Rape and the "Civilized" World

[lightgigantic]

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

well I guess we will just have to wait and see how your attempted explanations weather later on in the post

You all have. You've advocated that women stop consuming alcohol in public.

in the absence of you quoting me I think we can safely assume you are just making stuff up again

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.

On the radical extremes of prevention is solely your contribution to this thread (eg "man " as a category of hazard)- you say it is the necessary consequence of an open ended preventative strategy ... hence you run in to the exact same problems when you cannot adequately explain how your favoured preventative strategies are also not open ended

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.

If you are trying to find an example of me suggesting women are always in imminent danger from men, I think you just failed

Incorrect.

You doofus.
Risk assessment is precisely what transpires when a person comes to the conclusion that they are in a dangerous or uncomfortable position

I don't know why I should have to explain either.

because you are trying to explain how personal safety pivots on being aware of one's surroundings and comfortable while simultaneously desperately trying to suggest this has no implications regarding the consumption of alcohol or the nature of "man" being the effective and ultimate hazard category fro rape.

So once again, feel free to explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man .. or alternatively we can just file this away as yet another question you are incapable of giving a straight forward answer to since it cuts to close to the bone of your delicate arguments

I never claimed the first was true, and I never claimed the other wasn't.

Here let me make this simple for you :

You say prevention involves being aware and comfortable.
You also say that your ideas on prevention are not open ended since they do not work in regulating alcohol consumption in any manner or utilize "man" as a hazard category.

This is why I ask you to explain how alcohol doesn't affect awareness or how a woman can feel comfortable in the presence of a man ... .


Its not rocket science.
:shrug:

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:

No.
Its got nothing to do about driving a vehicle, blaming the victim or anything like that.

Its got to do with your idea that successful prevention strategies operate out of a sense of awareness and how you are trying to simultaneously maintaining this has zero impact on the topic of alcohol consumption.

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.

Perhaps this statement would be relevant if had something to do with your idea of "awareness".
After all, you do say : 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. and that this is not open ended.

So to repeat the question yet again, please explain how alcohol consumption does not affect awareness and how a woman can be comfortable in the association of men, since "men" is a category you affirm as being the ultimate hazard category of risk.

In the absence of you answering this question in a relevant manner, we can safely assume that you too are incapable of advocating a preventative measure that is not (apparently) open ended.
:shrug:

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.

Before we move onto other topics you should first clear up how your ideas also don't suffer under the same idiotic standard you are trying to level at other people's comments.

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

I am simply pointing out how you have not distinguished yourself in any coherent manner from your own idiotic ideas on how the prevention strategies of others is open ended.

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)​

Once again, perhaps this would be relevant if you could explain it in relation to 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.

:shrug:

Going somewhere else doesn't equate to giving up the booze.

well it does require you to stop drinking, even if it is momentarily

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.

You mean seek the assistance of other potential rapists?
Or do you mean to say that the notion of working with the category of "man" as a risk hazard is a crock of shit that you simply invented for the sake of launching spurious arguments?
:shrug:

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

I think its more revealing how you slip and can't even hold onto the bullshit of your arguments the moment you start to discuss real life

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

what can I say ... you certainly bring humor in your own unique way to many scenarios

Liar:










I have reported you for lying.

What can I say (other saying "what can I say" for the second time in a row I guess ...)

Once again, perhaps that would make sense if you could explain how issues of HED (heavy episodic drinking) and drinking in public are identical .... particularly since a licensed establishment can face criminal charges for serving alcohol to persons undergoing HED (at least in many parts of the world)

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

:shrug:

I guess its even easier to pretend that there is no difference between HED and drinking in public ... yet another bullshit notion of yours that crumbles the moment you dare to talk about the real world again, no doubt ....

Exactly. You're finally learning!

Now I guess we just have to wait for you explain how what you are advocating - namely awareness and comfort - is also not open ended

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



I've already done it.

Err ... no you didn't
I was talking about awareness and comfort.
You didn't begin to explain how this effectively rules out regulating one's drinking habits or using "man" as a hazard category.
All you talked about was drink driving and attributing blame, which is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

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

It was "Isolating risk assessment by the individual", you doofus

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

I guess when you start making such bad arguments, its convenient not to pay attention to what you said :

I'm saying people should live their lives, and women shouldn't be expected to exercise more caution than men simply because rapists exist.

and I am saying ,once again, you will have to explain how the comfort and awareness issues are uniform for both genders ... and furthermore , this 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).

Hint : Uniform means the same ... as opposed to one being more than or less than another.

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.

