Rape and the "Civilized" World

[wynn]

Isn't that standard Islamic doctrine? This is why over there, rape victims are punished whereas nobody even bothers looking for the perp.

So "rape prevention" becomes covering yourself in a blanket with eye holes and never leaving home without a male relative.

It seems like Lightgigantic would be right at home in Saudi Arabia. Who wants to pitch in to buy his plane ticket? All the women, for sure!

Apparently, you too, the linguistics moderator, do not distinguish between


A. People who blame victims of rape and who believe that the perpetrators of rape are innocent. (People who hold this stance don't post here.)

and

B. People who advocate a more cautious behavior for women (and men) and who don't exonerate perpetrators.

 

[wynn]

I am only replying to the posts here. As you observe, posts from category A are not found here, and so I don't bother dealing with them at all, to distinguish them or for any other reason.

So you needn't bother mentioning the nonexistent A kind, and can concentrate on responding to my posts if you mention me, or the others you mentioned as you may select.

You seemed to be on the same side of the argument as Bells and Tiassa. Thanks for clarifying that point.

LG has advocated that women take precautions against rape, in particular that they deny rapists easy targeting. I then repeat his recommendations and approach in relation to the major and most likely rapist threats in US women's lives. You seem to find LG's approach objectionable, for the major and more likely threats of rape, but acceptable for the minor and less likely ones. Why?

It's not clear what you're talking about.

If you're talking about rape by spouse or partner, I've already addressed this earlier:

If, on their first date, he yells at the waitress, drives through a red light or gets drunk, for example - those are pretty good indicators that there might be some considerable trouble ahead in a relationship with him, and the same goes for women.
There are many warning signs early on, and if one bothers to take them seriously, one can spare oneself of a lot of trouble.

 

[wynn]

As long as prevention theory is open-ended, it is nothing more than rape advocacy./.../

I'm trying to understand how you've reached this conclusion ...

The question is phrased simply enough: At what point does the burden of preventative precautions become too great to ask of an in individual?

You interpret the simple, non-controversial attitude of "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" into something really sinister.

There was a time when watching after oneself was generally not considered controversial. But you, and some other people, make it look as if it is something controversial. As if any act of watching after oneself automatically exonerates those who might commit a crime against you.

But your Group B, effectively speaking, is no different than either Type I or II in Group A. As long as they insist on undefined boundaries and burdens, prevention advocates not making any different argument than the rape advocates.

Maybe the reason why you interpret the simple, non-controversial attitude of "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" into something really sinister is that you are influenced by US cutthroat legalism, or by the way US politics is typically polarized, with no allowance for anything inbetween or for details.

This was my response, as was addressed to a central problem with your posts and approach, and apparently did not miss: Have you a reply to that observation?

The observation that LG's precautionary approach, undertaken rationally and in response to the actual threat of rape as it exists in the real world, would require that women devote their most serious attentions and efforts into avoiding exposure to the most serious and prevalent threats of rape they face.

Prominent among LG's recommendations, for example, is avoiding behaviors that provide rapists with easy opportunities. That would of course apply in particular - this is my point - to dealing with those men most likely to be rapists. As the most likely rapists are the woman's male acquaintances, that would require the woman to devote most of her prevention effort and behavioral precautions to the avoidance of providing her male acquaintances with easy opportunities to rape her.

So you see I merely described the obvious physical situation and application of LG's recommendations. Your projection of LG's recommendations, your claim that according to LG all women should avoid all men and live in fear, goes beyond anything I posted.

Apparently, we seem to now live in times when "doing things because they are good for you" has become controversial ...

 

[wynn]

The painful obvious flaw with what you are offering is that it absolutely refuses to go beyond "Just wait till a man violates his responsibility and makes you a victim then you can ...."

IOW your strategy aims at redefining the sexual status of the contemporary world (and as I said, good luck on that one) and not only offers nothing, but actually prohibits anything up until the next point of "and when a man cannot uphold his responsibility and renders you a victim then you can ...".

Her strategy is similar to the standard instructions given by law enforcement in situations such as when someone you know has an aggressive dog: the police can't do anything unless the dog actually bites someone.

