Rape and the "Civilized" World

[iceaura]

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.

You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft.

Neither do the police, say, to pick an obvious expression of the values backing this deniability preserving talk of "precaution". Illustration: The police in my town, and many others, have a regular program of bait car entrapment of car thieves. No regular member of the society here objects. There is not and has never been, to my knowledge, even the suggestion of a rapist entrapment program. No one has suggested, realistically, sending monitored rape targets to frat house parties or party bars, there to act drunk and provocative and attractive to rapists, with squads of police waiting ready to arrest and prosecute attempted assaults.

Clearly the assignment of universal and unlimited and unconditional responsibility for taking precautions against rape in all areas of a woman's life, a responsibility not universal and unlimited in the case of car theft (as the bait car shows) has consequences. It is in fact oppressive, and its advocates are advocates of that oppression - clearly in the case of alien cultures like Saudi Arabia's, but no less visible to those willing to look in the US and similar places.

 

[Tiassa]

Ego Defense

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?

Because everything changes that day,and people are afraid of change. That sounds like a cliché, but this is a fundamental change in the way they look at things. We tend to look at other people as a juxtaposition to ourselves; it is hard to imagine the people we hang out with being, well, rapists.

And we don't like to consider that we might be unwitting contributors to one of humanity's most horrifying failures.

Yet what we're looking at is, as with any fundamental challenge facing the human endeavor, a generational solution.

Of course people have the power to protect themselves against certain crime, but such precautions don't add up to much if we do not address the underlying motivations of crime.

Many people seem to imagine that crime is all sinister and supervillainous, but in reality, it is presently very difficult to describe a world in which the contributions of poverty, poor education, and other deprivations are erased so that we're only dealing with the criminal deviants that nature absolutely demands. That is, there will always be a psychopath to rape and kill, or a kleptomaniac to swipe your heirloom vase. But think of the drug war; there need not be an addict to steal your stuff to buy his next fix—that is a product of general marketplace dynamics (i.e., supply and demand) tailored specifically by prohibition. As we have observed in recent years, decriminalization, legalization, and other de-escalation of the drug war such as needle exchanges and transforming the discussion from one of crime to one of public health have positive effects on a bad situation. Sure, there will be questions of addiction and health damage in a legalized environment, but I can only hope for the day when that is the main question, when we stop deliberately making things worse.

In the War of the Sexes, societal attitudes need a broad-spectrum change. Should we merely hope for a day when a woman's precautions are no more than that of men? Can we actually do anything about it? If I can only hope for such a day, it is because, like the drug war, the outcome is not solely in one person's hands.

Such solutions belong to all of us.

With something like the drug war, rational consideration trumps prohibition in a manner much akin to Silva crushing Griffin.

But many of the opinions that have swung in recent years belong to people who feel removed from the stakes. This argument could be won on purely rational grounds; for most of these self-removed opinions, just follow the money and they're convinced it's all a waste.

With the rape question, though, everything about the situation is much more proximal. Few are the men in first-world societies who have no mother, sister, daughter, or female friends. One can, observably, be simultaneously horrified by—and thus nominally "against"—rape, but paralyzed by both the magnitude of the situation and neurotic self-interest.

The neurotic conflict sets the self-evident against comfort of sloth, a metathesiophobic tendency, and the spectre of self-indictment.

How do we measure Panty and Stocking°, for instance? Are the characters a denigration of women, or something affirmative and considerably more complex? I tend to go with the latter, but there is the comfort of sloth and spectre of self-indictment to deal with; I think it's hilarious, and I would hate to lose this sort of pop culture art.

Pulp Addiction: Panty and Stocking saving the men of Daten City.​

Maybe it seems puerile to use a cartoon in such an example, but this is how pervasive the questions can be. And against that comfort, tendency, and spectre, such a proximal invasion can easily trigger ego defense. And in a seeming psychological mockery of Third Law Conservation, the magnitude and complexity of the neurotic defense is in some way relative to the magnitude and complexity of the pressing issue.

Everything changes that day. Unfortunately, the correct path to take is fraught with scary-looking mysteries. They do not see because they are afraid to look.
____________________

Notes:

° Panty and Stocking — Of the cartoon series Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt. I would offer a video link, except it really is that profane.

