The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

[Bells]

Where?

You forgot your entrance in this thread?

I'd just been repeatedly abused, accused of somehow benefiting from being rape because apparently it was such a great experience and all, that it gave me leverage. You enter the thread and declare how Rodger was right about women and the behaviour they reward, in your opinion, and then in a following post, after James R advised Balerion that he should apologise on his return from his ban, you respond with how much you agreed with Balerion, parroted the exact same pure bullshit foil hat accusation that the guy abusing me had been spouting. But then again, you've already declared that it's about who you are arguing against.. It's not about content, is it?

You remind me of Wynn. She once went after a woman who posted here, who had been violently raped when she was 3 and after she recounted her experience, Wynn told her how she was partially responsible for her rape and that perhaps she should take ownership of the part she played in said rape. I don't see you as being any different, to be honest. The way in which you come across.. You lack empathy. Your rose coloured glasses view of Rodger's aside, agreeing with him about women? See, it's when you post stuff like that, and all the rest of it, from rape prevention to your referring to known rape apologists, like when you whined about "political correctness".. you value women's rights so little? Well of course you do. You think that my hatred of misogyny makes me a hater of all men, with an agenda against all men. Really? Can you see just how it makes you look? I comment on misogyny and your response is this shrill "you have an agenda against all men because you hate all men".. Ermm.. Okay.. You can't tell the two apart? You value misogyny that much that you leap to its defense with arms wide open so that anyone who dares comment on it must automatically hate all men? That is what makes you look like a misogynist.

It's like the racist people who spout racist ideology and then go 'I have black relatives!'. That's you. You spout pure misogyny and when you get called out for it, your defense is "I'm a woman".. As though that somehow makes it impossible for you to be a misogynist? It's like saying black people aren't racist towards other black people. The reality is that many blacks look at skin colour and do discriminate based on people's blackness or lightness within their communities.

I get it, you're arguing against me. Big bad Bells. There's only so low you can go in this limbo game before your head has drilled a hole to China, Trooper. You don't like me? That's fine. But this? Going this low?

My guess is that you and your wife are simple followers experiencing cognitive biases. I’ve asked you several times for evidence, but to no avail.

It has been provided. Perhaps you should read it.

You are an intelligent woman, Trooper. Perhaps you should start acting like one.

It’s easier to jump on the bandwagon, isn't it?

We could ask you the same question...

I get it, there is this underlying theme in this thread that feminists are bad, must be wrong, must be out to get men, etc.

No, the underlying theme is your abusive and dishonest behavior.

I've defend Bells on several occasions when she was right.

"I'm not racist, I have black friends!"

I’m defending GeoffP because he is right.

I'm sure he will really appreciate that. Whether he appreciates the fact that you've taken it into rape prevention advocacy remains to be seen. Perhaps he is being silent about it because he either agrees with you or does not want to hurt your feelings by asking you to stop advocating rape prevention theories for women when you defend him.

What are you defending him about? What is he right about? That rape is about sex? We've been over this. You want to stick with the two who studied scorpion flies? Sure. I'll stick with the people who studied hundreds of rapists and quite literally wrote the book on the subject, which is referred to by law enforcement agencies and universities around the world. In many cases, it's required reading... And that is your prerogative, just as mine is my own. Then again, I'm not operating on a 'Elliot Rodger is right about women' level like you are. Nor am I operating on a 'women's rights is political correctness' stance like you are.

Like I said, you are a very intelligent woman, Trooper. But you are posting in a way that quite literally, makes you look like a misogynist. I mean rape prevention? Really? You're not saying anything new. Do you think we need to be reminded of common sense? Do you think I'm stupid enough to not know these things?

He is not a rape advocate, or a misogynist, and neither am I.

Stop posting like one and people might just start to believe you.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate

Bells and Tiassa are intellectually dishonest.

Did you read through that post?

You should consider putting your law degree to good use. This should have never happened. That’s not how the legal system works. The sad, unavoidable truth is that women have to decide what's more important. Putting an abusive man in jail is important. He could do this again to another woman.

As I was told by a former colleague, it's a statistic. I'm a statistic. Only a very small percentage of rapists are even charged. The greater majority of that never even make it to a court room, let alone prison. The figures are just as bad here.

Could he do it again? Yes. And I live in absolute terror. I kid you not, I live in absolute terror, every single second of every day. I think about it sometimes, advocating for my own cause. Actually having an agenda or forming one, contrary to what you may believe, I am not a huge fan of agendas. Will it make me feel better? Or will it consume me? Will it make me safer? Or will it put me into contact with him even more? Do I want to anger the man who did this to me even more? Do I want him to be thinking about me even more with that much hatred?