But the vital point in this is that it is the police that can't do anything unless the dog actually bites someone; while an ordinary person can do something to protect themselves, at least to some degree, as some professional dog trainers would suggest. That's the point she is ignoring.

because more women prevented themselves from getting raped (even by known persons) and have gone on to teach other women who have in turn prevented themselves from getting reaped (some of which were also known persons too) , we are seeing more rapes?
What the hell are you talking about?

In one sense, it is impossible to talk about crime prevention, because we do not have a parallel reality in which we could check what would happen if we acted differently. Maybe this somewhat formal issue is the crux of the matter here.

 

[wynn]

How do you take precautions against your husband raping you one day, out of the blue?

How do you take precautions to your husband refusing to take 'no' for an answer?

The occurrence of such a situation suggests that there is a considerable disagreement or discord between the spouses or partners, and that this disagreement or discord has probably been going on for some time, without being productively addressed by the spouses or partners.
IOW, it's not "out of the blue."

 

[billvon]

The question is phrased simply enough: At what point does the burden of preventative precautions become too great to ask of an in individual?

At the point that they are OK with the risk they are taking.

I learned basic self defense years ago, and have defended myself from an attack by a mugger. When I'm on the NYC subway I avoid dark corners, move my wallet to my front pocket and keep my backpack closed and close to me. Doesn't mean I'm a theft advocate.

 

[iceaura]

So obviously you would have no problem answering this question:

of course not

let me say it again: a person doesn't take precautions when they are not "reading" any signs of danger. There are a range of terms used to explain how one assesses the presence of danger in one's environment.

So you agree that answering the question would be no problem. You even claim familiarity with whole ranges of terms used to assess the threat of rape.

May we then expect an answer, sometime in the near future? Here is the question:

What situations do you have in mind, in which women need not anticipate that they might get raped?

Note that the only person's "reading" involved in the answer would be yours.

It's not clear what you're talking about.

If you're talking about rape by spouse or partner, I've already addressed this earlier:

I am talking about the scope, in real life, of the responsibility you assign to women for taking precautions against the threat of rape. The context is real life, in which for example (among other considerations) most rapists are male acquaintances of their victims. I want a clear statement about the area of a woman's real life in which you do not expect her (as a matter of responsibility no less, see past postings) to take continual precautions against anticipated threats of rape.

At the point that they are OK with the risk they are taking.

That misses the issue. Which point should that be, for a responsible woman, according to these guys?

We are talking about clarifying the point at which it is "they" who are "taking" the risk - the setting which the risk becomes "their" responsibility, and not, say, yours. When a risk becomes something "they" took, and not something you imposed that cannot be reasonably avoided. And then we can assess the effects of that setting on women's lives - and I think it's that assessment these guys are flinching from.

Find an extreme, to illustrate, since all these guys seem to agree that there are circumstances in which a woman is not "taking the risk", but they refuse to specify them (leaving such matters open ended, to be decided by some authority case by case, is a standard technique of oppression btw): When a woman is leaving an office cubicle to go to the lunchroom where men also take their lunch breaks, say - can I assume a general agreement on that?

No, I can't. Not with these guys and their precautionary principle. And that is the issue.

Already that example violates the expectations of many misogynistic and oppressive societies, such as Saudi Arabia's, who also operate on the assigning of precautionary responsibility to women. Whether it violates the expectations of the guys here they have refused to say.

We are not talking about some kind of reality independent of these guys opinions and habits and mental kinks. They insist that the consequences of their approach do not include the oppression of women, the oppression we see in real life from it, but aren't they simply wrong about that, in fact?

 

[lightgigantic]

Her strategy is similar to the standard instructions given by law enforcement in situations such as when someone you know has an aggressive dog: the police can't do anything unless the dog actually bites someone.

But the vital point in this is that it is the police that can't do anything unless the dog actually bites someone; while an ordinary person can do something to protect themselves, at least to some degree, as some professional dog trainers would suggest. That's the point she is ignoring.

agreed.