 

[Thoreau]

Disregard. Wrong thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft.

wha?
Its now unethical to take measures toprevent your car getting stolen?

Neither do the police, say, to pick an obvious expression of the values backing this deniability preserving talk of "precaution".

wha?
Police don't provide advice on how women can avoid assault?

Illustration: The police in my town, and many others, have a regular program of bait car entrapment of car thieves. No regular member of the society here objects. There is not and has never been, to my knowledge, even the suggestion of a rapist entrapment program. No one has suggested, realistically, sending monitored rape targets to frat house parties or party bars, there to act drunk and provocative and attractive to rapists, with squads of police waiting ready to arrest and prosecute attempted assaults.

Incorrect.

Watched a documentary about how James Llloyd was captured 20 or so years after he committed rapes.
It included an interview with a then young female police detective who, due to the repeated attacks and the nature of them, was dressed up as a potential victim and went patrolling around the streets in an attempt to lure him. She laughs when she mentions that it was done back then, saying they didn't have the rigorous OH&S system in place that we do now that would outright prohibit such a massive risk undertaken by a police officer.

I also recall a thread discussion on this site about how female undercover police officers were involved in patrolling parks, acting in a sexually compliant manner and then arresting men who proceeded to indecently expose themselves (can't recall if they were staged to deal with illegal prostitution or to qualm complaints of sexual perversion in the park). It was a real mess when one of their offenders turned out to be mentally disabled or something (IOW it led down the path of whether the officers themselves were somehow compliant in the individual's behaviour yada yada)

Clearly the assignment of universal and unlimited and unconditional responsibility for taking precautions against rape in all areas of a woman's life, a responsibility not universal and unlimited in the case of car theft (as the bait car shows) has consequences.

Once again, it appears you simply don't understand how OH&S works since it is neither unlimited nor unconditional (beyond the condition that one has an interest in not falling victim to harm .... which would tend to be more the cornerstone of sanity than anything else ...) in addressing issues of responsibility.
This point is capable of being understood by anyone familiar with how risk assessment comes into play before one even thinks to begin on risk management.

Your inability to address OH&S, amongst other things, also explains why you can't understand why they do stage car thefts and why they tend not to stage rapes (if we want to assume that they can outrightly stage a rape that doesn't assume a dubious legal question at the onset)

It is in fact oppressive, and its advocates are advocates of that oppression - clearly in the case of alien cultures like Saudi Arabia's, but no less visible to those willing to look in the US and similar places.

alien cultures like saudi arabia?
grand standing your oppressive bigotry much?

There is evidence that some women in Saudi Arabia do not want change. Even many advocates of reform reject Western critics, for "failing to understand the uniqueness of Saudi society."[8][9][10] Journalist Maha Akeel is a frequent critic of her country's patriarchal customs. Nonetheless, she agrees that Westerners criticize what they do not understand. She has said: "Look, we are not asking for ... women's rights according to Western values or lifestyles ... We want things according to what Islam says. Look at our history, our role models."

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Because everything changes that day,and people are afraid of change. That sounds like a cliché, but this is a fundamental change in the way they look at things. We tend to look at other people as a juxtaposition to ourselves; it is hard to imagine the people we hang out with being, well, rapists.

And we don't like to consider that we might be unwitting contributors to one of humanity's most horrifying failures.

Yet what we're looking at is, as with any fundamental challenge facing the human endeavor, a generational solution.

Of course people have the power to protect themselves against certain crime, but such precautions don't add up to much if we do not address the underlying motivations of crime.

Many people seem to imagine that crime is all sinister and supervillainous, but in reality, it is presently very difficult to describe a world in which the contributions of poverty, poor education, and other deprivations are erased so that we're only dealing with the criminal deviants that nature absolutely demands. That is, there will always be a psychopath to rape and kill, or a kleptomaniac to swipe your heirloom vase. But think of the drug war; there need not be an addict to steal your stuff to buy his next fix—that is a product of general marketplace dynamics (i.e., supply and demand) tailored specifically by prohibition. As we have observed in recent years, decriminalization, legalization, and other de-escalation of the drug war such as needle exchanges and transforming the discussion from one of crime to one of public health have positive effects on a bad situation. Sure, there will be questions of addiction and health damage in a legalized environment, but I can only hope for the day when that is the main question, when we stop deliberately making things worse.