And what is plainly obvious to everyone is that you can't explain this reasonable standard of comfort without talking about an individual's systematic approach to risk assessment and management.

Unfortunately you have disregarded that as sufficient grounds for establishing a preventative strategy as closed .... so thats why you are left completely incapable of explaining how your ideas of "comfort" and awareness are not open ended

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

No more than you just said you enjoy taking vast quantities of narcotics and playing erotic games with livestock while listening to loudly playing death metal.

 

[lightgigantic]

10% imagination + 89.5% blog power = Tiassa

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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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.

You can't even successfully tag these ideas of yours about what people are saying to their respective authors.
You thrive on misrepresentation and are simply engaged in a monologue with your imagination.

If you slowed down a bit instead of jumping the gun with your power-blogging, perhaps things would be different.

(BTW, distinct from what you will likely say about me in response to this, I can actually link discussions where you display this behaviour)

 

[Sarkus]

General question for Moderators: Why do people insist on "quoting" entire posts in one lump, as LG has a habit of doing - but others also... especially when the post they're quoting is the post directly above theirs, and when they're responding to the post in general rather than to individual and specific points?

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Response

Mod Hat — Response

General question for Moderators: Why do people insist on "quoting" entire posts in one lump, as LG has a habit of doing - but others also... especially when the post they're quoting is the post directly above theirs, and when they're responding to the post in general rather than to individual and specific points?

In truth, we've wondered about such behavior for a while. The style annoys us, especially since the post quotes are usually longer than the responses in most such cases. But we've tried asking and all that, and some time ago it was decided—albeit tacitly, I think—that it simply wasn't worth flexing our authority about. I mean, really, imagine if our neighbor LG crossed some mysterious threshold and someone—especially if I was the one to do it—sent him on a short vacation for post format infractions.

Besides, I can't recall right now if this particular wish of ours is enumerated in the policies.

There is also the question of mobile devices, but I can't imagine this is the easiest way to do it.

 

[Balerion]

in the absence of you quoting me I think we can safely assume you are just making stuff up again

I had been willing to, at least for the time being, beat you about the head and neck with the facts, in the foolish hope that you would eventually come to your senses and own up to the shortcomings of your theory, if not your woman-hating ways. I know, I know--you've never done it before, so why would you start now? The short answer is, you wouldn't. The slightly longer answer is, I'm stupid for even trying. Your behavior borders on the autistic, and prior to these last pair of posts, I was undecided as to your motives. You are no doubt aware that you've effectively ground the conversation to a halt, but I didn't know if this was a conscious effort, or simply a means for you to exercise your repetitive tics.

Now that your tactics have degraded from the use of straw men to blatant lies, that question has been answered.

You never had any interest in actually discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory. This was all about you having a chance to dehumanize and blame women. Well, you have fun with that, because I'm not going to be a party to it anymore.

 

[Tiassa]

Punnett Psych

You never had any interest in actually discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory. This was all about you having a chance to dehumanize and blame women.

It should be noted that the two aspects might not be separate in our neighbor's mind. Given his posting history, and the fact that his first IPA post (#3) in this thread opened with his usual gibberish about the decay of human society, we must at least acknowledge the possibility that there really is no difference in his mind between "discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory" and "having a chance to dehumanize and blame women".

Except, of course, for the neurotic quirk by which assigning women a lower human value isn't dehumanizing.

But the key is that his larger resentment toward or fear of women has dominant priority if we arrange these attributes in a punnett square.

Everything in his outlook can be accounted for if we accept that women should be subservient to men, and, thus, intimacy rape doesn't really exist if women remain in their proper place.

If we look at the presuppositions necessary to make his outlook true, the implications arise clearly.

 

[Balerion]

we must at least acknowledge the possibility that there really is no difference in his mind between "discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory" and "having a chance to dehumanize and blame women".

I hadn't considered that. Sounds reasonable enough--and certainly there's ample evidence to support it--but there's a sticking point: his utter inability to discuss the matter with honesty or integrity. I mentioned previously that dishonesty (and indeed, a lack of integrity) are inherent to such belief systems, but it's gone to the point now where LG really doesn't seem interested in continuing the discussion. Then again, maybe you were right when you said he was operating on pure ego defense.

In any event, he's only gumming the works now. Time to move on.

