Rape and the "Civilized" World

[billvon]

So rather than address the question of outer boundaries of prevention advocacy, you've gone ahead and removed yourself from the debate.

Nope. I've stated who gets to set the outer boundaries - and it is the woman. Not you. Not me.

Your earlier implication suggested that she is responsible for her own rape

Nope. She is responsible for what she does. Rapists are responsible for the rapes they commit.

I'm guessing you simply failed to understand the question, since this clearly isn't your intent. Let's try again (and please pay attention this time): What are the outer boundaries of rape prevention advocacy?

There are none. You can advocate for whatever you like. (Goes for rape education advocacy, too.) You can advocate "just lie back and submit." (Which many here seem to think is the only moral thing to do.) You can advocate "take a martial arts class." You can advocate "be very careful when you are out." You can advocate "don't get so drunk that someone can take advantage of you."

You can even advocate "wear a purple shirt with unicorns on it." Won't work, and hopefully no one will take such foolish advice, but you are free to give it if you like.

I've answered all of your questions. "I don't know" is an answer. You might not like it, but it's an answer.

You really don't know when a woman should get an abortion? You don't know if it's up to her? Is that really, honestly your answer? That's pretty - revealing.

Now, to you ducking my questions, if you haven't, then you should have no trouble pointing out where exactly you've done this. I'll wait here while you gather the information.

I should point out exactly where I haven't ducked your questions? OK, simple. Every post I have made has not ducked your questions. Next!

 

[billvon]

1) You have substituted reasonable precautions for the ones I listed

WAIT A MINUTE! There is a level of "reasonable?" So if a woman does not take "reasonable precautions" (however you define that term) she is responsible for her own rape? For shame, Iceaura, for doing exactly what you have been accusing me of doing!

The nature of the precautions advocated is the central issue here – whether you, or any precaution advocate here, is capable of setting boundaries and limits on the precautions you advocate

Which you yourself have just done, in disagreement with my position that it is up to the woman.

Oh, this is good.

 

[Balerion]

but then you kindly brought to our attention that alcohol consumption (which affects awareness of location) and associating with the no. 1 hazard category of "man" (which apparently dictates something one should not be comfortable with) are prime examples of open ended prevention theory ... so welcome to the club I guess ....

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to comprehend the arguments made against your position, but I have to admit, you're running out of excuses for ignorance nearly 800 posts on.

Your theory is open-ended because you haven't defined outer boundaries. Your theory is ridiculous because you suggest avoiding alcohol and men.

:shrug:

Of course not.

In fact you could say that they are elementary to the issues of risk assessment and management.

This doesn't mean however that upon coming to the wonderful conclusion that its a neat idea to be safe, that all practical considerations for identifying hazards and implementing strategies are automatically arrived at.

Only if you believe things such as "stop drinking in public" and "don't talk to men who want to have sex with you" are practical strategies.

:shrug:

The irony is that you cannot even provide examples of rape prevention that can evade the extreme absurdity of your ideas on how open-ended strategies equates with oppression.

Of course I have. You've simply failed to comprehend how your own strategies are open-ended. Here you are attempting to defend yourself against the charge when you don't even understand it.

:shrug:

too late to feign ignorance.

Your sentences are quite often nonsensical. Try harder if you don't want to confuse people.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Nope. I've stated who gets to set the outer boundaries - and it is the woman. Not you. Not me.

Then you necessarily advocate a strategy that blames virtually any woman who is raped. If woman A implements strategy X, but woman B does not and is raped, then she is culpable since she did not adopt what you would define as a reasonable prevention strategy. Even if you say "No, I'm not blaming her for that," your argument mandates it.

Nope. She is responsible for what she does.

Therefore, if she does not implement a reasonable prevention strategy...

What are the outer boundaries of rape prevention advocacy?

There are none.

And there you have it. Open-ended rape prevention advocacy.

You really don't know when a woman should get an abortion? You don't know if it's up to her?

Two different questions. Taking them in reverse order...it's obviously the woman's choice, but you didn't ask me that. You asked me the ridiculous question, "When should a woman get an abortion," as if the answer were something like, "The first trimester." I obviously don't know when a woman should get an abortion. That's entirely up to her, so long as the law allows them to choose. Morally, I'm undecided on the matter. I know there are times when getting an abortion is either necessary or entirely understandable, but I also get an icky feeling when a woman aborts her child simply because she doesn't want to have one. But this isn't an abortion thread, so I'll leave it there.

I should point out exactly where I haven't ducked your questions? OK, simple. Every post I have made has not ducked your questions. Next!

As expected, you've failed to deliver.

When you start answering my questions, we can continue this conversation.

 

[Tiassa]

Two (not-so-) brief points

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.

Two brief points I find significant about the difference you're noting.

The first is straightforward, albeit while being somewhat obscure, and that is the idea that something is off in their crime index when they are lumping rape in with other crime. As I noted earlier, sure, it's easy enough to stop the theft of my car; lock the doors (less than a second), apply the club lock to the steering wheel (five seconds on, ten seconds off). You know, it's an old car; nobody's even going to be stealing the ancient cassette player in the dash.

But my car has been stolen twice, and in truth the biggest emotional or psychological hits about that were dealing with the police, having to catch a bus to Seattle, and so on.

To the other, I have, in fact, lived a paragraph I offered LG back in March:

Spend a night, sometime, sitting back to back in the middle of a room with a rape survivor suffering paranoid delusions, guarding against the goddamn Devil creeping out of the shadows. Listen to your lover tearfully apologize for having been raped years before you ever met her. Watch a woman you love deeply freeze and tremble helplessly in the middle of a conversation because memories of a decade ago wash through her like an icy toxin, and not even she knows what the trigger is.