In one sense, it is impossible to talk about crime prevention, because we do not have a parallel reality in which we could check what would happen if we acted differently. Maybe this somewhat formal issue is the crux of the matter here.

If that was the case, we couldn't talk about crime supplication either.

 

[lightgigantic]

So you agree that answering the question would be no problem. You even claim familiarity with whole ranges of terms used to assess the threat of rape.

sure

Now I guess you have to explain why the answer I gave, is not in fact an answer

May we then expect an answer, sometime in the near future?

It seems the problem here is your comprehension skills.
Several other posters here have already picked up on the nature of the answer.
The question here is really why you haven't.

Here is the question: Note that the only person's "reading" involved in the answer would be yours.

What are you talking about?

I have spent the most part of this dialogue talking about why an individual reads an environment for risk factors (and as a further point, this cornerstone of commonsense is a constantly recurring theme in human society for at least the past 10 000 years).
IOW I have been talking about the nature of how one prepares for anticipated danger.

The problem you seem to be having is that you can't dislodge this fanciful idea in your head, that life for a woman is nothing else but a constant anticipated danger.

IOW its clearly not me being the person dictating how an individual "reads" an environment for risk factors, it is you.

No doubt you will try and deny this or accuse me of dishonesty or simply edit this bit out ... even though you say precisely this in your next paragraph

I am talking about the scope, in real life, of the responsibility you assign to women for taking precautions against the threat of rape. The context is real life, in which for example (among other considerations) most rapists are male acquaintances of their victims. I want a clear statement about the area of a woman's real life in which you do not expect her (as a matter of responsibility no less, see past postings) to take continual precautions against anticipated threats of rape.

So IOW a woman in the association of a man has no other alternative than to read that as a hazard bearing risks, and is required to immediately implement risk control.

This of course is not the "real world" as you put it.
And the reason for this is that "risk assessment" is conspicuous by its absence in your train of thought.

This also no doubt explains why prevention strategy seminars/discourses never teach this .... outside of comedy sketches of course.

Just in case this all flew over your head again, let me say in very clear terms :

If an individual does not establish any risks in association with a hazard, they have no scope for risk control.

I dunno, maybe you feel that you are such a danger to women, you being a potential rapist, that you can't realistically entertain the notion of women associating with you unless they view you as a risk bearing hazard.

 

[iceaura]

Now I guess you have to explain why the answer I gave, is not in fact an answer

No, I don't. As noted before, I don't have to consider stupidity on your part as a factor in need of attention. You know what you are doing, and what I have posted. Your responses are dishonesties, not confusions.

So IOW a woman in the association of a man has no other alternative than to read that as a hazard bearing risks, and is required to immediately implement risk control.

So far, that has been your recommendation. You have refused to specify otherwise, despite repeated opportunities to do so. If you wish to retract it, amend it, or limit such obviously oppressive expectations (even to the minor extent of limiting the amount of effort and attention expected from the woman), any time would be none too soon.

 

[billvon]

That misses the issue. Which point should that be, for a responsible woman, according to these guys?

Hmm. I think that everyone agrees that walking alone naked down a street late at night would be taking too many risks, and most would agree that wearing only a "do me" T-shirt with nothing else on would be a bad idea. Wearing normal business attire and walking with a group would almost never be seen that way.

In between those two extremes you are going to get people who disagree on what's too risky and what's an acceptable level of risk. However, the only person whose opinion really matters is the woman (or in some cases the man) who is taking the risk. There's nothing wrong with having an OPINION that doing X is too risky - although there is something very wrong with saying "therefore she deserved it." Fortunately, almost no one claims that, certainly no one I've seen here.

Find an extreme, to illustrate, since all these guys seem to agree that there are circumstances in which a woman is not "taking the risk", but they refuse to specify them (leaving such matters open ended, to be decided by some authority case by case, is a standard technique of oppression btw): When a woman is leaving an office cubicle to go to the lunchroom where men also take their lunch breaks, say - can I assume a general agreement on that? No, I can't. Not with these guys and their precautionary principle. And that is the issue.

Two issues here.