 

[lightgigantic]

I had been willing to, at least for the time being, beat you about the head and neck with the facts, in the foolish hope that you would eventually come to your senses and own up to the shortcomings of your theory, if not your woman-hating ways. I know, I know--you've never done it before, so why would you start now? The short answer is, you wouldn't. The slightly longer answer is, I'm stupid for even trying. Your behavior borders on the autistic, and prior to these last pair of posts, I was undecided as to your motives. You are no doubt aware that you've effectively ground the conversation to a halt, but I didn't know if this was a conscious effort, or simply a means for you to exercise your repetitive tics.

in the absence of you quoting me I think we can safely assume you are just making stuff up (yet) again

:shrug:

(you've got a knack of engineering comments that totally miss what they are attempting to respond to)

Now that your tactics have degraded from the use of straw men to blatant lies, that question has been answered.

actually I am still waiting for you to explain how your ideas are not open ended ... especially since you cite having open ended strategies as being the cornerstone of misogyny and whatnot

You never had any interest in actually discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory. This was all about you having a chance to dehumanize and blame women. Well, you have fun with that, because I'm not going to be a party to it anymore.

On the contrary, you never had any interest in discussing answers to your questions.
In fact you never had any interest in explaining how your very own ideas don't succumb to your own attempted critiques of others.

You simply feel its sufficient to push shit up hill and ignore the aroma.

Even now, its questionable whether you actually comprehend what risk assessment entails .....
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Bloggin the Monologue

It should be noted that the two aspects might not be separate in our neighbor's mind. Given his posting history, and the fact that his first IPA post (#3) in this thread opened with his usual gibberish about the decay of human society, we must at least acknowledge the possibility that there really is no difference in his mind between "discussing the merits of risk management, let alone the moral implications of your open-ended theory" and "having a chance to dehumanize and blame women".

Except, of course, for the neurotic quirk by which assigning women a lower human value isn't dehumanizing.

But the key is that his larger resentment toward or fear of women has dominant priority if we arrange these attributes in a punnett square.

Everything in his outlook can be accounted for if we accept that women should be subservient to men, and, thus, intimacy rape doesn't really exist if women remain in their proper place.

If we look at the presuppositions necessary to make his outlook true, the implications arise clearly.

err ... the only way you can talk about open ended risk strategy is with the exclusion of risk assessment.
IOW examining risk assessment is the examination of how a risk strategy is closed

Given that you are yet to actually discuss it or even exhibit some level of comprehension on what the term entails, its clear you are just hell bent on driving home more monologue that has no source other than your imagination
:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

Yawn and Crick

err ... the only way you can talk about open ended risk strategy is with the exclusion of risk assessment.
IOW examining risk assessment is the examination of how a risk strategy is closed

The first point, of course, is that you're a little late to this variable threshold of human rights already rejected in the discussion for what really do seem obvious reasons.

The second point is that you were even able to figure it out at all.

My human rights are not a compromise with circumstance. I will not bargain, or forfeit under risk assessment the fact of my human rights. Certes, human circumstances exist where it would be problematic to even claim them, but while I assert the human right to peace and justice, I also know I'm checking it at the door if I head off to a war zone.

But the thing is that women are human. They have human rights. This is a bright line standard, not some variable outcome according to a pack of obsessive rape fantasies and cowardly anti-identifications.

The idea that you would craft an answer excluding women from human rights in order to try to make yourself sound better, quite sadly, is not shocking.

But it's true, we went through this already.

This is allegedly civilization, not a war zone. It cannot be civilization for men and a war zone for women; or, more simply for your benefit, participating in civilized society is not a circumstance toward which women should be expected to check their human rights at the door, negotiate partial and diminished human rights in exchange for the privilege of inclusion in civilized society, or otherwise denigrate themselves in order to win some pretense of respect from said civilized society.

There is an easy out, here, of course, and that is to claim there is no civilization. While such a proposition would be met with an onslaught of philosophcial, sociological, and anthropological discussion of what constitutes civilization, there is a subjective context by which I would accept it. But that would only lead back to the point that women are human beings, which is apparently easy enough to say but much harder to achieve in effect.

Given, however, the number of institutional examples of a pretense toward civilized society, I do believe the question of taming the rape phenomenon in the allegedly civilized world valid, vital, and of demonstrable necessity in such toxic realms as infinite prevention advocacy.

I have no idea what to call this new variable human rights theory, yet. Perpetual Whore Obligation just doesn't have the right ring to it. You know, IPA, it's kind of snappy, and will fade away after this exercise in futility is over, and I can drink imperial pale ales with wonderful people of any gender, and nobody has to guess who's going to try to rape them.

For now, though, it should suffice to say that women are human, have human rights, and that is not negotiable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Moebius Monologue

The first point, of course, is that you're a little late to this variable threshold of human rights already rejected in the discussion for what really do seem obvious reasons.