And then listen to somebody compare her burden, what she should have done to prevent all this, to putting a steering wheel lock on their car.​

I think of the stakes involved. My car has been stolen, twice. My brother, once, returned from vacation to find someone had broken into his house; crazy crime, since all they took was the PS3, and left the television, the liquor stocks, and the unsigned credit card in its U.S. Mail envelope on the kitchen counter. My mother once got the strangest call from the police, three years after her house was broken into; her passport and some other papers were discovered in the crawlspace of a house that was being built around the time hers was broken into.

These aren't the kinds of crimes that spun our worlds into chaos.

They're not at all like rape that way.

We can set aside the question of whether the lack of a club lock makes me culpable in the theft of my own car, as nobody ever raises the issue. But there is something perverse about how the rape phenomenon fits into their harm spectrum.

Which wouldn't be much worth thinking about, except that we see the second point, attitudes that seem to suggest the infinite prevention advocates are more in this for themselves than anything else. LG and Wynn's half-assed, semi-retarded mockery make the point clear for themselves. Billvon and Randwolf seem to be standing on ego. An admonition I've pushed multiple times—You're not the victim, here—seems almost useless in the context that it's not just the ego bruise of accusation that they're dancing through. The whole point of this straw army seems to be to focus the discussion anywhere but solutions. At this stage, though, the one common thing about our infinite prevention advocates is that they seem more interested in abusing the discussion for the sake of their own egos than anything else.

And given some of the places this discussion will go when it's not bothering to swat at the gnat-like buzz of infinite prevention advocacy [IPA] will be incredibly tough and nuanced—after all, slut-shaming is not limited to rape victims—one can only wonder what sort of neurotic meltdowns these people will experience once IPA is swept aside and they have to deal with the subtleties of misogyny echoing throughout the culture.

There are considerations about the rape phenomenon we haven't dared glance at, yet, because it's quite clear that some our neighbors' heads would explode.

I am hoping to move past this stupid IPA discussion, in order to consider more important (and useful) aspects of crime and harm reduction in the context of the rape phenomenon, but if the simple proposition that IPA is ineffective and otherwise problematic requires nearly eight hundred posts to make clear, we can only guess at the quagmires yet to come.

 

[lightgigantic]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to comprehend the arguments made against your position, but I have to admit, you're running out of excuses for ignorance nearly 800 posts on.

Your theory is open-ended because you haven't defined outer boundaries. Your theory is ridiculous because you suggest avoiding alcohol and men.

what you are painfully trying to avoid however is the obvious conclusion that your theories also suffer under the same idiotic parameters you are trying to bring to this discussion ... unless you have a wonderful argument how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or have now conveniently decided to drop your contribution of "man" being an effective hazard category for the sake of pretending you have something different to offer


:shrug:

Only if you believe things such as "stop drinking in public" and "don't talk to men who want to have sex with you" are practical strategies.

funnily enough, its only you who advocates that avoiding drinking in public is the only way to work with the notion of alcohol as a hazard category and its only you who insists that all preventative strategies ultimately lead to the notion that "man" is the essential hazard category

Of course I have. You've simply failed to comprehend how your own strategies are open-ended. Here you are attempting to defend yourself against the charge when you don't even understand it.

On the contrary, you have failed to explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man.

:shrug:

Your sentences are quite of nonsensical. Try harder if you don't want to confuse people.

You are just trying to bring a double standard to the discussion.

Your preventative strategies of awareness and comfort are just as open ended as anyone else's
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

what you are painfully trying to avoid however is the obvious conclusion that your theories also suffer under the same idiotic parameters you are trying to bring to this discussion ... unless you have a wonderful argument how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or have now conveniently decided to drop your contribution of "man" being an effective hazard category for the sake of pretending you have something different to offer

Just at face value, the advice I offered is reasonable, whereas yours was not. I do not demand that women be exempt from normal social behaviors. Fundamentally, it differs because it doesn't presuppose that women are always in immanent danger. The advocacy is for when a woman--or any person--finds themselves in dangerous or uncomfortable situations. Rather than attempting to frighten women into dressing conservatively and avoid consuming alcohol in mixed company, I'm saying that should a woman find herself in a situation like that, these are reasonable (and reasonably effective) measures to help prevent harm from befalling them. Remember, the advice comes in the context of a prevention strategy maxim: Live your life, and exercise the same cautions we all do when in danger.

Your theory, meanwhile, makes every BAC point above the legal limit a neon sign attracting rapists. You advocate scare tactics, nothing more.

:shrug:

funnily enough, its only you who advocates that avoiding drinking in public is the only way to work with the notion of alcohol as a hazard category and its only you who insists that all preventative strategies ultimately lead to the notion that "man" is the essential hazard category

Again, your incompetence muddies the discussion. You gave an example of a woman being hit on by a creep at the bar, and your advice to her was to stop drinking. You then went on to ask why getting drunk in public is a right that shouldn't be defended. You were obviously arguing against the public consumption of alcohol.

:shrug:

On the contrary, you have failed to explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man.

I've never said a woman should feel uncomfortable around men. But you knew that already. It's your own theory that necessitates men as a risk category, not mine. I'm advocating against the idea of avoiding men or alcohol. I'm saying people should live their lives, and women shouldn't be expected to exercise more caution than men simply because rapists exist. You've advocated in favor of these tactics because you believe women are raped because they are careless.

:shrug:

You are just trying to bring a double standard to the discussion.

Your preventative strategies of awareness and comfort are just as open ended as anyone else's

Not at all. Unlike you, I have enumerated the outer boundary of reasonable prevention strategies. Unlike you, I have given context to these strategies. The loop is closed.

:shrug:

 

[billvon]

Then you necessarily advocate a strategy that blames virtually any woman who is raped.

Nope. I know you desperately want to believe that. (And believe it if you wish; people believe all sorts of things.) It's becoming clear that the fact that it isn't true won't stop you.

If woman A implements strategy X, but woman B does not and is raped, then she is culpable . . .

Bullshit. Prove it.

Two different questions. Taking them in reverse order...it's obviously the woman's choice

Excellent answer! Thus the answer to both questions is the same.

