Rape and the "Civilized" World

[iceaura]

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

I did not. I pointed out that you had recommended - as a matter of being a responsible adult, a responsibility - that a woman take precautions against rape whenever she "antipates that she might be raped". I invited you (several times now) to put some reasonable limits on that, specifically lift your assigned responsibilities, avoid burdening women with rape risk management in the great majority of their lives both waking and sleeping, by establishing situations in which women need not anticipate that they might be raped - you have failed to do that, over the course of several posts quoting the very question and ostensibly dealing with that very issue. So the obvious conclusion has been reinforced by your repeated posting.

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.

In the meantime, while you are somehow preparing detailed analysis and contextual understanding that does not involve or even imply any comparison to the situation in the US, we note that it was not posted in comparison but as a counterexample to your ridiculous assertion that advocating for precautionary behavior is never oppressive.

It is, quite often, normally, and cannot be assumed otherwise. Several posters here have noted that the failure of the precaution advocates here to put any limits on the scope of their recommendations, combined with the pervasiveness of the risk their precauations are recommended for, directly implicates them in advocating for a quite repressive society. In their cultural milieu, which is a major influence on us all, rape functions as an enforcer of their world views and rapists echo their descriptions and claimed norms. It is, as wynn noted, a fairly sinister approach - it creates a fairly ugly enforcement mechanism for their world views while preserving what politicians call "deniability" for themselves.

Deniability doesn't work as well around here. If you don't like that description, you cannot simply deny it - you have to argue against it, to deal with the evidence and argument presented for it.

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?

It is very easy to provide situations in which no one recommends that I take precautions against car theft (my employee parking spot, the church parking lot, the driveway of my house, etc etc etc). In these situations I am socially unburdened by anyone's expectations that as a responsible adult I have anticipated the theft of my car and undertaken precautionary behaviors as well as an attitude of wariness. Likewise kidnapping - I almost never have to think about, let alone take precautions against, that risk, to be considered a responsible adult. And in my case the situations in which I am expected to anticipate and guard against assault are very few and long between - almost my entire life is completely free of that burden.

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.

You appear to have confused recommending oppressive precautions for others in almost every aspect of their lives, as a condition of their being a responsible adult, with taking precautions oneself in perceived situations of hazard.

 

[billvon]

You appear to have confused recommending oppressive precautions for others in almost every aspect of their lives, as a condition of their being a responsible adult, with taking precautions oneself in perceived situations of hazard.

Nope. I have never oppressed anyone with my recommendations, nor have I made them a condition of "being a responsible adult." They can take the advice as they see fit. It is a good idea to take precautions in perceived situations of hazard; it is disappointing that you would denigrate people who do that, and label them as "oppressed."

 

[lightgigantic]

I did not. I pointed out that you had recommended - as a matter of being a responsible adult, a responsibility - that a woman take precautions against rape whenever she "antipates that she might be raped".

Inasmuch as anyone is responsible for the safety or well being of anything else they have of value (including their life)

sure I invited you (several times now) to put some reasonable limits on that, specifically lift your assigned responsibilities, avoid burdening women with rape risk management in the great majority of their lives both waking and sleeping, by establishing situations in which women need not anticipate that they might be raped - you have failed to do that, over the course of several posts quoting the very question and ostensibly dealing with that very issue.

and as we see with your later attempts to explain a scenario where you reach such a limit for car theft or anything else, it can't be done.

IOW if you insist of discussing it purely in terms of risk management devoid of risk assessment, you get nowhere (which I, and a few other posters have said several times now)

So the obvious conclusion has been reinforced by your repeated posting.

and for reasons explained above, it is actually YOUR conclusion.

In the meantime, while you are somehow preparing detailed analysis and contextual understanding that does not involve or even imply any comparison to the situation in the US, we note that it was not posted in comparison but as a counterexample to your ridiculous assertion that advocating for precautionary behavior is never oppressive.

actually it is brought to your attention since you are the one suggesting that in the case of rape, it is ALWAYS oppressive.
The comedy is that you would deem Biv's eg oppressive :

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?