In the War of the Sexes, societal attitudes need a broad-spectrum change. Should we merely hope for a day when a woman's precautions are no more than that of men? Can we actually do anything about it? If I can only hope for such a day, it is because, like the drug war, the outcome is not solely in one person's hands.

Such solutions belong to all of us.

With something like the drug war, rational consideration trumps prohibition in a manner much akin to Silva crushing Griffin.

But many of the opinions that have swung in recent years belong to people who feel removed from the stakes. This argument could be won on purely rational grounds; for most of these self-removed opinions, just follow the money and they're convinced it's all a waste.

With the rape question, though, everything about the situation is much more proximal. Few are the men in first-world societies who have no mother, sister, daughter, or female friends. One can, observably, be simultaneously horrified by—and thus nominally "against"—rape, but paralyzed by both the magnitude of the situation and neurotic self-interest.

The neurotic conflict sets the self-evident against comfort of sloth, a metathesiophobic tendency, and the spectre of self-indictment.

How do we measure Panty and Stocking°, for instance? Are the characters a denigration of women, or something affirmative and considerably more complex? I tend to go with the latter, but there is the comfort of sloth and spectre of self-indictment to deal with; I think it's hilarious, and I would hate to lose this sort of pop culture art.

Pulp Addiction: Panty and Stocking saving the men of Daten City.​

Maybe it seems puerile to use a cartoon in such an example, but this is how pervasive the questions can be. And against that comfort, tendency, and spectre, such a proximal invasion can easily trigger ego defense. And in a seeming psychological mockery of Third Law Conservation, the magnitude and complexity of the neurotic defense is in some way relative to the magnitude and complexity of the pressing issue.

Everything changes that day. Unfortunately, the correct path to take is fraught with scary-looking mysteries. They do not see because they are afraid to look.
____________________

Notes:

° Panty and Stocking — Of the cartoon series Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt. I would offer a video link, except it really is that profane.

Is this thread titled "rape and the civilized world" or "rape and the world how we would like to imagine it"?

IOW given that this noble view of a world without rape is not happening at the moment, nor likely to anytime soon, why do you belittle individuals who adopt the only practical alternative?

 

[wynn]

You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft.

You're the one who's doing that.

When it comes to car theft, for example, you're fine with taking precautions.
When it comes to assault and rape, you're not.

 

[wynn]

as long as one has no qualms about becoming a victim, then you are giving sound advice.

One would think that even just the thought of becoming a victim would be enough for one to consider preventative measures.

Although in one sense, blaming others and placing the whole responsibility for one's safety on others is a kind of preventative measure too, a preemptive strike, a (counter)threat:
"If you do something to me, I (or the state) will take legal action against you, so you better not do anything against me in the first place."
If one has an outlook like that, then considering to take responsibility for one's safety oneself will probably feel threatening.

Is this thread titled "rape and the civilized world" or "rape and the world how we would like to imagine it"?

Exactly.

And some people think that if we behave as if the world already is the safe place that we wish it would be, it will be or become that safe place.

IOW given that this noble view of a world without rape is not happening at the moment, nor likely to anytime soon, why do you belittle individuals who adopt the only practical alternative?

Having one's bubble burst hurts ...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

And some people think that if we behave as if the world already is the safe place that we wish it would be, it will be or become that safe place.

That approach may have a modest degree of success with people who are more-or-less sane and civilized and just need a push in the right direction. But it won't work with sociopaths, who by definition place themselves outside of civilization and only regard it (and its citizens) as a bountiful resource to be plundered for their own comfort, convenience and pleasure.

So it might reduce the incidence of date rape, many of the perpetrators of which are impressionable young men who have been given the impression that "everybody does it" so it must be all right. If their elders (and their victims!) would stand up in the morning and tell them what assholes they were, it might make an impression on them. (Or it might not, who knows?)

But it won't do a thing to stop the sociopaths.

 

[Tiassa]

You Are Not the Victim

Is this thread titled "rape and the civilized world" or "rape and the world how we would like to imagine it"?

IOW given that this noble view of a world without rape is not happening at the moment, nor likely to anytime soon, why do you belittle individuals who adopt the only practical alternative?