When should a woman get an abortion? It is her choice.
How far should a woman go to defend herself from rape? It is her choice.

That's entirely up to her

Precisely. I will, in the future, use your own words to answer your questions on that subject to me. Perhaps you will heed your own words?

When you start answering my questions, we can continue this conversation.

Already did.

 

[billvon]

The first is straightforward, albeit while being somewhat obscure, and that is the idea that something is off in their crime index when they are lumping rape in with other crime. As I noted earlier, sure, it's easy enough to stop the theft of my car; lock the doors (less than a second), apply the club lock to the steering wheel (five seconds on, ten seconds off). You know, it's an old car; nobody's even going to be stealing the ancient cassette player in the dash.

So you advocate an open-ended theft prevention strategy!

Why do you advocate living in fear? Instead of insisting that people lock their doors, why don't you concentrate on the problem - thieves? Why should I have to worry about car theft - and take the precautions you are trying to ram down our throats - when you won't address the real problem?

But my car has been stolen twice, . . .

Since you advocate an open-ended theft prevention strategy, and your car was still stolen - are you responsible for the theft?

 

[Randwolf]

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."

Do you dispute this admonition Balerion?

Of course not. You've finally established that outer boundary.

Oh really? I'm happy to hear that we have that cleared up.
Your assertion can be a starting point for discussion.

[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.

Could you help me a little bit more by clarifying your position?

For example, could you explain the difference between that assertion and recommending prudence?

Also, please define what you meant by the same "caution we all do". What, exactly, do you do to exercise caution when you think you're in danger? Do your actions vary according to circumstances? Obviously, based on what you've posted, you must have an objective standard in mind, no? If not, are you saying that exercising appropriate caution is subjective, depending on the person involved and the circumstances encountered?

Do feel free to delineate precise strategies for "exercise[ing] the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger."

No really, don't hold back. Enumerate and quantify the exact steps you would advocate someone take to achieve that goal. Be specific.

Thanking you in advance...

 

[Balerion]

Nope. I know you desperately want to believe that. (And believe it if you wish; people believe all sorts of things.) It's becoming clear that the fact that it isn't true won't stop you.

Bullshit. Prove it.

I already have. I did so in the post you've just quoted. What about that don't you understand? Please be specific. Address in detail why my position is wrong. "Bullshit" isn't enough.

Excellent answer! Thus the answer to both questions is the same.

When should a woman get an abortion? It is her choice.
How far should a woman go to defend herself from rape? It is her choice.

Ah, I see. Then when a woman opts not to have an abortion, that's her choice as well, right?

Would you agree that she is responsible for the outcome of her decision, one way or the other?

Precisely. I will, in the future, use your own words to answer your questions on that subject to me. Perhaps you will heed your own words?

You'll see the silliness of equating rape to abortion in a moment.

Already did.

You haven't. When asked to define an outer boundary, you provided an open-ended strategy that necessarily mandates a woman be responsible for her own rape. When challenged on it, you changed course and removed yourself from the discussion. But we can leave that aside, since you're clearly--and rightly--ashamed of it. Let's begin anew. Answer the questions posed to you in this post.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

So you advocate an open-ended theft prevention strategy!

Why do you advocate living in fear? Instead of insisting that people lock their doors, why don't you concentrate on the problem - thieves? Why should I have to worry about car theft - and take the precautions you are trying to ram down our throats - when you won't address the real problem?

Since you advocate an open-ended theft prevention strategy, and your car was still stolen - are you responsible for the theft?

I would ask you to demonstrate that I advocate open-ended theft prevention strategy, except in the first place, you can't, and, to the other, even if you reasonably could, it is reasonable to project, based on your behavior in this thread, that you woulnd't.

For now, then, it suffices to simply reiterate:

We can set aside the question of whether the lack of a club lock makes me culpable in the theft of my own car, as nobody ever raises the issue. But there is something perverse about how the rape phenomenon fits into their harm spectrum.

Which wouldn't be much worth thinking about, except that we see the second point, attitudes that seem to suggest the infinite prevention advocates are more in this for themselves than anything else. LG and Wynn's half-assed, semi-retarded mockery make the point clear for themselves. Billvon and Randwolf seem to be standing on ego. An admonition I've pushed multiple times—You're not the victim, here—seems almost useless in the context that it's not just the ego bruise of accusation that they're dancing through. The whole point of this straw army seems to be to focus the discussion anywhere but solutions. At this stage, though, the one common thing about our infinite prevention advocates is that they seem more interested in abusing the discussion for the sake of their own egos than anything else.​

You make the point for me.

• • •​

Also, please define what you meant by the same "caution we all do". What, exactly, do you do to exercise caution when you think you're in danger? Do your actions vary according to circumstances? Obviously, based on what you've posted, you must have an objective standard in mind, no? If not, are you saying that exercising appropriate caution is subjective, depending on the person involved and the circumstances encountered?

Well, you know, we've had a starting point on that issue since March—

That is, everyone can contribute to their own safety, as such. But, as a male, my prevention "obligations"—such as they are—don't compare to a woman's. Indeed, I'm more likely to skip a club or tavern because I don't like the music than any perception of threat. As a male, I don't worry about who I'm going to tempt, encourage, or invite to rape me when talking to random strangers. I don't by any means look like a "tough guy", but even the notion of a mugging doesn't concern me much. It might sound like a brag, but in truth I don't know what it is; people don't seem to want to (ahem!) "fuck with me".

(No, really, I don't know why that is, though a friend suggests that I look angry at some of the strangest times; so who knows, maybe a potential mugger thinks I'm psycho, or maybe I just don't look rich enough to rob.)

I know how to glance aside at a shop window to see who's following me, and every time I bother, it turns out I'm just being paranoid. I know how to take whatever precautions, but in the end it generally seems like wasted energy.

So when people say that we all have to take precautions, well, sure, this is true. But it's a vastly different context for men than women.

