BS. I don't fall back on anything of the sort.
Of course you do. You
just said that someone "finally" said what I said, when it has been said numerous times by numerous posters, including me in several posts prior to the one you quoted.
Yes they have. Based on the premise that any prevention advocacy is a transfer of blame and responsibility to the victim.
Straw man (per usual). As Tiassa stated in post
#744
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.
It's useless (and kind of impossible) to meaningfully discuss finite prevention theories when the only ones being promoted by you and your friends are open-ended. That said, no one here has spoken out against all prevention measures, and I myself have personally advocated certain measures in this thread. So your point is straw, again.
You haven't simply done anything. What you've done is propose a convoluted and twisted form of logic to achieve your own ends. While this logic may be traceable (barely) it diverts productive discussion more than anything else. I can see how taking your premise and running with it to the extreme could lead one to the conclusion that somehow a victim is to blame for their own assault.
What you call "extreme" is really just the natural conclusion one is lead to when presented with the rape prevention theories found in this thread: If it is up to the woman to decide what constitutes reasonable action, then any action becomes reasonable--up to and including ridiculous extremes such as avoiding social situations with potential rapists. Likewise, no action becomes
unreasonable, meaning that any woman can be accused of failing to act reasonably in her own defense. This isn't twisted logic, it's just plain old regular logical logic. It's 1+1=2. As I've said a hundred times in this thread, you can't divorce responsibility from accountability. You're saying that there is this invisible and contradictory place where even though the woman didn't adopt reasonable measures to protect herself--and therefore
put herself in harm's way--that she isn't accountable. Well, hey, that's all well and good...but it's not logical.
I do not believe that this is what most members are trying to achieve.
I would agree to some extent. At least in your case, and even bilvon's, I think what you're doing is being the radical lefty buffoon who needs to find a cause to get upset about. You hear people disagreeing with open-ended prevention strategies and you immediately (and irrationally) think to yourself, "They're trying to say women aren't capable of defending themselves!" You're really just reacting against perceived misogyny, which is what makes your involvement in this so ironic. You're standing alongside people who have advised that women stop drinking in public, stop dressing like sluts, and even one who blamed a 3-year-old for her own sexual assault.
This is the company you find yourself in while trying to "protect" the image of women. As I said before:
I'm beginning to think some of the prevention advocates here simply haven't given it much thought.
I think you are exploiting semantics and being willfully obtuse.
I'd love to know how this is a semantic issue.
I don't believe that a person (why the insistence on "woman" J? Men can be raped too ya' know...) is capable of absolutely and definitively preventing rape. I have never asserted such. This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in on your part. After the fact, a victim is a victim, period. Before the fact, I prefer to believe that one can exercise some influence over your likelihood of being a victim of violent crime in the first place. Your way paints futileness and fatalism. Bully for you, I choose to disagree.
And herein is the straw man that begat this whole shebang.
Stranger rape is a statistical minority. Most rapes are committed by people who know their victim. The very idea of suggesting that women are raped because they're putting themselves in that situation is absurd, not to mention insulting. Most women who are raped have no reason whatsoever to mistrust the individual who commits the crime. So how does one then decrease their likelihood of being a victim? Aside from very simple things like the ones I mentioned before, there really aren't any reasonable steps that can be taken.
If only one of you clowns would own up to that, we could move on.
As to why the insistence on "woman," I have used gender-neutral terms like "potential victim" before--even in this post--but this is really about women. Whether it's you, who argues that women are being written off as helpless infants by us, or we who argue that misogyny is at the core of arguments by wynn and LG, this is all really about women.
I call BS again. If it were that simple we would find common ground somewhere and proceed. For example, we would find consensus that people shouldn't indulge in communicating rape fantasies and requesting that a prospective partner carry them out.
And how, exactly, do you figure that? The disagreement is fundamental--open-ended strategies versus finite strategies--so agreeing that people shouldn't engage in rape fantasies isn't going to get us anywhere. (Not to mention that it's another bloody straw man: "Women are raped because they engage in rape fantasies and the man doesn't know when to stop") We need to know the boundaries. Until then, we won't get anywhere.
Then we could proceed to discuss what "boundaries" are reasonable. Instead, we start by asserting, vehemently, that any attempt at reducing or minimizing risk of violent crime is pointless and transfers the responsibililty to the victim. This is the cognitive dissonance that boggles me. How is it better to propose that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that any individual can do to lower their chances of assault?
Yet another straw man.
We are all open to discussing boundaries. You would do well to establish them. But you've failed to at every opportunity. You've even gone so far as to say you don't
have to establish them. Well, you're right, you don't. But if you want to disassociate yourself from folks like LG, establishing boundaries would be a good start.
Fuckin' BINGO. We do NOT disagree here. I wholeheartedly endorse that no one should "do anything other than live her life and exercise the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger." This is where your blinders prevent you from seeing the simple bare truth of what (I think) many have been saying. All anyone should do is "exercise the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger" My point from the beginning. Thank you again for translating that into English. I wish I had thought of such a simple and concise way of putting it.
Then why haven't you said so from the very beginning?
Again, this is what Tiassa was talking about. You give boundaries lip service, but fail to actually establish what those boundaries might be. The closest anyone has come is bilvon, whom promptly advocated a theory that mandates women take some form of blame if they are ever raped.
All you had to do was say what I just said. But you didn't. For whatever reason.
No it's not. The contention arises from the reaction received by anyone with the temerity to state that people can reduce their risk of violent crime by "exercise[ing] the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger."
No, you're strawmanning again. The implications have been that women are raped because they are careless, and rape would stop if they would change their behavior. No one has argued against prevention strategies as a concept. It simply has not happened. People have argued against open-ended and victim-blaming strategies and theories, as well as a ton of misinformation, such as the idea that women can reduce their chances of being raped to "virtually zero," which was found in a link provided by LG, and then endorsed by your friend bilvon.
Really? Seriously? We (my friends and I) generally stop drinking alcohol and start "exercise[ing] the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger." You mean you don't? Or you just wouldn't advise a potential rape victim to do so? Hmmm?
The suggestion from LG was not that women stop drinking in public when they think they're in danger, but stop drinking in public
because it might lead to rape. Certainly you can see the difference between the two strategies.
Oh, and he also said women should at least stop drinking when someone they don't like is hitting on them. Because, you know, he might be a rapist.
Wow. Those bits sound an awful lot like prevention advocacy. Imagine that...
Are you still strawmanning? Even after I said...
We all agree that there are sensible strategies that can be adopted...
I mean, seriously? Is this
all just an ego-defense thing for you? You can't have an "Ah-ha" moment, so you're just going to
pretend you did?
I'm glad you're comfortable enough with such patronizing condescension to advise women that way. I couldn't pull it off, but hey - each to their own.
So if I'm against prevention strategies, I'm a submission advocate, but when I'm
actually advocating prevention, I'm patronizingly condescending them?
I'm going to stick with an outer boundary defined thusly: Advice to all - "exercise the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger". Got any problems with that Balerion?
I'm glad to hear it. It's only too bad you wasted everyone's time by refusing to do so a dozen posts ago.