Given that you haven't even begun to discuss risk assessment, I fail to see how you can say that in any meaningful manner

The second point is that you were even able to figure it out at all.

My human rights are not a compromise with circumstance. I will not bargain, or forfeit under risk assessment the fact of my human rights. Certes, human circumstances exist where it would be problematic to even claim them, but while I assert the human right to peace and justice, I also know I'm checking it at the door if I head off to a war zone.

Once again, it seems that in your eagerness to argue a point, you are simply imagining people saying stuff for the sake of having a convenient dead horse to flog.

Far from anyone actually saying that its ok to rape a woman, and far from you actually being able to quote anyone saying it, the people you are actually arguing with are consistently and repeatedly saying they precisely don't think that.

And as is typical with your style of blogging, you choose to ignore this point or even seek to clarify it (such as why, far from finding examples of risk assessment equating as an automatic transgression of human rights anywhere, you find it illustrated to the contrary everywhere), and instead engage in a lengthy monologue that actually involves no other players aside from you and your imagination

:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

Alleged Sex Prankster Faces Three Years in Prison

Alleged Sex Prankster Faces Three Years in Prison

One Jason T. Willis of Waterford, Wisconsin, faces a potential three year sentence for what he describes as "just a joke".

Poor guy, right? Joke goes bad, prankster faces felony charges. How was he supposed to know things would turn out this way? Right?

The neighbor contacted the Racine County Sheriff's Office on Nov. 26 after a man reportedly showed up at her door and repeatedly rang her doorbell. When police arrived, they found a man wearing a coat with no clothes underneath, according to the criminal complaint. He allegedly said he was responding to a personal ad from Craigslist.

The neighbor said she had not posted any personal ad online and said at least three people had come to her door attempting to contact her, according to the complaint. One of those individuals also reported seeing an ad on Craigslist, she said.

After talking to the woman, an investigator contacted Craigslist and learned there were six ads posted using a fraudulent email address for her. All were allegedly sexual in nature and were soliciting males for sexual activity.

Through a subpoena, police obtained the IP address for the computer where the posts were made and acquired emails that used the woman's actual address, inviting people to go there.

Then police spoke to Willis, who allegedly admitted that he posted the Craigslist ads using his neighbor's name and email address.

(Jones)​

The electronic version of scrawling phone numbers on the men's room wall is insane.

As Amanda Marcotte explains:

Luckily, the only guys who showed up were the kinds who let hope triumph over experience when it came to the subject of women inviting strange men over to their houses for kinky sex. That was probably traumatic enough, especially since at least one of them was clearly pushy about it, but this sort of thing could have easily resulted in a sexual assault from some screwed up guy who thought the target had reneged on a “promise”.

Turns out the guy who set her up to be freaked out and possibly assaulted was her neighbor. As with most sexual harassers and abusers, he had a ready-made excuse for why this isn't what it clearly is. He claims it was “just a joke”. I'm sure he's used that excuse in the past with lower-level boundary-pushing and sexual harassment and it worked, but sadly for Jason Willis, the cops weren't fooled. The cops were smarter/less assholish than internet commenters running around squeeing that women are hysterical and eager to “play the victim” for the sole purpose of hurting innocent men that are “just joking” or “just flirting” in the creepiest, most safety-threatening ways possible. The cops got exactly what this was about, and are charging Willis with felony identity theft, with up to three years in prison. Let's hope the jury doesn't fall for the same old excuses.

After all, even if you indulge the “just a joke” claim for a minute, it falls apart. If he was stupid enough to think men wouldn't show up at her house, then basically the point of the “joke” falls apart, as she'd never know about it. So he knew men would show up at her house. At [which] point, there is no way that he wasn't trying to scare, intimidate, and possibly hurt her.

This, of course, is what harassers and abusers do. They do things they know aren't cool to deliberately freak out or make their targets uncomfortable, and the second they're called out for it, they claim innocence and say that they're just misunderstood people trying to engage in behavior that is acceptable, like pranks or flirting. But a prank is sending pizzas to someone's house, not naked men looking for sex. Flirting is engaging someone who wants to be engaged in a social situation, not cornering them in a space where they can't escape easily. The target is not fooled—if she was, then the intimidation tactics would lose their value—so the rest of us should not be. Luckily, as this story shows, people are increasingly willing to get it, and the same old excuses aren't working as well as they used to.​

It is easy enough to cheer the prank target and roll our eyes derisively at the thought of such a stupid joke, but hanging over Marcotte's good news item is that terrifying, spectral question: Accepting for the sake of consideration that the neigbor was just making a joke when directing sexually desperate men to her front door, what attitudes contribute to marking his blind spot, the tacit presumption that this sort of joke is acceptable in any context?