Are you saying the act of giving this advice makes one oppressive?

It is very easy to provide situations in which no one recommends that I take precautions against car theft (my employee parking spot, the church parking lot, the driveway of my house, etc etc etc).

Incorrect


Q. Where and when do vehicle thefts most often occur?
A. Although auto theft can happen anywhere, recent data reveals that this is primarily a large-city problem. The crimes most often take place at night and are largely committed by young males. According to Citizens for Auto-theft Responsibility (C.A.R.), the top spots for auto theft include malls, apartments, stores, churches and office buildings. No matter where you are, you're always at risk.

Of course, due to your powers of risk assessment, this bit of information may not cause you to spill automatically into risk management.

In these situations I am socially unburdened by anyone's expectations that as a responsible adult I have anticipated the theft of my car and undertaken precautionary behaviors as well as an attitude of wariness. Likewise kidnapping - I almost never have to think about, let alone take precautions against, that risk, to be considered a responsible adult. And in my case the situations in which I am expected to anticipate and guard against assault are very few and long between - almost my entire life is completely free of that burden.

You don't understand.
The success or failure of (or in your opinion of rape, the complete absence of) victim prevention is entirely about the measures you take, as an individual, to prevent being a victim - Nothing else. IOW it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's opinions unless of course they are physically present to influence the outcome of the scenario.

You appear to have confused recommending oppressive precautions for others in almost every aspect of their lives, as a condition of their being a responsible adult, with taking precautions oneself in perceived situations of hazard.

almost every aspect of their lives?
Noted how you are continuing to play the category of "man" as an automatic risk hazard for a woman ... totally bereft of risk assessment of course

 

[wynn]

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

Not sure what you mean by "crime suplication" here?

 

[wynn]

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.

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...

You seem to think that there exists an objective standard of freedom and non-oppression, one that is completely independent from the concern for the circumstances in which a person lives or happens to find themselves in. And that that standard is the one you advocate.

For example, that wearing a burka is oppressive, always and everywhere; or that being vigilant 24/7 is oppressive, and that there should be times and places where one should not have to pay much attention to what one is doing nor to what is happening (and perhaps that most times and places should be like that).


Good luck with that ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Not sure what you mean by "crime suplication" here?

probably not a good choice of words.

I was meaning that if, accepting that there is only really one scenario to work with : namely the one that actually occurs, one cannot readily vouch for crime prevention, one also cannot readily vouch for issues that increase its likelihood (such as bell's suggestion that establishing issues of rape prevention actually makes rape occur more often or whatever)

 

[wynn]

probably not a good choice of words.

I was meaning that if, accepting that there is only really one scenario to work with : namely the one that actually occurs, one cannot readily vouch for crime prevention, one also cannot readily vouch for issues that increase its likelihood (such as bell's suggestion that establishing issues of rape prevention actually makes rape occur more often or whatever)

Strictly speaking, it is not possible to vouch for anything. Some people are deeply dismayed over this, concluding in despair that there is no regularity to how things happen in this world and that we are completely powerless. Then there is also the unsettling insight that risk assessment doesn't really give us the peace of mind that we hope it would.

Everyone seems to understand that interactions between beings in this world are a power play, but not everyone can come up with such ways to play that would lead one to permanent victory, safety and happiness.

 

[wynn]

In these situations I am socially unburdened by anyone's expectations

Unless we are talking about legally imposed expectations (and we don't seem to), this whole thing seems to come down to the issue of maintaining a particular public image, a reputation, in effect, how to control other people's opinions of oneself; and parallel to that, one's self-image in relation to the image that some other people may have of one.

"If my car gets stolen, and some people think it was partly due to my fault, this will reflect badly on me, and I cannot endure that some people would think badly of me."

Is that it?

 

[wynn]

probably not a good choice of words.