And what really bugs me about prevention theories is that so many of the extra burdens we put on women exist simply because it's not worth it to us, as a society, to change this. When I hear the father of a daughter, or the brother of a sister, or the husband of a wife talk about prevention theory or make excuses for rapists, I do wonder what they will say if it's ever that daughter, sister, or wife. To the other, I don't want to find out. I don't want those men to find out, either.​

—but, barring from Asguard's astute observation aside, nobody has really taken up the point.

However, there we have a rough outline. Even though I'm raised on the kinds of masculine adventures that make us think of glancing aside in shop windows as the sort of cleverness that a real man knows automatically, we cannot pretend those influences are absent in a woman's life. Indeed, when I read the sort of advice for American tourists against crime while traveling abroad—how to carry your purse, wallet, &c.—is the sort of thing that makes me wonder how stupid people really are.

Know where you are? Know where the exits are? Don't drink to blackout? Jeez, these are the sorts of things women already know because, well, they're not idiots. I mean, really, knowing where the exits are is helpful for reasons other than rape prevention, like, say, going outside for a smoke, or leaving? But, you know, since women apparently don't do these sorts of things on their own, they need to be reminded. Or something like that.

Don't listen to your iPod, or use your phone while walking through the city? Well, that can be helpful, in general, you know? But as far as crime prevention? Hell, I dissent. I won't do that. I don't expect that a woman should feel any greater need than I do. It's a point I rather exaggerated in order to get IPAs attention early on—

When it gets to the point that women can walk around drug-infested, crime-ridden neighborhoods without fear, and men are expected to leave the mall early because we know it's not safe to walk through the empty parking lot at night, maybe these prevention theories will finally be sent to the rubbish tip where they belong.​

—but to no avail.

While it is true that a finite boundary to reasonable crime prevention is a difficult boundary to establish, but we have a pretty good fix on where the range is—somewhere between, "Well, duh", and "How stupid do you have to be to need reminding?"

Even without the absolute precision that would account for every reasonable possibility—to wit, I can't tell you concert safety protocol until I am actually on the show floor—we can certainly see something of the yawning gulf 'twixt what we who reject IPA would suggest to the benefit of any human being and the standards of the Guardians of Female Chastity and Protectors of Masculine Privilege noted in the topic post.

I would ask you to think about yourself, walking through a city. Just how paranoid are you? No, that's not meant to imply that you're actually paranoid, but, rather, to set a parameter. That is to say, women should need to be no more paranoid, cautious, prudent, wise, or whatever than you or me.

The functional problem, though, is that in addition to any given danger that you or I might face, women have an additional threat of rape that, proportionately speaking, doesn't present any real challenge to us.

So the question from the outset is about the attitudes, outlooks, and behaviors that will address that disparity.

Yet the response is to return to prevention theories, and after nearly eight hundred posts, it turns out the line you're willing to adopt as an outer boundary is such that all of this discussion was extraneous from the outset.

Which, of course, would give rise to the obvious question, which is why the IPAs are wasting our time.

I mean, all this effort, and for what? IPAs have never answered the question, and here you are waving a completely useless prevention flag, demanding that people do what IPAs have refused to do.

It's kind of sleazy, actually. But then again, seven hundred ninety posts arguing nil instead of discussing how to properly address the rape phenomenon? Nobody's surprised.

 

[billvon]

I would ask you to demonstrate that I advocate open-ended theft prevention strategy, except in the first place, you can't, and, to the other, even if you reasonably could, it is reasonable to project, based on your behavior in this thread, that you woulnd't.

Exactly the same evidence that you have used to decide that I am an open-ended rape prevention strategist.

But all this is beside the point. If you thought a friend of yours were at risk of being raped you would help her avoid that, no matter what nonsense you spout here. And that would make you an evil open-ended rape preventionist. I wonder if, at that point, you would understand?

 

[billvon]

I already have.

So, in your own words, you have proven that "if woman A implements strategy X, but woman B does not and is raped, then she is culpable?" Fascinating. I will let you argue with yourself.

Ah, I see. Then when a woman opts not to have an abortion, that's her choice as well, right?

Yes.

Would you agree that she is responsible for the outcome of her decision, one way or the other?

No. She is responsible for her decision. If the doctor botches it and kills her, that result is not her fault. It is the doctor's. His action led to her death so he is responsible for it.

I know this concept is hard for you to grasp so let's try a few more.

You decide to get a safer car to keep yourself safe. That is your decision. While driving to work a drunk driver rams you and kills you. Your decision to get a safer car was your decision; the fault for your death lies with the drunk.

You decide to learn self defense to protect yourself. That is your decision. While walking home one night a sniper shoots and kills you. Your decision to learn self defense was your decision; the fault for your death lies with the sniper.

Answer the questions posed to you in this post.

Done.

 

[Balerion]

Could you help me a little bit more by clarifying your position?

For example, could you explain the difference between that assertion and recommending prudence?

It depends on what you mean by "prudence." If you're going to insist you meant nothing more than what I said in the post you agreed with, then I again have to ask why you also posited a contradictory strategy. The best that could be said of you in this thread is that you've flip-flopped positions. Are you going to settle on one side or the other, or should I expect you to change course again at some point?

Also, please define what you meant by the same "caution we all do". What, exactly, do you do to exercise caution when you think you're in danger? Do your actions vary according to circumstances? Obviously, based on what you've posted, you must have an objective standard in mind, no? If not, are you saying that exercising appropriate caution is subjective, depending on the person involved and the circumstances encountered?

It may be not be entirely cut and dry, but there are societal norms in all areas, including what is considered reasonable behavior. If everything--including tactics for risk prevention--were entirely subjective, then there wouldn't be any point in advocating them, since there would be no standard. At some point, you have to define that standard, which is why we have been trying to get you people to define it for 800 posts now, and only here, on page 40 (or wherever this post winds up) have we finally seen anyone on your side of the discussion actually do that.