The world's smallest violins playing, "My Heart Bleeds For You", in stereo.

(1) Prevention theory is used as an excuse to not change societal attitudes.

(2) Prevention theory advocates refuse to establish any reasonable outer boundary.​

The first point just disgusts me. The second point, though, is the functional problem. No matter how horrified prevention advocates pretend to be by the implications of their theory, they refuse to address the point.

Until those two points change, prevention theory is nothing more than rape advocacy.

You are not the victim.

 

[arauca]

That approach may have a modest degree of success with people who are more-or-less sane and civilized and just need a push in the right direction. But it won't work with sociopaths, who by definition place themselves outside of civilization and only regard it (and its citizens) as a bountiful resource to be plundered for their own comfort, convenience and pleasure.

So it might reduce the incidence of date rape, many of the perpetrators of which are impressionable young men who have been given the impression that "everybody does it" so it must be all right. If their elders (and their victims!) would stand up in the morning and tell them what assholes they were, it might make an impression on them. (Or it might not, who knows?)

But it won't do a thing to stop the sociopaths.

What about the soldiers that invade and rape any woman they can , are they honorable freedom fighters or sociopaths ?

 

[billvon]

You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft.

Are you seriously, honestly going to claim that if you get a car alarm installed, you are being "oppressed" and are a car theft apologist?

(Also if I were you I'd hesitate to equate rape to car theft at any level. They are very, very different.)

Neither do the police, say, to pick an obvious expression of the values backing this deniability preserving talk of "precaution". Illustration: The police in my town, and many others, have a regular program of bait car entrapment of car thieves. No regular member of the society here objects. There is not and has never been, to my knowledge, even the suggestion of a rapist entrapment program. No one has suggested, realistically, sending monitored rape targets to frat house parties or party bars, there to act drunk and provocative and attractive to rapists, with squads of police waiting ready to arrest and prosecute attempted assaults.

First off, police do indeed "entrap rapists." So your premise is wrong to begin with.

"But they don't do it very often, not like they do with car theft!" you may reply. Correct - because rape has nothing to do with car theft. Shame on you for trying to compare a simple theft of property to violence against women.

 

[iceaura]

Its now unethical to take measures toprevent your car getting stolen?

That kind of question is dishonest, and when you continue to ask such questions in the face of repeated notice your dishonesty is revealed to be conscious.

Are you seriously, honestly going to claim that if you get a car alarm installed, you are being "oppressed" and are a car theft apologist?

Of course not. Nor have I said anything remotely resembling such nonsense.

The difficulty you and the rest of that faction here have in even acknowledging, let alone responding to, the actual content of my posts (as well as other's, but mine are short and simple and direct) is kind of remarkable, even startling.

Look at this, for example, and compare its bizarre presumptions with my actual posts:

When it comes to car theft, for example, you're fine with taking precautions.
When it comes to assault and rape, you're not.

What in all that is holy is wrong with these people, that they cannot read and respond to simple declarative sentences in the English language? I mean, lightgigantic obviously has personal issues bubbling along underneath and is operating in bad faith down to his core, but that is not so of most of these folks.

Sure, we're supposed to be discussing issues and stuff here, but how can we even begin to discuss this one when it is invisible to half the posters?

bbw, tangent:

First off, police do indeed "entrap rapists." So your premise is wrong to begin with

1) That wasn't my "premise". Not as illustrated by the bait car example.

2) Your claim is false for all US police departments (let alone the one in my town) as far as I have ever heard. The closest I ever heard of would be the online traps for child molesters and similar programs - which illustrates my point: that is how police behave when there are accepted limits on the expectation of precaution, when there has been no assignment of universal and unlimited preacutionary responsibility as you join in advocating for women "anticipating that they might be raped".

3) Look at this, from you:

(Also if I were you I'd hesitate to equate rape to car theft at any level. They are very, very different.)

Now go back in this thread and notice how and why and in response to whom I would have chosen that comparison of police tactics - and while you're at it, notice that I am not, as are posters you do not seem to have objected to, "equating" car theft with rape at any level. I'm not even comparing them, as crimes, except in their common classification as crimes of some sort that draw police response.