I was meaning that if, accepting that there is only really one scenario to work with : namely the one that actually occurs, one cannot readily vouch for crime prevention, one also cannot readily vouch for issues that increase its likelihood (such as bell's suggestion that establishing issues of rape prevention actually makes rape occur more often or whatever)

On a further note, given that we don't have access to a parallel reality, we also can't tell whether efforts to educate people not to rape really would lead to people not raping. Perhaps the number of rapes would decrease, but other forms of violence may increase.

It seems that this is already happening, for example, it is becoming more and more common that a woman, if she wants to get and keep a job, has to sign a clause that she will lose the job if she gives birth to a child and keeps it.

 

[Tiassa]

Brief Notes

I. A Situational Consideration

Two situations come to mind where I hear the kind of rape-shaming of women aimed at men. One is specific, and one is general.

Soon-to-be NBA Hall of Fame basketball player Gary Payton once got mugged in his own neighborhood. Certainly some asked, "Okay, so you went back to the rough ol' 'hood, wearing a thousand dollar suit and how many gold chains along with your bejeweled wristwatch and ... um ... remind me again how much cash in your wallet?"

But, you know, The Glove's behavior is somewhat understandable, especially to Boomers and Generation X, which have spent decades awash in the myth of rough boy made good comes home.

I would make the point, though, that nobody would acquit his mugger simply because of Payton's behavior.

There is also a blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to gangs and organized crime. When you choose to enter a world restrained only by the philosophy that, "Dead men don't pay", and the idea that some things are worth more than money, one can easily foresee unfortunate possibilities.

But nobody is going to acquit a confessed murderer because, "The doity rat had it comin'."

And nobody is going to refuse to press charges because, despite having a confession of murder in his hand, the prosecutor decides it wasn't really murder because the victim deserved it.

Yet juries have acquitted rapists because a woman was "asking for it" according to her attire.

And, to be certain, if you're a prosecutor who refuses to charge a confessed rapist because you feel the woman deserved it, your only remaining credibility is as a U.S. Senate candidate for the Republican Party.

II. On Prevention Theory

To reiterate this in as few words as possible:

• Prevention for me: Lock my car doors. Drive with my headlights on. Lock the house doors. Leave the porch light on. Carry my wallet in my jacket. Pay attention when someone is waving a gun nearby. Don't smoke at the gas station. The common theme here is do and forget.

• Prevention for women: Everything a man should do to protect himself ... and then ....​

I don't think set-and-forget precautionary measures can reasonably or justly be compared to this open-ended rape prevention theory. For whatever reason, people who recommend women take precautions to protect themselves against being raped also seem to have trouble understanding the extremity they are recommending. That is, I'm pretty sure they're not saying, "Ladies, protect yourselves from strangers so you can save yourself for friends."

Or, who knows, maybe they are. You know, "Don't let anyone rape you. You're mine to rape."

I don't know, does that sound absurd?

But what are people supposed to think when they ask again and again for some reasonable dimensions of this prevention theory, are refused on every occasion, and then are expected to not find it somewhere between morbidly hilarious and outright offensive when some half-wit waddles along and pretends to not understand the problem, saying something insanely stupid like, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". After all, how many times do we ask for the measurement of the prevention theory? How many times do the advocates refuse to establish the boundaries of their recommendations? And then why does there always need to be some retarded golem clodhopping about declaring arbitrary measurements? ("Must ... protect ... Precious .... Must ... protect ... RAAAAAAAAAPE!")

So here's the problem with prevention theory that its advocates are apparently incapable of comprehending: The vast majority of rapes are committed by offenders known to the victims.

My best friend, male or female, should not have to constantly be on guard against my presence. I mean, that demand for vigilance kind of undermines the whole notion of friendship.

You want women to protect themselves against the men most likely to rape them? That would mean they need to guard against the men they know. If A, and B, then C:

• If women are to protect themselves against rape, and ...