This is why I would suggest the only reasonable advocacy in rape prevention are tactics that don't cost you anything, and come entirely natural. Raising your voice, refusing to do things you're frightened of or uncomfortable with, etc., are items that don't need to be taught, but can be advised, and don't require the person to change their lives. It doesn't require them to classify men as a risk category, it doesn't presuppose rape is imminent, and it doesn't dissuade anyone from behaviors--thereby slamming the door on anyone who wants to shift blame to the victim. (This is also accomplished by not leaving the standard-setting to the individual; they are still free to live as liberally or conservatively as they choose, but now they won't be blamed if they don't, say, abstain from alcohol and are subsequently raped)

Do feel free to delineate precise strategies for "exercise[ing] the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger."

No really, don't hold back. Enumerate and quantify the exact steps you would advocate someone take to achieve that goal. Be specific.

Didn't I already do that?

What strategies did you have in mind?

Trust your instincts, be loud when you're in a threatening situation, be aware of your location, don't do anything you aren't comfortable doing. Things like that. I wouldn't advise taking self-defense courses or carrying pepper spray, because I think it teaches women that they have to effectively pay for the right to be safe, but if a woman thinks she needs it, or simply feels better with it, then so be it.

Yeah, I thought so.

And again, these are just examples of the kind of thing I would advocate.

 

[Randwolf]

Well, you know, we've had a starting point on that issue since March—

That is, everyone can contribute to their own safety, as such. But, as a male, my prevention "obligations"—such as they are—don't compare to a woman's. Indeed, I'm more likely to skip a club or tavern because I don't like the music than any perception of threat. As a male, I don't worry about who I'm going to tempt, encourage, or invite to rape me when talking to random strangers. I don't by any means look like a "tough guy", but even the notion of a mugging doesn't concern me much. It might sound like a brag, but in truth I don't know what it is; people don't seem to want to (ahem!) "fuck with me".

(No, really, I don't know why that is, though a friend suggests that I look angry at some of the strangest times; so who knows, maybe a potential mugger thinks I'm psycho, or maybe I just don't look rich enough to rob.)

I know how to glance aside at a shop window to see who's following me, and every time I bother, it turns out I'm just being paranoid. I know how to take whatever precautions, but in the end it generally seems like wasted energy.

So when people say that we all have to take precautions, well, sure, this is true. But it's a vastly different context for men than women.

Ya' know, I can't find anything here to disagree with. Other than the supercilious tones that are Tiassa's hallmarks (bless his heart) he's spot on. The only problem I have is the refusal to acknowledge that others are saying the same thing, perhaps in a different fashion.

"So when people say that we all have to take precautions, well, sure, this is true. But it's a vastly different context for men than women."

Maybe. Or maybe not so much. People are people, including women. Do women face a different set of hurdles in life? Of course.

So? Does that mean that each and everyone of us does not follow a certain path fraught with danger? No...

Asserting that we should do the best we can to avoid danger and harm should not equate to misogyny and discrimination. Or should it? I don't know anymore...

And what really bugs me about prevention theories is that so many of the extra burdens we put on women...

What "extra" burdens? I'm not advocating "extra" burdens. I lock my doors, I am careful in unfamiliar neighborhoods, I have "self-defense" under control, etc.

Know where you are? Know where the exits are? Don't drink to blackout? Jeez, these are the sorts of things women already know because, well, they're not idiots

Precisely. So where lies the harm in iterating these basic, common sense prevention measures?

But, you know, since women apparently don't do these sorts of things on their own, they need to be reminded. Or something like that.

You came up with this POV all on your own Tiassa. Or at least independent of my contributions...

While it is true that a finite boundary to reasonable crime prevention is a difficult boundary to establish

Thank you. Very difficult. Difficult to the point that I do not believe an objective standard can be set. This doesn't mean that prudence should be tossed out with the bathwater though, IMHO.

I mean, all this effort, and for what?

For real, right dude? Let's just say that every living creature does what it can to avoid harm and move on, right? I agree... Now what?

 

[Balerion]

No. She is responsible for her decision. If the doctor botches it and kills her, that result is not her fault. It is the doctor's. His action led to her death so he is responsible for it.

Here you make a bogus claim and then defend it with a non-sequitur. Addressing the non-sequitur first, obviously a woman has the reasonable expectation that her doctor will not kill her during childbirth, so it can be said that she is not responsible if such a thing were to happen.

To the bogus claim, how can a person be responsible for their decision if they are not responsible for the only thing which makes them accountable--the consequences? We understand that there are reasonable limits to such claims, but that's only because we, as a society (hopefully) understand that there are certain things which we can and do take for granted, and we are blameless should harm befall us within those boundaries.

But your advocacy--the one which states women decide for themselves, and there is no standard for what constitutes "reasonable"--leads to a victim being accountable for their own attack. Anyone who considers reasonable measures to reach beyond strategies adopted by the victim can rightly say that the victim is responsible. Your strategy allows for such a statement to be made, and made justly. Your answer--which is to say she is responsible while at the same time redefining the word to mean literally nothing at all--is no solution.

You decide to get a safer car to keep yourself safe. That is your decision. While driving to work a drunk driver rams you and kills you. Your decision to get a safer car was your decision; the fault for your death lies with the drunk.

Again, no one could blame the sober driver, thanks to outer boundaries established by society as to what precautions are reasonable for avoiding a drunk driver. In fact, these boundaries are so clearly defined that people presume that the sober driver was not disobeying any rules of the road themselves when the accident occurred; they hear "drunk driver" and assume the responsibility belongs wholly with them.

Now imagine if the boundaries for reasonable avoidance of drunk drivers were open-ended, such as your rape prevention strategy is. "Reasonable" could then be defined as staying off the roads on major drinking holidays, perhaps even on weekends. Therefore, anyone who does drive during those days and dies at the hands of a drunk driver could logically be blamed for the accident, since they did not adopt reasonable measures to avoid the danger.