One is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. At the end of the day, you're responsible for how much risk you want to take and how you mitigate that risk. No one else. In that sense women absolutely have the "precautionary responsibility" for their own safety.

The second is that not taking every precaution is no excuse for any sort of violence towards anyone. It is very useful to tell someone "here's what you can do to prevent rape." Indeed one can find literally hundreds of websites and seminars that do just that. It can even be useful to tell them that after being raped, although of course with that level of trauma you better know someone VERY well and be able to communicate very clearly that such precautions do not indicate any culpability caused by their earlier lack.

They insist that the consequences of their approach do not include the oppression of women, the oppression we see in real life from it, but aren't they simply wrong about that, in fact?

If they advocate that women take precautions? Then no, they're not contributing to the oppression of women. If they push a philosophy that women who do not take such precautions share in the guilt for their attack? Yes, then there approach does result in oppression of women.

 

[iceaura]

Hmm. I think that everyone agrees that walking alone naked down a street late at night would be taking too many risks, and most would agree that wearing only a "do me" T-shirt with nothing else on would be a bad idea

In a nudist colony, at a nude beach, in a commune, on stage at a strip joint, etc etc etc?

If everyone agrees on these situations, why do those guys have so much trouble saying what they are?

However, the only person whose opinion really matters is the woman (or in some cases the man) who is taking the risk.

That such a statement is false, in real life, is part of the issue here. Several other people's opinions matter in real life, including those of the drunken frat boys suddenly identifying a person who is obviously willing to take risks. And they are getting their opinions from people like wynn, lightgigantic, etc.

That it misses the issue is the other problem with it. At what point is a person "taking a risk", as opposed to having a risk they cannot reasonably avoid imposed on them?

If they advocate that women take precautions? Then no, they're not contributing to the oppression of women.

That depends. If they are advocating the wearing of burkas, constant accompaniment by a male relative, the avoidance of male acquaintanceship, a ban on riding bicycles or driving, sequestration in special rooms invisible to male household guests, and so forth, they clearly are.

You do not wish to claim that advocating oppressive circumstances and behaviors and social norms does not count as "contributing to oppression", I hope.

To avoid being advocates of oppression, they have to establish in their advocacy of precaution large and significant and normal arenas of life in which no such precautions need be taken. This they have been unable to do - read above, for the responses.

One is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. At the end of the day, you're responsible for how much risk you want to take and how you mitigate that risk. No one else.

In the current context, say, women live in a world of imposed risks, that they have no reasonable choice over "taking" and no reasonable way of mitigating. Thing is: everyone is also responsible for other people's safety, in a society of human beings. You are responsible for how much risk you are allowing or imposing, as well as taking yourself.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, I don't. As noted before, I don't have to consider stupidity on your part as a factor in need of attention. You know what you are doing, and what I have posted. Your responses are dishonesties, not confusions.

For a person who has posted intelligently on other topics, your inability to follow straightforward discourse in this thread is astounding.

So far, that has been your recommendation.

Incorrect.

I never said the presence of a man automatically establishes a course of risk management for a woman.
You did.

And as a further point, I even explained precisely what you are going to great lengths to omit in your attempts to discuss this : RISK ASSESSMENT.

You have refused to specify otherwise, despite repeated opportunities to do so.

nonsense.

You haven't even got the capacity to include exactly what I am specifying in your attempted critiques.

eg.

The problem you seem to be having is that you can't dislodge this fanciful idea in your head, that life for a woman is nothing else but a constant anticipated danger.

and

So IOW a woman in the association of a man has no other alternative than to read that as a hazard bearing risks, and is required to immediately implement risk control.