• ... if the greatest threat of rape comes from men the woman knows ...

• ... then the best prevention technique is for women to guard against associations with men.​

This is not rocket science. It is not brain surgery.

After five years, at least, of listening to rape "prevention" advocates spell out their case, that simple question—At what point does it become ridiculous?—remains unanswered.

Certes, there are those who would offer bland advice, such as "the point that they are OK with the risk they are taking". While this might sound good on the surface, you know, there are some days I don't feel like locking my steering wheel with a club, but that won't win the car thief an acquittal.

So consider C and D, a cohabiting heterosexual couple with no rape problems between them. It's game one of the NHL playoffs, so they call some friends.

D: Hey, Tiassa, games on in an hour. You comin'?

T: Uh ... it's the NHL playoffs? Anyway, what you need me to bring?​

Now let's try it on C's end:

C: Hey, Kristin, you coming over for the game? Nachos and beer. And I'm pretty sure someone's bringing some dope.

K: Sounds great, C, but there will be men and beer there, and one of them might rape me. I'm not okay with that risk.​

Simplistic? Perhaps. But this is what such philosophies mean in application. Women, by nature of men's behavior, are expected to take "precautions" that inhibit their enjoyment of life in ways men take for granted. What, I want to rock and roll all night, and party every day? Fine. About the only thing people will blame me for is if I get in a fight, or land myself in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. (And, you know, under the right circumstances, they adore you for getting in a fight.)

And rocking and rolling all night and partying every day still won't win an acquittal for the guy who steals my car.

But it might just get a rapist off the hook.

Nobody in my circles ever looks around at the Super Bowl party and says, "God, what a sausage fest." Of course, that's not fair now that there is a woman present. But prior years weren't sausage fests because women don't like football. Think of S1 and S2. S1, like half of the guests in the house, went to high school with the host. Some years, he brought his girlfriend, S2, with him, but she generally went out with other friends. Not that the girls didn't like football; they usually went to some kind of hen party for the game, or something. But think about it:

S2: Hey, girl, you wanna come with me and S1 to a friend's house and watch the Super Bowl with a bunch of drunk men you don't know?​

Doesn't sound so good when you put it that way.

Yet starting the year C moved in with D, the girls have been coming with S1 to the games. It's not like C knows S2's friends. But for whatever reasons, we see them now for big events. Was it the simple reassurance of a woman being present?

So if a woman's quality of life isn't of any importance to men, then men need to get greedy, and ask themselves if they would prefer to spend the rest of their social lives bopping from one sausage fest to the next.

That is to say that it's a sad state of affairs when a woman should decide to not go out with friends because some guy might rape her, and we're down to appealing to men: Imagine this party without any chicks!

This is the society advocates of open-ended prevention theory would create.

 

[iceaura]

Nope. I have never oppressed anyone with my recommendations, nor have I made them a condition of "being a responsible adult."

Well, I was responding to LG and wynn, and to the extent you join them you have in fact made taking precautions against rape whenever one "anticipates that they might be raped" a responsibility of any adult. Review the posts above, for that explicitly stated.

And that is in real life - in fact, in Saudi Arabia and the US right now - oppressive, as I pointed out without the slightest rebuttal so far, from you or anyone else.

The success or failure of (or in your opinion of rape, the complete absence of) victim prevention is entirely about the measures you take, as an individual, to prevent being a victim - Nothing else

So, billvon - that clarify things for you? You on that team? I rest my case.

It is very easy to provide situations in which no one recommends that I take precautions against car theft (my employee parking spot, the church parking lot, the driveway of my house, etc etc etc).
Incorrect


Q. Where and when do vehicle thefts most often occur?
A. Although auto theft can happen anywhere, recent data reveals that this is primarily a large-city problem. The crimes most often take place at night and are largely committed by young males. According to Citizens for Auto-theft Responsibility (C.A.R.), the top spots for auto theft include malls, apartments, stores, churches and office buildings. No matter where you are, you're always at risk.

