowerment could be construed as an attempt to transfer blame to victims of a very horrendous crime, one perhaps without parallel. (Hence, no analogies) Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that any human could totally avoid advocating prevention strategies on a pragmatic, practical, everyday level. Maybe I'm wrong there. Will someone please just stand up and put this misconception to rest? Please... Just say "I endorse people indulging in attempting to fulfill rape fantasies.' And be done with it.

None of us has ever said that people should not defend themselves. No one. But when it is termed in the way it has been presented in this thread, where there are no boundaries to what women are apparently expected to employ in "rape prevention" and when we are asked, "do you want to be raped" by people arguing for rape prevention.. Really? No, really? Fight off a rapist? Well duh! If you can, of course you are going to. I certainly did. But not everyone can or is able to. It does not make her being partly responsible for her own rape. It is not for me to tell any person that it is their responsibility to prevent being raped as though they are too stupid to know that for themselves.

How do you think you would construe it if some twat came up to your wife and demanded that she employ all or any of these "rape prevention" strategies and asks her "do you want to be raped or be right?" when she would rightly scoff at some presented and how would you feel if said twat told your wife that it was her job and her responsibility to prevent herself from being raped?

How do you think rape victims who didn't fight back, or were raped while drunk by their partner, for example, going to feel when they see these kinds of messages from the men in society? Would such a woman be likely to report her rape when she is bombarded with her responsibility to prevent being raped?

When people present open ended rape prevention arguments like those in this thread, then no, it isn't empowering. It is condescending and patronising because it assumes that women are too stupid and so, need men to tell us how to prevent ourselves from being raped. At the start of this thread, I placed the onus to not rape on men and women who rape and I was told that that was just stupid. Because apparently, it is stupid to teach our son's and men in our society that it is wrong to rape. And I was instead told that it was my responsibility as a woman to prevent being raped. Yes, I find that offensive.

 

[Balerion]

which then begs the question why its only anti-anti-rape prevention advocates who are exclusively the one's to default to these so-called plausible strategies .... and no one is the real world ?

We don't default to them. You do. It's your strategy, not mine.

We've given you tons of explanations how its limited and provided tons of similar examples of how risk is limited.

You haven't even given one example of its limitation. Feel free to provide a quote where you, or anyone else, has provided that outer boundary.

You on the other hand, cannot provide a single example of any sort of risk prevention that meets your own ridiculous standard.

Are you kidding me? How many times have I talked about self-defense, carrying pepper spray, or a gun? How many times have I talked about awareness? I endorsed the free advice given on the second website you linked to.

You're a joke at this point.

straw man plus insult ... quite some style you have there ...
:shrug:

I'm asking an honest question. Your obsessive use of shrugs and repetitive phrases brings the disorder to mind. I'm trying to discern if it's just laziness, a lack of wit, or something you honestly can't help.