This of course is not the "real world" as you put it.
And the reason for this is that "risk assessment" is conspicuous by its absence in your train of thought.

and

That aside, I am guessing you are having problems because of your determination requiring women to adopt precautions all of the time in all circumstances, ie , constant paranoia, or, technically speaking, advocating that life itself is technically a "dangerous occurrence" for a woman involved in any sort of association with men (aka : playing the game of radical extrapolation that doesn't have a practical precedent except in the imagination of persons offering spurious arguments). Its like you are trying to pretend that risk control occurs in the complete absence of risk assessment.

and

Hence being unable, uninformed or simply, as in the case you advocate, refusing to read the danger signs is not a very admirable state to be in.
That's why part of the information these seminars give are not only about "reading" an environment but also "reading" one's own personal state ... which of course is the preliminary step before determining which preventative measure to take (as opposed to being in a constant state of some sort of charlie's angel ninja assassin that you seem to vouch for as being the only doable standard)

If you wish to retract it, amend it, or limit such obviously oppressive expectations (even to the minor extent of limiting the amount of effort and attention expected from the woman), any time would be none too soon.

If you wish to show us that you actually have adequate comprehension skills to participate in this discussion, you have to start explaining how one can implement hazard management strategies without going via risk assessment.

 

[lightgigantic]

In a nudist colony, at a nude beach, in a commune, on stage at a strip joint, etc etc etc?

given that you can vouch for (somewhat uncommon) scenarios to offer a diminished case for risk assessment, we can only assume that you can in fact offer the other (more common) scenarios where this wouldn't be the case.

If everyone agrees on these situations, why do those guys have so much trouble saying what they are?

Because, as he says : However, the only person whose opinion really matters is the woman (or in some cases the man) who is taking the risk.

That such a statement is false, in real life, is part of the issue here. Several other people's opinions matter in real life, including those of the drunken frat boys suddenly identifying a person who is obviously willing to take risks. And they are getting their opinions from people like wynn, lightgigantic, etc.

lol - and the opinion an individual has on the state of their personal safety doesn't matter and is not part of "real life"?

..... what nonsense!!

That it misses the issue is the other problem with it. At what point is a person "taking a risk", as opposed to having a risk they cannot reasonably avoid imposed on them?

more nonsense.

It is reasonable for a person to avoid risks. Even thrill seekers adopt some sort of modicum of risk prevention while they "push things to the limits".

That depends. If they are advocating the wearing of burkas, constant accompaniment by a male relative, the avoidance of male acquaintanceship, a ban on riding bicycles or driving, sequestration in special rooms invisible to male household guests, and so forth, they clearly are.

Just like your nudist colony example, one can easily extrapolate these points to differing scenarios to show both where they do and don't act as successful preventative measures.
It all depends on the social context.

You do not wish to claim that advocating oppressive circumstances and behaviors and social norms does not count as "contributing to oppression", I hope.

No more than wearing any sort of clothes are oppressive .... I mean you wouldn't want to offend the values of a vigilant nudist, would you?

To avoid being advocates of oppression, they have to establish in their advocacy of precaution large and significant and normal arenas of life in which no such precautions need be taken. This they have been unable to do - read above, for the responses.

If you don't wear a life jacket when you go to bed, you are already up to speed on such scenarios.

I mean its not like you require a maritime authority press release that its safe to not wear a life jacket to bed if you are sleeping on dry land, is it?

In the current context, say, women live in a world of imposed risks, that they have no reasonable choice over "taking" and no reasonable way of mitigating. Thing is: everyone is also responsible for other people's safety, in a society of human beings. You are responsible for how much risk you are allowing or imposing, as well as taking yourself.

once again, for as long as you refuse to bring "risk assessment" into the discussion, your points are more in line with comedy than serious discussion.

:shrug:

 

[arauca]

Hmm. I think that everyone agrees that walking alone naked down a street late at night would be taking too many risks, and most would agree that wearing only a "do me" T-shirt with nothing else on would be a bad idea. Wearing normal business attire and walking with a group would almost never be seen that way.

In between those two extremes you are going to get people who disagree on what's too risky and what's an acceptable level of risk. However, the only person whose opinion really matters is the woman (or in some cases the man) who is taking the risk. There's nothing wrong with having an OPINION that doing X is too risky - although there is something very wrong with saying "therefore she deserved it." Fortunately, almost no one claims that, certainly no one I've seen here.



Two issues here.

One is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. At the end of the day, you're responsible for how much risk you want to take and how you mitigate that risk. No one else. In that sense women absolutely have the "precautionary responsibility" for their own safety.