I'm not sure how that bit of common knowledge, which I took advantage of in my post, is supposed to contradict anything I've posted. It seems to me to solidly support everything I've posted here. Clearly the existence of risk does not justify the burdening of people with the onerous and oppressive responsibility (as "adults") of vigilance and precautions - that burden is a separate issue in many common situations, and it's easy to name them.

But you apparently cannot think of any, with regard to women and rape.

For example, that wearing a burka is oppressive, always and everywhere; or that being vigilant 24/7 is oppressive, and that there should be times and places where one should not have to pay much attention to what one is doing nor to what is happening (and perhaps that most times and places should be like that).

No, you have the direction of implication backwards again, and the thesis completely muddled: I am observing that the people who advocate for wearing burkas, 24/7 vigilance, and the absence of any significant area of life in which a "responsible adult" woman is free of the burden of managing her risk of being raped, are advocating oppression when they advocate precaution.

Now you and LG and the rest have been provided several opportunities to separate yourselves from that category of advocates. So far, none of you have. Look at this:

Noted how you are continuing to play the category of "man" as an automatic risk hazard for a woman ...

Penny drop yet?

 

[billvon]

Well, I was responding to LG and wynn

Odd that you quoted me and then replied, then.

and to the extent you join them you have in fact made taking precautions against rape whenever one "anticipates that they might be raped" a responsibility of any adult.

Yes. It is always your responsibility to protect yourself. Period. No conditionals, no adjectives, no special cases for gender or sexual orientation or race or size.

So, billvon - that clarify things for you? You on that team? I rest my case.

Nope, not on anyone's "team."

 

[wynn]

Now you and LG and the rest have been provided several opportunities to separate yourselves from that category of advocates.

If you don't read my posts - then there's nothing I can do.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

If you don't read my posts - then there's nothing I can do.

:shrug:

+1
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I. A Situational Consideration

Two situations come to mind where I hear the kind of rape-shaming of women aimed at men. One is specific, and one is general.

Soon-to-be NBA Hall of Fame basketball player Gary Payton once got mugged in his own neighborhood. Certainly some asked, "Okay, so you went back to the rough ol' 'hood, wearing a thousand dollar suit and how many gold chains along with your bejeweled wristwatch and ... um ... remind me again how much cash in your wallet?"

But, you know, The Glove's behavior is somewhat understandable, especially to Boomers and Generation X, which have spent decades awash in the myth of rough boy made good comes home.

I would make the point, though, that nobody would acquit his mugger simply because of Payton's behavior.

There is also a blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to gangs and organized crime. When you choose to enter a world restrained only by the philosophy that, "Dead men don't pay", and the idea that some things are worth more than money, one can easily foresee unfortunate possibilities.

But nobody is going to acquit a confessed murderer because, "The doity rat had it comin'."

And nobody is going to refuse to press charges because, despite having a confession of murder in his hand, the prosecutor decides it wasn't really murder because the victim deserved it.

Yet juries have acquitted rapists because a woman was "asking for it" according to her attire.

And, to be certain, if you're a prosecutor who refuses to charge a confessed rapist because you feel the woman deserved it, your only remaining credibility is as a U.S. Senate candidate for the Republican Party.

II. On Prevention Theory

To reiterate this in as few words as possible:

• Prevention for me: Lock my car doors. Drive with my headlights on. Lock the house doors. Leave the porch light on. Carry my wallet in my jacket. Pay attention when someone is waving a gun nearby. Don't smoke at the gas station. The common theme here is do and forget.

• Prevention for women: Everything a man should do to protect himself ... and then ....​

I don't think set-and-forget precautionary measures can reasonably or justly be compared to this open-ended rape prevention theory. For whatever reason, people who recommend women take precautions to protect themselves against being raped also seem to have trouble understanding the extremity they are recommending. That is, I'm pretty sure they're not saying, "Ladies, protect yourselves from strangers so you can save yourself for friends."