That is to say, how is it that anyone would think such a (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) "prank" like this treads anywhere near the realm of good ideas?

And while it is easy enough to suggest that one can prepare for such occasions by owning a gun, what do we tell the poor, desperate bastard who got his nutsack blown off? And to what degree can one prepare for a neighbor pranking some rape fantasy? Because, apparently, it's a great joke?

There are ways of looking at the world that help make this sort of situation possible. In truth, these are not always easy to see for one who sees the joke according to a veiled rape fantasy. That, of course, lends toward an assignment of malice to the actions of the accused. But I'm very much curious: What doesn't lead back to a presumption of malice by the accused?

Because it is obvious that there exists some realm of thought by which this excuse that one's behavior was just a joke makes sense to some; there exists some perspective in which potentially tragic outcomes—a woman raped, a desperate pervert shot in the face or maybe finding out in prison what it's like on the other end of that equation—are laudable, merely acceptable, or simply worth a laugh.

So what am I missing?
____________________

Notes:

Jones, Stephanie. "Craigslist 'joke' could mean prison time for area man". The Journal Times. May 23, 2013. JOurnalTimes.com. May 25, 2013. http://journaltimes.com/news/local/...cle_1a9e1768-c39d-11e2-a3bf-001a4bcf887a.html

Marcotte, Amanda. "Sexual Harasser Learns Same Old Excuses Don't Work Anymore". Pandagon. May 24, 2013. RawStory.com. May 25, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/24/sexual-harasser-learns-same-old-excuses-dont-work-anymore/

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

After talking to the woman, an investigator contacted Craigslist and learned there were six ads posted using a fraudulent email address for her. All were allegedly sexual in nature and were soliciting males for sexual activity.

I thought Craigslist had already been burned and was trying to stay out of the sex business?

The electronic version of scrawling phone numbers on the men's room wall is insane.

I love ultra-civilized Maryland. A typical graffito on the men's room wall in the club we all go to for karaoke says, "Your mom is a nice lady."

Luckily, the only guys who showed up were the kinds who let hope triumph over experience when it came to the subject of women inviting strange men over to their houses for kinky sex. That was probably traumatic enough, especially since at least one of them was clearly pushy about it, but this sort of thing could have easily resulted in a sexual assault from some screwed up guy who thought the target had reneged on a “promise”.

People who make it their business to be informed about this kind of stuff assure me that the men who have this kind of preadolescent attitude about sex are usually pretty childish in general. They're more likely to cry in disappointment, or at worst throw a hissy fit. Not to say that this spectrum doesn't have its statistical allotment of one-percenters, but that puts a lady's risk of being the object of a sexual assault by one of them in the same band as being killed by lightning or a bee sting: 30 Americans per year each. She's more likely to be squashed dead by falling furniture: about 100 per year.

Turns out the guy who set her up to be freaked out and possibly assaulted was her neighbor. As with most sexual harassers and abusers, he had a ready-made excuse for why this isn't what it clearly is. He claims it was “just a joke”.

For these grown men who are still emotionally twelve, it IS just a joke. They don't understand that everyone is not like them, and that some men can be far more pushy about an assumed promise of sex than they could ever be. A lot of these guys have never had sex, and a good many of them never will. The entire subject is just one big mystery to them. And no, I'm not trying to excuse them; it just never hurts to try to understand somebody.

The cops got exactly what this was about, and are charging Willis with felony identity theft, with up to three years in prison. Let's hope the jury doesn't fall for the same old excuses.

Willis obviously has a couple of screws loose and would probably benefit more from three years of psychiatric care. But we can hope that other men who are a little more mature emotionally but still not fully adult, and might follow through on this kind of a "joke," will be deterred by the prospect of prison: where THEY would suddenly be the victims of sexual violence.

After all, even if you indulge the “just a joke” claim for a minute, it falls apart. If he was stupid enough to think men wouldn't show up at her house, then basically the point of the “joke” falls apart, as she'd never know about it. So he knew men would show up at her house. At [which] point, there is no way that he wasn't trying to scare, intimidate, and possibly hurt her.

I think you're giving him credit for too much cognitive skill. I wonder if his reasoning facility can even process this scenario.