The second is that not taking every precaution is no excuse for any sort of violence towards anyone. It is very useful to tell someone "here's what you can do to prevent rape." Indeed one can find literally hundreds of websites and seminars that do just that. It can even be useful to tell them that after being raped, although of course with that level of trauma you better know someone VERY well and be able to communicate very clearly that such precautions do not indicate any culpability caused by their earlier lack.



If they advocate that women take precautions? Then no, they're not contributing to the oppression of women. If they push a philosophy that women who do not take such precautions share in the guilt for their attack? Yes, then there approach does result in oppression of women.

I go raped once by a woman and I felt much remorse because I liked and I said will avoid that woman , but after one month I went back to her and the we had a relation for over 3 years , by the way I knew her

 

[billvon]

In a nudist colony, at a nude beach, in a commune, on stage at a strip joint, etc etc etc?

In a typical public setting. Yes, there are unusual cases where nudity IS appropriate. And if you want to get extreme, there are even cases where a woman says "no" and tries to fight off a man who forces himself on her sexually and have it not be rape - but again those are extremes.

If everyone agrees on these situations, why do those guys have so much trouble saying what they are?

See above. You can always find a situation where the standard answer does not apply.

That such a statement is false, in real life, is part of the issue here. Several other people's opinions matter in real life, including those of the drunken frat boys suddenly identifying a person who is obviously willing to take risks.

No, it doesn't matter. She is not responsible for what other people do, only what she does. She may take their state of inebriation or idiocy into account - but what they think about the risks she takes matters not one little bit.

That it misses the issue is the other problem with it. At what point is a person "taking a risk", as opposed to having a risk they cannot reasonably avoid imposed on them?

Those are not opposed.

That depends. If they are advocating the wearing of burkas, constant accompaniment by a male relative, the avoidance of male acquaintanceship, a ban on riding bicycles or driving, sequestration in special rooms invisible to male household guests, and so forth, they clearly are.

Not at all. Someone who advises a woman to wear a burkha in an area where women are beaten for not wearing them is giving her good advice. It does not mean that she has a moral obligation to wear one, nor does it mean that they are right to beat women for not wearing them (or for any reason at all.) It does mean that she can now make an informed choice about whether to wear one or not - and giving women the power to make an informed choice is a very good thing overall.

To avoid being advocates of oppression, they have to establish in their advocacy of precaution large and significant and normal arenas of life in which no such precautions need be taken.

?? Huh? There are risks everywhere. You might tell a US woman, for example, not to walk around topless in 99.99% of the US to avoid being sexually assaulted, insulted, arrested, or battered. That would be good advice, and does not constitute being an "advocate of oppression" - again provided it is just advice.

In the current context, say, women live in a world of imposed risks, that they have no reasonable choice over "taking" and no reasonable way of mitigating. Thing is: everyone is also responsible for other people's safety, in a society of human beings.

To make it clear, you are not responsible for my safety, and I will not consult you on my choice of reserve parachute, car purchase, clothing to wear etc. However, you are perfectly free to give me advice on anything you wish to, just as I am free to take it or not. And if you advised me not to buy a Pinto because they're not that safe, that might be a good bit of advice - and I would not accuse you of being an "advocate of vehicular oppression."

You are responsible for how much risk you are allowing or imposing, as well as taking yourself.

Imposing? Yes. Taking? Yes. Allowing? Absolutely not. I neither allow nor forbid you from wearing anything you choose.

 

[Bells]

In a typical public setting. Yes, there are unusual cases where nudity IS appropriate. And if you want to get extreme, there are even cases where a woman says "no" and tries to fight off a man who forces himself on her sexually and have it not be rape - but again those are extremes.

*Raises eyebrows*

There is only one instance where a woman says 'no' and fights off the man where it is not rape (pre-arranged rape fantasy). But you seem to believe there may be others. Could you please say where you think a woman may say no and tries to fight off a man who is trying to rape her is not rape?

See above. You can always find a situation where the standard answer does not apply.

Well you seem to believe that how a woman dresses, conducts herself in public amounts to her somehow inviting rape.