That's something your buddies here, your chosen faction, are doing - repeatedly and directly, right at the center of their arguments. If,

as does every poster here who objects to unlimited advocacy of "precaution" by any responsible adult woman who "anticipates that they might be raped" as a response to the perennial prevalence of rapists and rape in US society,

you also object to the comparison ("equate") with car theft as a crime, you might want to consider the issue of exactly how fundamental such a comparison (such and "equating") is to the advocacy of precaution as you defend it here.

 

[parmalee]

What in all that is holy is wrong with these people, that they cannot read and respond to simple declarative sentences in the English language? I mean, lightgigantic obviously has personal issues bubbling along underneath and is operating in bad faith down to his core, but that is not so of most of these folks.

Sure, we're supposed to be discussing issues and stuff here, but how can we even begin to discuss this one when it is invisible to half the posters?

Agreed.

I can accept that other posters here are, in fact, well-intentioned--albeit ridiculously misinformed (what the fuck does walking about naked, or wearing a shirt that says "do me," have to do with the likelihood that one will be raped?) and inexplicably unawares as to the socio-cultural implications of their "prevention strategies"; but lightgigantic, with his "train station in a red light district at midnight" scenarios, clearly has motivations entirely unrelated to "empowering women" and preventing rape--is it merely a coincidence that his strategies parallel certain moralistic convictions about how persons (rather, women in particular) "ought" to behave?

 

[billvon]

Of course not. Nor have I said anything remotely resembling such nonsense.

Good! Then stop accusing others of equally absurd and contrived things.

The difficulty you and the rest of that faction here have in even acknowledging, let alone responding to, the actual content of my posts (as well as other's, but mine are short and simple and direct) is kind of remarkable, even startling.

And your failure is in being unable to respond to individuals. I am not part of a faction, or a group, or a movement, and my opinions are my own, and have nothing to do with whatever strawman you have constructed in your imagination.

Everyone has the final say over their own bodies, and the final say over the risks they want to take, and the final say over the amount of safety they wish to have, and the final responsibility for ensuring it. Period. That's my position. If you are assuming other positions because someone else said something you are making a very basic logical error.

Your claim is false for all US police departments (let alone the one in my town) as far as I have ever heard.

====================
National Criminal Justice Reference System

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

NCJ Number: NCJ 056335
Date Published: 1978

In the wake of a series of rapes at San Jose State University, the local law enforcement community was forced to gear up its response to rape and especially to its victims.
. . .
However, perhaps the most successful of the several efforts by the rape unit was a decoy program; police women, working with undercover male counterparts, regularly patrolled areas with the highest incidence of rape. Initial statistics indicate that the undercover unit substantially reduced the problem of rape in San Jose.
====================

Look at this, from you: Now go back in this thread and notice how and why and in response to whom I would have chosen that comparison of police tactics - and while you're at it, notice that I am not, as are posters you do not seem to have objected to, "equating" car theft with rape at any level. I'm not even comparing them, as crimes, except . . . .

Exactly. "I'm not comparing them, as crimes, except in this way . . . ."

I would strongly suggest you NOT make such comparisons to people who have actually been raped. They would most likely react . . . . poorly to your choice of comparison. Even if it's only "except . . . "

 

[Tiassa]

Well, if they insist ....

You, and the rest, do not make that horrible ethical blunder when discussing - say - car theft.

Well, of course. Most of the males I've known throughout my life have had no interest in stealing cars.

But they do want to get laid, and most of them prefer having sex with women.

A failure to install a car alarm, or put a club on your steering wheel will not acquit the thief.

A woman's "failure" to be properly chaste and vigilant, however, does sometimes acquit the rapist.

At some point, the constant repetition of this unbounded prevention superstition speaks for itself. The would-be Masters of Female Chastity have run the societies of our historical heritage for millennia.

I would much prefer to believe that these prevention advocates are bound up in a neurotic complex derived as I previously described than the more obvious and sinister consideration of preserving interests. But, you know, if they insist, I can certainly revise my assessment.

 

[lightgigantic]

The world's smallest violins playing, "My Heart Bleeds For You", in stereo.

(1) Prevention theory is used as an excuse to not change societal attitudes.​

Granted you could possibly find some example where prevention somehow inhibits societal change, but I can absolutely guarantee that you can only talk of a particular type of prevention, and not "prevention" as a general precept.