It is easy enough to cheer the prank target and roll our eyes derisively at the thought of such a stupid joke, but hanging over Marcotte's good news item is that terrifying, spectral question: Accepting for the sake of consideration that the neigbor was just making a joke when directing sexually desperate men to her front door, what attitudes contribute to marking his blind spot, the tacit presumption that this sort of joke is acceptable in any context? That is to say, how is it that anyone would think such a (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) "prank" like this treads anywhere near the realm of good ideas?

He's a little boy. It's as simple, and as complicated, as that.

And while it is easy enough to suggest that one can prepare for such occasions by owning a gun . . . .

Even people who believe they "need a gun for self-protection" are still 3-4 times as likely to be killed by their own gun by accident, by losing a struggle with a burglar, or by committing suicide. [Clarification: we don't know the ethnicity of these people and this statistic is an average of all Americans. The odds of these tragedies are somewhat lower for Euro-Americans and about nine times higher for Afro-Americans. This is probably the real reason that Republicans, the party of wealthy old white Southern men, doesn't give a damn about the gun issue: the people who don't think George Zimmerman should even be prosecuted.]

what do we tell the poor, desperate bastard who got his nutsack blown off? And to what degree can one prepare for a neighbor pranking some rape fantasy? Because, apparently, it's a great joke?

It's impossible to prepare for every possible risk. The best you can do is concentrate on the ones that have A) the highest probability of occurring and B) the worst consequences if they do occur.

Except when this topic comes up, I don't waste one second worrying about dying in an airliner crash. Because I'm about 50,000 times more likely to be killed in a road accident on the way to the airport. So I spend my time more productively, by making sure my car and my driving skills are in good shape.

There are ways of looking at the world that help make this sort of situation possible. In truth, these are not always easy to see for one who sees the joke according to a veiled rape fantasy. That, of course, lends toward an assignment of malice to the actions of the accused. But I'm very much curious: What doesn't lead back to a presumption of malice by the accused?

How many crimes of this nature are committed in one year? This sounds like America's ridiculous preoccupation with terrorism all over again. Over the past twenty years something like one hundred Americans were killed by other Americans with guns, for every one of us that was killed by terrorists. Yet we have turned over all of our rights to the Homeland Gestapo, and spent trillions of dollars we had to borrow from China, on a quixotic campaign to wipe out terrorism. Meanwhile nobody in our government gives a flying fuck about gun violence by Americans against Americans, which now kills more of us per year than road accidents!

We can scare women into agitating for stronger protection against odd wackos like Willis. But all that will do is take resources away from other risks that affect more people. Americans, arguably the most innumerate people in the Western world, are completely baffled by the concept of risk analysis and risk management, so they approach it emotionally rather than logically. Let's try not to encourage them to do more of that. Especially not here in a place of science!

 

[Balerion]

Accepting for the sake of consideration that the neighbor was just making a joke when directing sexually desperate men to her front door, what attitudes contribute to marking his blind spot, the tacit presumption that this sort of joke is acceptable in any context?

I was watching one of those true crime shows the other night - Dateline, maybe? - when it was revealed that the suspects were in fact guilty. The subsequent interviews with the killers was part disturbing, and part hilarious, if only because it shows the idiocy and desperation of the lackwit criminal.

The first was with the woman who had been a con artist before graduating to homicide. In defending the lies she fed both her accomplice and the young woman they eventually killed (including her imaginary job as a surgeon, and the death of her imaginary son back home), she made sure to point out that she hadn't planned on conning them. Both her and the accomplice, a young man who had been friends with the victim, blamed the other for the girl's death, but he did something interesting when the interviewer challenged him; first, he claimed the victim had been like a sister to him, and then he said he prayed to God for forgiveness while he watched his new girlfriend smother the tazed-and-unconscious "friend."

Isn't that odd? Both killers cast their acts in a different light rather than saying the act never occurred. As if, in this new context, they would be morally absolved. For her, the scamming and conning wasn't premeditated, and somehow, in her mind, this makes her less culpable than if she had sought them out specifically for this purpose. For him, the fact that he loved the victim and prayed to God means he's somehow not entirely responsible. (Though he did, when asked, give lip service to taking responsibility, this is inconsistent with his behavior)

I don't believe for a second that either killer really thinks that their stories make them innocent, or less guilty than they really are. But shame is a powerful emotion, and sometimes making up a preposterous defense is better than admitting guilt. I have to wonder if this moron is in the same boat.

 

[iceaura]

1) You have substituted reasonable precautions for the ones I listed
WAIT A MINUTE! There is a level of "reasonable?"

In what I advocate, yes.

So if a woman does not take "reasonable precautions" (however you define that term) she is responsible for her own rape?