Or, who knows, maybe they are. You know, "Don't let anyone rape you. You're mine to rape."

I don't know, does that sound absurd?

But what are people supposed to think when they ask again and again for some reasonable dimensions of this prevention theory, are refused on every occasion, and then are expected to not find it somewhere between morbidly hilarious and outright offensive when some half-wit waddles along and pretends to not understand the problem, saying something insanely stupid like, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". After all, how many times do we ask for the measurement of the prevention theory? How many times do the advocates refuse to establish the boundaries of their recommendations? And then why does there always need to be some retarded golem clodhopping about declaring arbitrary measurements? ("Must ... protect ... Precious .... Must ... protect ... RAAAAAAAAAPE!")

So here's the problem with prevention theory that its advocates are apparently incapable of comprehending: The vast majority of rapes are committed by offenders known to the victims.

My best friend, male or female, should not have to constantly be on guard against my presence. I mean, that demand for vigilance kind of undermines the whole notion of friendship.

You want women to protect themselves against the men most likely to rape them? That would mean they need to guard against the men they know. If A, and B, then C:

• If women are to protect themselves against rape, and ...

• ... if the greatest threat of rape comes from men the woman knows ...

• ... then the best prevention technique is for women to guard against associations with men.​

This is not rocket science. It is not brain surgery.

After five years, at least, of listening to rape "prevention" advocates spell out their case, that simple question—At what point does it become ridiculous?—remains unanswered.

Certes, there are those who would offer bland advice, such as "the point that they are OK with the risk they are taking". While this might sound good on the surface, you know, there are some days I don't feel like locking my steering wheel with a club, but that won't win the car thief an acquittal.

So consider C and D, a cohabiting heterosexual couple with no rape problems between them. It's game one of the NHL playoffs, so they call some friends.

D: Hey, Tiassa, games on in an hour. You comin'?

T: Uh ... it's the NHL playoffs? Anyway, what you need me to bring?​

Now let's try it on C's end:

C: Hey, Kristin, you coming over for the game? Nachos and beer. And I'm pretty sure someone's bringing some dope.

K: Sounds great, C, but there will be men and beer there, and one of them might rape me. I'm not okay with that risk.​

Simplistic? Perhaps. But this is what such philosophies mean in application. Women, by nature of men's behavior, are expected to take "precautions" that inhibit their enjoyment of life in ways men take for granted. What, I want to rock and roll all night, and party every day? Fine. About the only thing people will blame me for is if I get in a fight, or land myself in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. (And, you know, under the right circumstances, they adore you for getting in a fight.)

And rocking and rolling all night and partying every day still won't win an acquittal for the guy who steals my car.

But it might just get a rapist off the hook.

Nobody in my circles ever looks around at the Super Bowl party and says, "God, what a sausage fest." Of course, that's not fair now that there is a woman present. But prior years weren't sausage fests because women don't like football. Think of S1 and S2. S1, like half of the guests in the house, went to high school with the host. Some years, he brought his girlfriend, S2, with him, but she generally went out with other friends. Not that the girls didn't like football; they usually went to some kind of hen party for the game, or something. But think about it:

S2: Hey, girl, you wanna come with me and S1 to a friend's house and watch the Super Bowl with a bunch of drunk men you don't know?​

Doesn't sound so good when you put it that way.

Yet starting the year C moved in with D, the girls have been coming with S1 to the games. It's not like C knows S2's friends. But for whatever reasons, we see them now for big events. Was it the simple reassurance of a woman being present?

So if a woman's quality of life isn't of any importance to men, then men need to get greedy, and ask themselves if they would prefer to spend the rest of their social lives bopping from one sausage fest to the next.

That is to say that it's a sad state of affairs when a woman should decide to not go out with friends because some guy might rape her, and we're down to appealing to men: Imagine this party without any chicks!

This is the society advocates of open-ended prevention theory would create.