You decide to learn self defense to protect yourself. That is your decision. While walking home one night a sniper shoots and kills you. Your decision to learn self defense was your decision; the fault for your death lies with the sniper.

To the best of my knowledge, no one takes self-defense courses to prevent sniper attacks, so this example is working from a broken premise.

 

[lightgigantic]

Just at face value, the advice I offered is reasonable, whereas yours was not.

And the grounds for it being unreasonable is because it is apparently open ended ... I am simply pointing out how yours is also open ended by the same idiotic standard you insist on bringing to this discussion

I do not demand that women be exempt from normal social behaviors.

neither do I ....or anyone else in this thread for that matter
:shrug:

Fundamentally, it differs because it doesn't presuppose that women are always in immanent danger.

I never presupposed that either ... yet that didn't stop you working with the notion of "man" as a hazard category in order to try and make some sort of point.

The advocacy is for when a woman--or any person--finds themselves in dangerous or uncomfortable situations.

which, funnily enough, is precisely what everyone has been saying right from the start

Rather than attempting to frighten women into dressing conservatively and avoid consuming alcohol in mixed company, I'm saying that should a woman find herself in a situation like that, these are reasonable (and reasonably effective) measures to help prevent harm from befalling them. Remember, the advice comes in the context of a prevention strategy maxim: Live your life, and exercise the same cautions we all do when in danger.

perhaps that statement would be relevant if you could explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man ...

Your theory, meanwhile, makes every BAC point above the legal limit a neon sign attracting rapists. You advocate scare tactics, nothing more.

On the contrary, that is simply your extrapolation based on prevention theory being open ended. You conveniently decide to dismiss this when you discuss your own prevention strategies

:shrug:

Again, your incompetence muddies the discussion. You gave an example of a woman being hit on by a creep at the bar, and your advice to her was to stop drinking.

funnily enough even you said it would be a good idea to go somewhere else

You then went on to ask why getting drunk in public is a right that shouldn't be defended. You were obviously arguing against the public consumption of alcohol.

I made no such statement, but then we are all starting to get used to you making stuff up ...

anyway, all that aside, you are really going nowhere with all this until you explain how its important to be aware of one's surroundings and how alcohol consumption doesn't problematize this essential safety requirement. The more you balk at actually answering this question in a straightforward manner, the weaker you make your position.
:shrug:

I've never said a woman should feel uncomfortable around men.

funnily enough, you hard hard strapped to find a quote where I say it

But you knew that already. It's your own theory that necessitates men as a risk category, not mine.

On the contrary I never said it.

You said that there was no need for me to actually say it, since it is the natural consequence of open ended prevention theory.
I am simply pointing out that this same bullshit idea of yours defaults your own ideas of prevention to the same position

I'm advocating against the idea of avoiding men or alcohol.

Then you have to explain how advocating awareness and comfort doesn't conflict with that.

Of course the easiest way to answer that is that such risk assessment is isolated to the individual, but you have clearly and repeatedly rejected that notion.
We are all just curious in what manner you propose the obvious open ended nature of the precepts you advocate.

I'm saying people should live their lives, and women shouldn't be expected to exercise more caution than men simply because rapists exist. You've advocated in favor of these tactics because you believe women are raped because they are careless.

then once again, you will have to explain how the comfort and awareness issues are uniform for both genders ..... which seems to me to be an impossible task since one cannot even discuss comfort and awareness issues being uniform for two individuals (much less two genders).

and once again, the obvious way to answer this is to explain that issues of comfort and awareness are unique to each individual's systematic approach to risk assessment and management. Unfortunately however you disagree.


:shrug:

Not at all. Unlike you, I have enumerated the outer boundary of reasonable prevention strategies.
Unlike you, I have given context to these strategies. The loop is closed.

On the contrary, you haven't, since your ideas of awareness and comfort conflict with your notions of alcohol consumption and association with men not being adjusted in any manner.

Unlike you, I close the loop on such strategies according to an individual's capacities of risk assessment and management.
Its you, who has not closed the loop.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

And the grounds for it being unreasonable is because it is apparently open ended ... I am simply pointing out how yours is also open ended by the same idiotic standard you insist on bringing to this discussion

I've explained why mine isn't open-ended. Feel free to explain precisely how it is.

:shrug:

neither do I ....or anyone else in this thread for that matter

You all have. You've advocated that women stop consuming alcohol in public. Another poster said women should stop wearing pencil skirts. All of you endorse a strategy that implicates the woman if she does not take the most extreme measures to avoid rape. The jig is up, LG.

:shrug:

I never presupposed that either ... yet that didn't stop you working with the notion of "man" as a hazard category in order to try and make some sort of point.

Yes you did, when you provided two examples of men hitting on women who did not want their attention. You painted both scenarios as dangerous.

which, funnily enough, is precisely what everyone has been saying right from the start

Incorrect.

perhaps that statement would be relevant if you could explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man ...

I don't know why I should have to explain either. I never claimed the first was true, and I never claimed the other wasn't.

If this is your clumsy way of trying to say my theories are open-ended because I promote awareness of surrounding when alcohol dulls the senses, I think my answer to billvon's drunk driver analogy works well enough:

Again, no one could blame the sober driver, thanks to outer boundaries established by society as to what precautions are reasonable for avoiding a drunk driver. In fact, these boundaries are so clearly defined that people presume that the sober driver was not disobeying any rules of the road themselves when the accident occurred; they hear "drunk driver" and assume the responsibility belongs wholly with them.​

Normally, I would assume the reader is competent enough to understand the point being made, but since you've given me ample reason to believe otherwise, I'll explain: There are standards by which we measure ourselves and our actions, that dictate what is expected of us and what isn't. In the case of rape prevention, it is not acceptable to demand that women stop imbibing alcohol simply because the guy in the bar leering at them might be a rapist. If they get drunk and are raped, we understand this is the fault of the rapist, not the intoxicated victim. Just as we understand when a person who opts for dangerous medical procedures are accepting responsibility for the risk involved, the concept of responsibility in most cases is pretty clearly defined.