We weren't talking about the woman, we were talking about your advocacy. You still haven't set any boundaries on what you advocate.

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.

Until you have set limits on the precautions you regard as showing the woman to be - in your terms - a "responsible adult", your claim to any such position is empty as well as unrealistic.

 

[billvon]

In what I advocate, yes.

Interesting. So where is the line? Let us know what a woman has to do to be responsible for her own rape (in your eyes of course.) Wear a short skirt? Drink too much?

We weren't talking about the woman, we were talking about your advocacy. You still haven't set any boundaries on what you advocate.

There are none. If a woman wants to kill a man who is trying to rape her, go for it.

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.

Well, if you really want a boundary, no use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. But up until then, the woman has the right to do whatever she needs to do to prevent a rape. How far she goes, and what tools she uses, and how she goes about it is up to her. Not you, not me.

Since you advocate boundaries - at what point should a woman stop fighting and submit?

 

[Tiassa]

It's Not a Wanker Joke

I don't believe for a second that either killer really thinks that their stories make them innocent, or less guilty than they really are. But shame is a powerful emotion, and sometimes making up a preposterous defense is better than admitting guilt. I have to wonder if this moron is in the same boat.

Indeed to the first two sentences; somewhere between entirely possible and likely on the third.

It's something we see in courtrooms all the time: Yes, I did this, but I'm not a bad person, and I'm not a threat to society. You see, it's all a mistake. What happened was ....

I would, in fact, use your post to reiterate and redirect. To wit, Marcotte:

After all, even if you indulge the “just a joke” claim for a minute, it falls apart. If he was stupid enough to think men wouldn't show up at her house, then basically the point of the “joke” falls apart, as she'd never know about it. So he knew men would show up at her house. At [which] point, there is no way that he wasn't trying to scare, intimidate, and possibly hurt her.

This, of course, is what harassers and abusers do. They do things they know aren't cool to deliberately freak out or make their targets uncomfortable, and the second they're called out for it, they claim innocence and say that they're just misunderstood people trying to engage in behavior that is acceptable, like pranks or flirting.​

And this leads us back toward the notion of attitudes, outlooks, and behaviors.

I think back to youth, for instance. One time we were on vacation to see some friends in Idaho; our host's relatives showed up, and his niece, well ... yeah. Polynesian, with a one-piece swimsuit showing shadows of areola and groin through white fabric, the purple swath covering the right breast, and the way the shimmering fabric lent to the contours of her posterior? Yeah, when you're thirteen, that's a cowabunga moment.

It wasn't so much that we hit on her, but I know for my part virtually every bit of conversation that evening I was aiming at somehow impressing her.

Juvenile. Typical. Run of the mill. Whatever.

I mean it's not something I'm going to beat off my happy helmet with a hammer about.

(Oh, wait, even as a Ren & Stimpy joke, that sounds really awful.)

I swear ... it's not a wanker joke.​

To the other, though, it has to suck when so many of one's conversations are not about whatever the subject actually is, but rather a ruse to ingratiate. I have no idea how intelligent this girl was; I didn't care at the time. Couldn't tell you what, other than diving, she liked to do; I didn't care at the time.

It's one thing to look back at that episode and shrug, saying, "Well, live and learn, and treat people better." And in my opinion, this is what my generation of American men, at the very least, need to do. It is not so much a matter of flailing oneself for being a contributor to the rape society.

But changing that presupposition of attraction and temptation is something an individual can only do for himself.

Ego defense becomes a major problem at this point, because the razor-sharp rhetoric around this subject—among other aspects—seems to be taken by many men as encouragement toward self-excoriation and condemnation.

But this is the thing for all those men Tedeschi addressed: Move forward. Fix the problem. We cannot change all the embarrassingly stupid things we've done in the past, but there is no real reason to cling to illusions of self-justification that perpetuate such attitudes as moved us to such shameful conduct.

These days, if someone says, "She wants you," I don't shrug and put on my struttin' pose. Instead, I ask, "What makes you think so?" And more often than not—almost entirely exclusively, to my knowledge—the answer relies on superstitions and presuppositions acquired in adolescence.

It's a simple change, at least in concept, though hardly a complete overhaul.

But there are a thousand little things we can do—or, as such, not do—that will have a trickling effect toward abating these clouds of misogyny hanging over our society.

Perhaps some aspect of this sounds like an excuse for the perpetrator, but it's not. His best excuse—Yes, I did this incredibly stupid, reckless, mean-spirited, dangerous thing, but hey, I'm not a bad guy. It was just a joke!—only leads back to the point that some condition exists within our society that such blithering pseudo-apology actually has some merit.