Noted how you are continuing to play the category of "man" as an automatic risk hazard for a woman ...

IOW much like Iceaura, if you continue to play risk management bereft of risk assessment, you are more in-line with comedy than serious discussion

:roflmao:

 

[lightgigantic]

Penny drop yet?

You are yet to come to this discussion with your ideas of risk management via risk assessment (although for some funny reason, you have no problem doing this with the topic of auto-theft).

I'm afraid, for you, the penny is still falling .....
:shrug:1

 

[James R]

Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but...

It is always your responsibility to protect yourself. Period. No conditionals, no adjectives, no special cases for gender or sexual orientation or race or size.

Why do we have a society, complete with police, an army, security guards and the like?

 

[billvon]

Why do we have a society, complete with police, an army, security guards and the like?

Because while it is always your responsibility to protect yourself, it is also good to have the backing of society when your own abilities are not sufficient. Defending oneself from a nearby forest fire is a good example. It is your responsibility to make sure your house is fire-safe (smoke detectors, fire drills, construction methods that reduce the risk of fire) but we also have fire departments to attempt to put out the forest fire before it becomes a risk to the house.

 

[James R]

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.

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.

The assumption in both these examples is that it is up to the victim to prevent the crime.

If the victim does not take the recommended precautions, then what? Is the victim then partly responsible? Should the perpetrator then be (partly) excused because he "just couldn't help himself in the face of such provocation by the victim"? A lesser sentence for the rapist, perhaps, because of the complicity of the victim in her own rape?

Why is it so hard for some people to see that the problem here is not what the women do, but what the men do?

Are you comfortable that the status quo in the society in which you live says that women who walk around topless should expect to be raped by men? And that if they are, it was at least partly their fault because they didn't take appropriate precautions to reduce the ever-present risk? Have you considered that it is a sad indictment on your society that certain men apparently lack the basic decency and self-control to avoid committing heinous crimes?

Consider that choice that is supposed to be such a great thing: (a) Wear a burqa or (b) get raped or beaten. Ooh, now let me see... should I choose (a) or (b)? I'm not sure...

Can't you see that this is not a choice you're providing? It's an illusion of choice. In fact, it is coercive and oppressive.

"Don't walk around topless in the US in public or you'll be sexually assaulted" is similarly not a real choice. In point of fact, women in the US really have no choice here at all - they can't walk around topless. Step back from that just a little and you get into the grey areas: "Don't walk around in a short skirt in the US in public or you'll be sexually assaulted". "Don't walk and show off too much bare skin or..." "Don't dare wear any clothing that might show off your figure or give the impression that you're sexually available or..." "Don't go out of the house without a male relative or..."

It is not the responsibility of the victim to prevent the crime. It is the responsibility of all members of a society to create an environment in which crime is not tolerated.

 

[lightgigantic]

The assumption in both these examples is that it is up to the victim to prevent the crime.

If the victim does not take the recommended precautions, then what? Is the victim then partly responsible? Should the perpetrator then be (partly) excused because he "just couldn't help himself in the face of such provocation by the victim"? A lesser sentence for the rapist, perhaps, because of the complicity of the victim in her own rape?

If someone suffers duress from a scenario they could have prevented, they become a victim ..... much like a person who suffers duress from a scenario they couldn't have prevented, they also become a victim.

What we have to do now, is look at whether, as far as avoiding becoming a victim is concerned, which is the most effective in avoiding such an outcome and how people in general adopt preventative measures.

As a quick observation (as far as victim orientated crimes are concerned), we do not see prospective victims disbanding all and any preventative measures in favour of making the individuals already maliciously inclined to their well being, responsible for not inflicting injury/loss on them.

Why is it so hard for some people to see that the problem here is not what the women do, but what the men do?

No one is contending that.
The real question is why people can't understand that what you say in no way is diametrically opposed to the notion of a victim (regardless of the gender of either the assailant or the victim) having recourse to some sort of prevention strategy.