What you and your friends have done in this thread is thrown that standard away. Indeed, some of you have even suggested that it doesn't--and shouldn't--exist. The context of this advocacy is every bit as important as the advice itself.

On the contrary, that is simply your extrapolation based on prevention theory being open ended.

So first you say your theory isn't open-ended, but now you say all prevention theory is open-ended?

:shrug:

You conveniently decide to dismiss this when you discuss your own prevention strategies

No, I addressed it directly. To wit:

This is why I would suggest the only reasonable advocacy in rape prevention are tactics that don't cost you anything, and come entirely natural. Raising your voice, refusing to do things you're frightened of or uncomfortable with, etc., are items that don't need to be taught, but can be advised, and don't require the person to change their lives. It doesn't require them to classify men as a risk category, it doesn't presuppose rape is imminent, and it doesn't dissuade anyone from behaviors--thereby slamming the door on anyone who wants to shift blame to the victim. (This is also accomplished by not leaving the standard-setting to the individual; they are still free to live as liberally or conservatively as they choose, but now they won't be blamed if they don't, say, abstain from alcohol and are subsequently raped)​

:shrug:

funnily enough even you said it would be a good idea to go somewhere else

Going somewhere else doesn't equate to giving up the booze. She could easily go to another bar. At any rate, I also said in the real world, a bouncer or bartender would have thrown the jerk out on his ass long before she was ever faced with such a decision.

It's interesting that you aren't aware of this. I'm noticing another trend among your kind: a lack of a social life.

By the way, is "funnily enough" your new tic?

I made no such statement, but then we are all starting to get used to you making stuff up ...

Liar:

She shouldn't be expected to stop drinking socially simply because there might be some asshole out there who wants to rape her. That is not an acceptable solution, because it is oppressive.

perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HEd (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty

We say you cannot be, because your concept of "rape prevention" is warped, and your concept of "risk management" makes it impossible for the woman to absolve herself of responsibility without taking an extreme measure such as avoiding drinking in public.

and once again, perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how HED (heavy episodic drinking) is a cornerstone of your personal liberty.

Perhaps you could explain why a liberty must be a cornerstone to be valid? I won't hold my breath.

well for a start, it kind of robs one of having a point for leveraging any sort of dialogue about rights either to be upheld or that are in risk of being trampled.

IOW if getting shit faced is not an essential right, then you can't come back with the half-assed argument of an individual being oppressed due to others trying to change their behaviour that revolves around getting shit faced.

I have reported you for lying.

anyway, all that aside,

Yeah, I suppose it's easier to run and hide from the tough points.

:shrug:

funnily enough, you hard hard strapped to find a quote where I say it


On the contrary I never said it.

You said that there was no need for me to actually say it, since it is the natural consequence of open ended prevention theory.

Exactly. You're finally learning!

I am simply pointing out that this same bullshit idea of yours defaults your own ideas of prevention to the same position

My ideas aren't open-ended, for the reasons stated above. (And in previous posts)

Then you have to explain how advocating awareness and comfort doesn't conflict with that.

I've already done it.

Of course the easiest way to answer that is that such risk assessment is isolated to the individual, but you have clearly and repeatedly rejected that notion.

Isolating risk assessment to the individual does the opposite of that.

then once again, you will have to explain how the comfort and awareness issues are uniform for both genders ..... which seems to me to be an impossible task since one cannot even discuss comfort and awareness issues being uniform for two individuals (much less two genders).

This is a red herring. These issues don't have to be uniform. That's not a requisite for sensible, finite prevention advocacy.

and once again, the obvious way to answer this is to explain that issues of comfort and awareness are unique to each individual's systematic approach to risk assessment and management. Unfortunately however you disagree.

Again, the issue of comfort doesn't make the theory open-ended. There only needs to be a standard for what is reasonable, not what is comfortable.

Unlike you, I close the loop on such strategies according to an individual's capacities of risk assessment and management.

So then you're saying any woman who gets drunk knowing that alcohol can be a contributing factor to rape is at fault.

:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

Straw Wagon

Ya' know, I can't find anything here to disagree with. Other than the supercilious tones that are Tiassa's hallmarks (bless his heart) he's spot on. The only problem I have is the refusal to acknowledge that others are saying the same thing, perhaps in a different fashion.

Well, there is more than acknowledging that "others are saying the same thing, perhaps in a different fashion". We'll get to that.

Asserting that we should do the best we can to avoid danger and harm should not equate to misogyny and discrimination. Or should it? I don't know anymore...

That was never on the table. You're hemming and hawing about a straw man.

What "extra" burdens? I'm not advocating "extra" burdens. I lock my doors, I am careful in unfamiliar neighborhoods, I have "self-defense" under control, etc.

Okay, here's the update you haven't picked up on: You walked into the middle of a discussion and picked sides before you knew what was going on.

That is to say, this is the best interpretation we can offer for your posts.

But we'll come back to this; I'm trying to sweep the straw into one pile.

Precisely. So where lies the harm in iterating these basic, common sense prevention measures?

Well, when the question is what to do about the attitudes, outlooks, and behaviors that contribute to the rape phenomenon, the problems with IPA are noted, and examples given of the functional challenge of IPA, what is anyone supposed to think when the first thing to some people's minds is IPA?

Go look at the early posts in this thread. The topic post and Bells' initial response denounce IPA for its problems, and the first response to those—Lightgigantic at #3—runs immediately to IPA.

Now, nearly eight hundred posts later, we've run around the mulberry bush until we're all dizzy to the point of hurling, and the latecomer—i.e., you—manages to save their ass with some assertion that all anyone was ever saying was ... well, to presume that women are stupid enough to need reminding to know where they are?