No, it doesn't matter. She is not responsible for what other people do, only what she does. She may take their state of inebriation or idiocy into account - but what they think about the risks she takes matters not one little bit.

But you think she is responsible for what other people do, hence you believe she should not dress in a certain way or behave in a certain way.

Not at all. Someone who advises a woman to wear a burkha in an area where women are beaten for not wearing them is giving her good advice. It does not mean that she has a moral obligation to wear one, nor does it mean that they are right to beat women for not wearing them (or for any reason at all.) It does mean that she can now make an informed choice about whether to wear one or not - and giving women the power to make an informed choice is a very good thing overall.

How kind of you.

So it is an 'informed choice' that she can either not wear a burkha and be beaten or killed or have to wear the garb and hopefully not be beaten for being a woman.

Talk about choice. I guess women in such society's just don't know how good they have it...

?? Huh? There are risks everywhere. You might tell a US woman, for example, not to walk around topless in 99.99% of the US to avoid being sexually assaulted, insulted, arrested, or battered. That would be good advice, and does not constitute being an "advocate of oppression" - again provided it is just advice.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

But since when did nudity become an invitation to be raped?

To make it clear, you are not responsible for my safety, and I will not consult you on my choice of reserve parachute, car purchase, clothing to wear etc. However, you are perfectly free to give me advice on anything you wish to, just as I am free to take it or not. And if you advised me not to buy a Pinto because they're not that safe, that might be a good bit of advice - and I would not accuse you of being an "advocate of vehicular oppression."

Or perhaps men can tell other men that rape is wrong, full stop. That nudity, inebriation, unconsciousness, or whatever other excuse people make for rapists, is not an excuse to rape.

Imposing? Yes. Taking? Yes. Allowing? Absolutely not. I neither allow nor forbid you from wearing anything you choose.

Would you rape someone wearing a 'do me' t-shirt? I would imagine the answer to that is no (one would hope).

How about a woman who appeared in front of you naked? No?

Do you expect other men to do it if you would not? Does she deserve to be raped in such a situation?

Because this is what this discussion is coming down to. The expectation that a woman somehow should expect to be raped for whatever reason.. thus far, rape apologists have been unable to say when a woman can expect to not be raped... In short, the expectation is on the woman to not be raped, instead of on the men to not rape.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm sorry, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

But since when did nudity become an invitation to be raped?

So you don't otherwise have a problem understanding how it is good advice to avoid being insulted, arrested, or battered?

Would you rape someone wearing a 'do me' t-shirt? I would imagine the answer to that is no (one would hope).

How about a woman who appeared in front of you naked? No?

Do you expect other men to do it if you would not?

The obvious point here then is that "men", as a category, doesn't designate an automatic rape hazard for women. IOW something else must be apparent (aside from being a "man") to begin the process of risk assessment.

Does she deserve to be raped in such a situation?

Deserve? no.
Now ....
Do you think being naked would increase the likelihood of it across a range of possible scenarios?

Because this is what this discussion is coming down to. The expectation that a woman somehow should expect to be raped for whatever reason..

If you encountered a naked drunk woman who was barely conscious with a black eye, would it cross your mind that she might have been sexually assaulted? Or would you never expect such a thing could have happened to her?

thus far, rape apologists....

I'm having trouble finding a quote from anyone from anywhere on this thread where they actually say "It is okay to rape a woman".

Perhaps you can enlighten us ...

In short, the expectation is on the woman to not be raped, instead of on the men to not rape.

as said already, whatever scenario you give for whatever victim orientated crime you care to mention, one can give exceptions.

For instance just try and give a scenario where a car owner can expect not to have their car stolen? Or a scenario where one can expect not to get kidnapped? Or a scenario where one can expect not to get assaulted?
And furthermore, just try and explain how your inability to offer such a fool-proof scenario somehow erodes a potential victim being vigilant as a first line of prevention?

Such things are actually determined by an individual's risk assessment ... something you guys have been fighting like hell to avoid bringing to the table for discussion ...
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

I am talking about the scope, in real life, of the responsibility you assign to women for taking precautions against the threat of rape. The context is real life, in which for example (among other considerations) most rapists are male acquaintances of their victims. I want a clear statement about the area of a woman's real life in which you do not expect her (as a matter of responsibility no less, see past postings) to take continual precautions against anticipated threats of rape.