Of all the mean and stupid things I've done, sure, I can claim some such justification, like rapping some kid on the skull with my knuckles when I was in seventh grade. I didn't intend to reduce him to tears, that was the outcome. And, sure, that sort of bullying behavior was not only acceptable but laudable in my day. But in the end, I hurt that poor kid, no matter how much of an annoying, squirmy prig he was being that day.

I can't even remember his name, but I still remember that trembling look on his flushing face as the pain of a sharp knock on the cranium echoed through his body only to flood back upward and concentrate at the impact site. I mean, come on, we've all taken minor blows to the head that hurt like the Devil. Couldn't even tell you who he was, but that rotten feeling of, "I did this," still percolates when I recall the day.

There is no point in self-crucifixion, but neither is there any reason I should continue to defend such behavior, or the circumstances that would assert to justify it, today. Or, put simply, I would like to think I am capable of figuring out what is obvious before my eyes. To the other, though, there are probably plenty who would disagree.

 

[iceaura]

Interesting. So where is the line? Let us know what a woman has to do to be responsible for her own rape (in your eyes of course.) Wear a short skirt? Drink too much?

I realize this is difficult for you, but the basic idea here is that carefully limiting one's advocacy of oppression is not the same thing as refusing to limit it. The one avoids assigning responsibility to the woman by recognizing that all precautions are impositions by others and excessive ones actively oppressive, and the other assigns responsibility to the woman at some level (using terms like "responsible adult", for example) and does not recognize that such responsibility is at all times an imposition and in real life, normally, in the facts of the world we currently inhabit, seriously oppressive.

We weren't talking about the woman, we were talking about your advocacy. You still haven't set any boundaries on what you advocate.
There are none. If a woman wants to kill a man who is trying to rape her, go for it.

A level of cluelessness impossible to parody.

Here we have a precaution advocate, responding to the observation that unlimited advocacy of precaution is an advocacy of oppression, demonstrating beyond doubt that they don't have the faintest idea what the issue could possibly be with their chorus of recommendations and "advice":

Since you advocate boundaries - at what point should a woman stop fighting and submit?

Apparently, a woman who does not take their precautionary advice is submitting to rape - actively not fighting back or resisting. Those are the alternatives they offer: take their precautions, or be seen by them (and they are a large and influential fraction of a woman's community) as submitting to rape.

Note this shoe comes in women's sizes only: men who fail to heed unlimited precautionary advice against abetting rape (allowing men to walk the streets without supervision at night where there might be women, say) do not face the question of whether they are responsible adults.

 

[Tiassa]

A Republican Gets It Right

A Republican Gets It Right

Sure, it's a politically charged suggestion, but, well ....

Okay, is it fair to say that my opinion of politcal conservatives in the United States and our Republican Party are no mystery to my neighbors?

So here's the thing: When you're getting too silly for House Republicans, there's a problem.

Emma Dumain, for Roll Call:

A senior House Republican is taking aim at a senior Senate Republican for suggesting the "hormone level" of young soldiers sets the stage for sexual assault.

On Tuesday evening, Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio, a leader on combating sexual violence in the armed forces, issued a statement that his spokesman characterized as one that "slammed" remarks made earlier in the day by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

During an Armed Services Committee hearing, Chambliss had suggested that high libidos characteristic in young men entering branches of the military could lead to them seeking inappropriate outlets for their sexual energy — in this case through rape and other instances of sexual aggression against their female counterparts.

"These young folks coming in … are anywhere from 17 to 22 to 23," he said in the context of larger discussions on how the military should be required to handle allegations of misconduct in this regard. "Gee whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur."

Turner responded in just four sentences.

"It's simple; criminals are responsible for sexual assaults, not hormones," he said in his statement. "Perpetuating this line of thinking does nothing to help change the culture of our military. We must be focused on combating this issue directly. The numbers speak for themselves."​

Easy enough?

Thank you, Congressman.
____________________

Notes:

Dumain, Emma. "Senator's 'Hormone' Comment Whacked by House Republican". Goppers. June 4, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. June 4, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/house-republican-whacks-senate-republican-for-hormone-comments/

 

[billvon]

"It's simple; criminals are responsible for sexual assaults, not hormones," he said in his statement. "Perpetuating this line of thinking does nothing to help change the culture of our military. We must be focused on combating this issue directly. The numbers speak for themselves."

Yikes! Another rape preventionist. You guys are getting outnumbered!