As I have said more times than I can remember in this thread, prevention measures work in tandem with evoking whatever societal changes one deems as ideal or necessary.
There is only ever digression over types of prevention

Its only in your weird, spurious argument engineering mind that you have placed them as absolute opposing dichotomies ... a notion you not only don't find illustrated anywhere , but a notion you find illustrated to the contrary everywhere

(2) Prevention theory advocates refuse to establish any reasonable outer boundary.

On the contrary, its people like yourself who refuse to discuss OH&S issues - namely ****risk assessment*** - that actually explain how these things are limited.
If you understand that its a good idea to lock your car to prevent thieves, that car thieves can potentially strike anywhere, and yet have consciously not locked your car in some situations, you actually already understand this very basic concept.

The first point just disgusts me. The second point, though, is the functional problem. No matter how horrified prevention advocates pretend to be by the implications of their theory, they refuse to address the point.

Until those two points change, prevention theory is nothing more than rape advocacy.

until you actually discuss the points given in response, you are simply blowing hot air

You are not the victim.

Neither are you ... yet you simultaneously have no qualms about belittling anyone who attempts to prevent themselves from becoming one while simultaneously advocating a learning outcome that is so far a tea cup from the lips that it can't even frame the learning environment, much less deliver learning objectives to the target audience.


:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

The difficulty you and the rest of that faction here have in even acknowledging, let alone responding to, the actual content of my posts (as well as other's, but mine are short and simple and direct) is kind of remarkable, even startling.

Look at this, for example, and compare its bizarre presumptions with my actual posts: What in all that is holy is wrong with these people, that they cannot read and respond to simple declarative sentences in the English language? I mean, lightgigantic obviously has personal issues bubbling along underneath and is operating in bad faith down to his core, but that is not so of most of these folks.

Sure, we're supposed to be discussing issues and stuff here, but how can we even begin to discuss this one when it is invisible to half the posters?

will the irony never end?

 

[lightgigantic]

is it merely a coincidence that his strategies parallel certain moralistic convictions about how persons (rather, women in particular) "ought" to behave?

Is it merely coincidence that certain behaviors crop up repeatedly in rape statistics?
Or can any behavior that can be interpreted with some sort of moral imperative automatically be disregarded in any assessment of a hazard bearing scenario (so we can suddenly disband the role alcohol plays in car accidents, since its obviously a ruse from a bunch of teetotalers) ?

:shrug:

 

[parmalee]

Is it merely coincidence that certain behaviors crop up repeatedly in rape statistics?

Cherry picking. Ring a bell?

Or can any behavior that can be interpreted with some sort of moral imperative automatically be disregarded in any assessment of a hazard bearing scenario (so we can suddenly disband the role alcohol plays in car accidents, since its obviously a ruse from a bunch of teetotalers) ?

:shrug:

Way to prove iceaura's point about the inability to comprehend straightforward declarative sentences.

I will acknowledge that my contention was speculative; nevertheless, you've got 15 thousand posts here which, you know, anyone can read--you really think it will be all that hard for anyone to draw such an inference?

 

[Bells]

On the contrary, its people like yourself who refuse to discuss OH&S issues - namely ****risk assessment*** - that actually explain how these things are limited.

OH&S?

Really?

"Risk assessment" in regards to occupational health and safety issues in a discussion about rape and you are attributing this to the victim..

Is it an occupation of women to be raped?

I mean, is that how you view women?

We already know you consider them about as valuable as a car. For example:

If you understand that its a good idea to lock your car to prevent thieves, that car thieves can potentially strike anywhere, and yet have consciously not locked your car in some situations, you actually already understand this very basic concept.

Please enlighten me and everyone else who has asked you this question and which you have consistently failed to answer and instead lied through your teeth..

How does a wife apply your OH&S philosophy to prevent being raped by her husband on any given night?

until you actually discuss the points given in response, you are simply blowing hot air

Are you still lurking in train stations in red light districts looking for drunken women?

Are you still comparing women to cars and car security?

Are you still lying about rape prevention?

Are you still unable to answer the very basic question of how do women "prevent" being raped by their intimate partners or family members?

Are you still making excuses for rapists?