Holy shit. Really?

Go back and count all the times people were asked to establish the outer boundary of prevention advocacy. Go back and count all the times that question was dismissed, denigrated, or ignored.

And now here you are, with, "exercise the same caution we all do when we think we're in danger"? Hey, great. Except don't suggest that's what the IPAs were saying from the outset. Second, given how many times our neighbors have refused to answer the question about outer boundaries, do you have any idea how offensive it is to have you reinforcing their straw men with idiotic demands like, "No really, don't hold back. Enumerate and quantify the exact steps you would advocate someone take to achieve that goal. Be specific."

In the end, you walked into a conversation midstream, sided with straw men, found yourself choking on the chaff, and it's one thing to want out, sure, but don't blame anyone else.

You came up with this POV all on your own Tiassa. Or at least independent of my contributions...

It's in the topic post; it would perhaps behoove you to not make such notions prophetic.

Thank you. Very difficult. Difficult to the point that I do not believe an objective standard can be set. This doesn't mean that prudence should be tossed out with the bathwater though, IMHO.

You're not out of this jam, yet, sir. We'll come back to that in just a moment, though.

For real, right dude? Let's just say that every living creature does what it can to avoid harm and move on, right? I agree... Now what?

That's all well and fine, dude, but it's important, in my opinion, for you to understand why a shit-ton of bricks came raining down on you when you walked in.

And, basically, that is because you walked in, jumped to the aid of a straw army, and then took offense when you were rightly smacked for it.

So let's get back to the straw:

• "others are saying the same thing, perhaps in a different fashion" — Bullshit. Absolute fucking bullshit. iPods and mobile phones? Bikini tops? Short skirts? Rape fantasies about a train station in the red-light district at the witching hour? No. The only problem you have, then, is other people's refusal to acknowledge what clearly isn't true.

• "What 'extra' burdens? I'm not advocating 'extra' burdens. I lock my doors, I am careful in unfamiliar neighborhoods, I have 'self-defense' under control, etc. — Clearly, you had no idea what you were walking into when you entered. Don't wear those clothes. What about that haircut? Drinking? Walking alone at night? Without an outer boundary, the most successful rape prevention measure one might prescribe for women is full segregation from men. That wouldn't be an extra burden compared to the same caution you and I might show? No, really. I don't live that way.

• "where lies the harm in iterating these basic, common sense prevention measures" — Well, there is the presupposition that women are that stupid, for starters. And then there is the minor detail that these sorts of notions are tacitly accounted for. Where the IPAs started is, well, in the world of tells that one was obvious. Furthermore, go back to the topic post and read Simon Tedeschi's article.

If, God forbid, a woman is attacked here in Australia, the inevitable questions about where and with whom she was before it happened convince me more than anything that we are embroiled in dangerous times. In 2012, our postcard playground is still smeared with this retrograde thinking. Jill Meagher, even in death, was maligned by the protectors of female chastity for daring to venture out by herself at night time.​

The issue was reasonably framed, I think. But, of course, the first response was to play the role of the "protectors of female chastity", "iterating these basic, common sense prevention measures" suggesting that women should not drink as much as men, or walk alone at night, and so on.

And it's not just Jill Meagher. Let us take the UNC advisor's advice to heart: "She told me rape is like football, and if you look back on the game what would you have done differently in that situation?”

As Steven D put it for Daily Kos:

Yes, because all rape victims could have done something differently to prevent being raped, and anyone who doesn't 'move on' from the life-altering trauma of rape is such a pathetic, lazy-ass loser.​

In the face of such issues, it is tragically unsurprising when the Guardians of Female Chastity emerge with their IPA campaign.​

Honestly, I walk around the city in a pair of muckers, or perhaps penny loafers. Hell, sometimes I don't even wear shoes that tie to concerts. I make the point because, well, among your crime prevention measures do you include to always make sure the shoes your wearing are good for running down the streeet as you flee a sex assailant? How about your clothes? Are they loose enough to allow you to move quickly? Do you plan your wardrobe around such security considerations? Do you listen to an iPod or similar device, or use your mobile phone when walking around the city?

All accounted for in the topic post, and, since we're on that point, all above and beyond what I consider reasonable.

Anna Minard, as noted in the topic post, put it more succinctly:

So, to review: Seattleites—and let's be honest, we're talking mostly to women here—as you go about your business, constantly scan your surroundings, memorizing detailed physical descriptions of people you encounter. Always know, down to the exact block, where you are and where the nearest security guard is and the hours of nearby businesses. Wear running shoes and loose, appropriate clothing—aka clothing appropriate for running away in. Bring your cell phone, but don't use it to listen to music or text. And as you walk through the city like a human danger-scanner, walk confidently and keep your face neutral. You're "in charge"!​

Is this what an average night out on the town is like for you?

How about an average afternoon?

My point being, of course, that these points have been on the table from the outset.

We might also note the ultimate truckload of straw, that strictly and flawlessly enforced, such prevention measures would have minimal effect; statistically speaking, the closer a man is to a woman, the bigger a rape threat he becomes.

And, yes, Randwolf, whether you intended to or not, you walked in and hopped on that wagon of straw suggesting that one side of the argument refused any notion of self-preservation as misogynistic. You threw your hat in with the crowd that compares women to toddlers who need to be taught how to stay safe. With the folks who think women ought to have some mystical spidey sense to figure out what men are going to rape or otherwise abuse them, whether today, tomorrow, or twenty years down the road. With the folks who promote that a woman should not initiate violence when sexually accosted because, well, sexual assault isn't violence. With the people who think advertising is a good primary source document.

These are the people you threw in with.

Bikini tops. Alcohol consumption. Working commutes. These are all problematic under the IPA you joined up with.

I think you would have been better served to actually figure out what was going on in this discussion rather than let people like LG, Wynn, and Billvon define it for you. As it is, you ended up embarrassing yourself.
____________________

Notes:

See topic post for source citations.