It's still not clear how you come to ask such a thing. It should be a no-brainer that people generally, ideally seek to protect themselves, and eachother.

Perhaps you believe that the only reason ever why anyone would give anyone (unsolicited) advice about self-protection, is in an effort to exculpate the advice-giver and/or the (prospective) perpetrator, in an effort to place the whole responsibility on the (prospective) victim.

Perhaps you believe that it is impossible that anyone should or would warn anyone about a danger purely for benevolent, altruistic reasons.


Two scenarios:
One: You walk down a street. Thirty feet ahead of you you see an uncovered, unprotected manhole. Then you see that from the other direction, a person is walking fast, talking on the phone. They are walking straight toward the manhole, and they don't seem to notice it. So you call out to them "Stop! Watch your step!"
Two: A friend of yours, while walking fast and talking on the phone, fell into an uncovered, unprotected manhole, and sustained some injuries. You visit the friend in the hospital. After you hear what happened, you say to the friend "What were you thinking?! Why didn't you watch where you're going?!"

Do you think that saying "Stop! Watch your step!" and "What were you thinking?! Why didn't you watch where you're going?!" are examples of blaming the victim and of trying to exculpate the municipal authorities because they didn't maintain the street properly?

That misses the issue. Which point should that be, for a responsible woman, according to these guys?

You seem to think we are trying to argue a case like "Enter the cage with wild animals at your own risk and discretion. We, the management of the ZOO, carry no responsibility for what happens to you if you do enter the cage with wild animals." We are not.

Again, it should be a no-brainer that people generally, ideally seek to protect themselves, and eachother.

Already that example violates the expectations of many misogynistic and oppressive societies, such as Saudi Arabia's, who also operate on the assigning of precautionary responsibility to women.

I don't think that the situation in those countries is comparable to the situation in the US, and that the reason why rape victims in those countries are treated the way they are, requires some more detailed analysis and contextual understanding.

Generally, in some legal systems, legal sanctions primarily function as a warning to others in order to deter them from endangering themselves and others; those sanctions aren't so much intended to punish or reform the person on whom they are carried out.

 

[billvon]

There is only one instance where a woman says 'no' and fights off the man where it is not rape (pre-arranged rape fantasy). But you seem to believe there may be others. Could you please say where you think a woman may say no and tries to fight off a man who is trying to rape her is not rape?

Any power exchange scene where she gives explicit permission _before_ the scene begins, as in rape fantasies. But again, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Well you seem to believe that how a woman dresses, conducts herself in public amounts to her somehow inviting rape.

Nope.

But you think she is responsible for what other people do, hence you believe she should not dress in a certain way or behave in a certain way.

I have now said she is not responsible for what other people do half a dozen times.

So it is an 'informed choice' that she can either not wear a burkha and be beaten or killed or have to wear the garb and hopefully not be beaten for being a woman.

She can make an informed choice to wear a burkha. It is not an informed choice to be "beaten or killed." That is a crime that others might commit. She is responsible for what she wears; she is not responsible for crimes others commit.

But since when did nudity become an invitation to be raped?

Never.

Or perhaps men can tell other men that rape is wrong, full stop. That nudity, inebriation, unconsciousness, or whatever other excuse people make for rapists, is not an excuse to rape.

It is always wrong, period.

Would you rape someone wearing a 'do me' t-shirt? I would imagine the answer to that is no (one would hope).

No. Would you advise your daughter to wear a "do me" Tshirt at a party where you know a lot of guys will be drunk, and in a place that sexual assaults have happened before?

Because this is what this discussion is coming down to. The expectation that a woman somehow should expect to be raped for whatever reason.. thus far, rape apologists have been unable to say when a woman can expect to not be raped... In short, the expectation is on the woman to not be raped, instead of on the men to not rape.

And again, confused people often cannot tell the difference between taking precautions against being assaulted and apologizing for rape. They are not even close to the same thing.