Or more precisely, why some people can't discuss the notion of adopting a preventative strategy in the same language that they discuss the prevention strategies of any other victim orientated crime they could care to mention .....

Are you comfortable that the status quo in the society in which you live says that women who walk around topless should expect to be raped by men? And that if they are, it was at least partly their fault because they didn't take appropriate precautions to reduce the ever-present risk? Have you considered that it is a sad indictment on your society that certain men apparently lack the basic decency and self-control to avoid committing heinous crimes?

That will also not only increase their chances of getting raped, but also insulted, abused and more than likely arrested. IOW each and every society has a "language " it communicates in by dint of behaviour, standard, etc which conforms a level of comfort for members of the said society.

That aside, it has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone is comfortable with - Its about dealing with that current state of affairs in a manner not to become a victim.

For instance, in light of your poignant observation, do you feel comfortable suggesting women should walk around topless since its ultimately a man's responsibility not to rape them?

Consider that choice that is supposed to be such a great thing: (a) Wear a burqa or (b) get raped or beaten. Ooh, now let me see... should I choose (a) or (b)? I'm not sure...

so you would select (b).
Or do you think its also possible to simultaneously choose (a) and work in what ever way to get your cerebral notion of society functioning at a level more to your liking in the meantime (although given that women get raped and beaten in places where they don't wear a burqa, it appears you still have quite a bit of work ahead of you - IOW I think you should be clear whether you want to talk about rape and prevention or your ideas on westernizing middle eastern cultures ...I mean its not like we could play your discomfort about nudist colonies - yet another society where women get beaten and raped apparently - as sufficient to draw up a new standard since your attitude is offending to vigilant nudists .....and as a detail, apparently sexual misconduct is a perennial problem - to the degree that they have special rules , systems and staff to deal with it when it occurs - at nudist colonies for some funny reason despite the complete absence of burqas :scratchin:

Can't you see that this is not a choice you're providing? It's an illusion of choice. In fact, it is coercive and oppressive.

We have societies that offer quite a lot of choice. We have societies that are quite oppressive.
In all of them, women get raped and in all of them there are behaviors that can increase that likelihood and in all of them there are preventative measures one can take and in all of them one can simultaneously adopt preventative measures and pursue what ever socially edifying precepts one thinks that particular society requires in order to function on a higher level of performance.

"Don't walk around topless in the US in public or you'll be sexually assaulted" is similarly not a real choice. In point of fact, women in the US really have no choice here at all - they can't walk around topless. Step back from that just a little and you get into the grey areas: "Don't walk around in a short skirt in the US in public or you'll be sexually assaulted". "Don't walk and show off too much bare skin or..." "Don't dare wear any clothing that might show off your figure or give the impression that you're sexually available or..." "Don't go out of the house without a male relative or..."

It appears you are making the same mistake everyone else is in advocating this position.

It is not a case of "don't do this ......", but rather , "if you do this in this particular scenario ....." ..

IOW if you want to discuss risk management (what to do and what not to do to avoid a risk) you have to first discuss an individual's risk assessment (in what situations is this information relevant).

IOW you have to look at what signifiers an individual looks for in order to begin their implementation of a risk prevention strategy.
No doubt you will interpret this to make the suggestion that all women all of the time should treat all men as potential hazards, but in real life, outside of the minds of individuals making radical generalizations for the sake of spurious arguments that have no precedent in reality, we see that this is by and large not the case.

IOW whatever preventative strategies women adopt, it doesn't appear to be working with the category of "man" as an automatic hazard (unless they are the victim of some bad lifestyle choices or something)

It is not the responsibility of the victim to prevent the crime. It is the responsibility of all members of a society to create an environment in which crime is not tolerated.

as long as one has no qualms about becoming a victim, then you are giving sound advice.
Otherwise, as Biv succinctly noted :

Yes. It is always your responsibility to protect yourself. Period. No conditionals, no adjectives, no special cases for gender or sexual orientation or race or size.