And I feel selfish. Because I can't do it. I have two kids who need me to get over this. They cry every night, because their cousins won't speak to them anymore because of this. They don't even understand what rape is. My kids are nearly 9 and the youngest just turned 7. They should not have to learn what rape is. But now they do. We've had to get a new couch, because he ermm.. he ejaculated on it and then smeared it all over the couch before he left. They took it away at first, then returned it. And I didn't want it back in my house. My father cries every day, my mother .. well she looks like the world has ended. My partner is stuck in a contract job and will be home in a few weeks. He cries every day when I speak to him on skype. It's like a death in the family. People even took to bringing me food. And I think, do I want to put them all through more stress and pain?

He is deemed too mentally ill, so as I was reminded by his ex-wife, it was just sex. That is how I should have looked at it. Just sex. If only I'd kept my mouth shut, just called her and she'd have gotten him help and she kept telling me this. The police had also found out that he had been watching me at night. They found his fingerprints outside my bathroom window and the windows at the side of my house, near my family room. The noises I'd thought were possums or the cat or dog, at night, the scratching noises outside at the side of the house, the noises of something moving outside, was sometimes him. Now, I live in a house with a high front fence, security gates, the side gates are security gates and 6ft high. And he climbed over it. And I had no idea. I don't know how long he'd been doing it for. He knew my schedule. The day I was raped, he knew I was sick with the flu and that the boys were with their father and that I was home alone, because he had taken to asking my former sister-inlaw about my movements and about me. He probably watched me flop onto the couch with a book and a rug and probably watched as I fell asleep, because I was feeling so sick that day, all I did was doze and sleep hugging a book and a box of tissues. So his psychiatrist has argued that he is obsessive, compulsive, suffering from the effects of going to Vietnam and therefore, severely depressed, alone, and all the rest of the psychobabble they can claim. So a deal was struck, he visits his psychiatrist every week, he has to stay away from me and my residence and my family. And that was it. I couldn't have expected anything different. This is what happens. They aren't going to waste time on a case where the perpetrator had clear issues. This was small fry. Backroom deal, it doesn't make it to court, chalk it to not clogging the system. My injuries were minor, just bruising and scratches. And they don't think he'd be competent to stand trial. Apparently this is where everybody wins. The law is not about doing what is right. It's about doing what is the most efficient most of the time.

 

[Trooper]

He was deemed too mentally unstable to face trial, but not mentally unstable enough to have 50/50 custody of his kids or to work, etc, so the charges were dropped.

I apologize. I was under the assumption that the charges were dropped because he was found too incompetent to stand trial and that is not how the legal system works.

As I was told by a former colleague, it's a statistic.

I didn't realize that the charges were dropped due to statistics.

 

[Bells]

I apologize. I was under the assumption that the charges were dropped because he was found too incompetent to stand trial and that is not how the legal system works.



I didn't realize that the charges were dropped due to statistics.

No... It wasn't dropped because of statistics. It is a statistic. The greater majority never make it to court. My case was not special in that regard. The result was the norm, what is expected and what usually happens.. Out of court.. The case itself is just a statistic in that it never made it to court.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If it's ever, say, Trooper's turn to be fucked and beaten into a bloody pulp in an alley, should we treat her with the same cruel hatred she shows rape survivors today?

When I think of the rape survivors I've known over the years, two tragedies stick out in my mind, and one is relatively recent.

First let me say this... i can only try to emagine you'r pain.!!!

I suspect that you are projectin... an what you describe above is sopmtin that recently hapened to you... an if so i am so very sorry.!!!

In any case... you'r responses to the cruel hateful misogynists have been right an proper an a shinin example of the moral standard such people shoud expect from Sciforums.!!!

 

[parmalee]

Of course there is a sexual motive in many cases of rape... if it was purely about abuse or control or power, they'd just beat the hell out of them instead and it'd be called assault and battery. The point is, though, that the comments being made in this thread about rape being all about having sex (such as by GeoffP) are absolute bupkis.

OK, this is kind of buggin' the hell out of me right now:

GeoffP never said any such thing; in fact, GeoffP never even said anything quite like this: "there is a sexual motive in many cases of rape."

You're the one who said that. Twice now, in fact. Can you cite where GeoffP may have uttered anything remotely akin to what you are accusing him of? And, can you cite any study which demonstrates that "there is a sexual motive in many cases of rape"?

 

[parmalee]

Here’s the thing:

In this “debate,” or whatever the fuck it is, there are clearly but two sides. On either side there are individuals who certainly seem to know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, on either side there are also individuals who clearly don’t know what the fuck they are talking about—they’ve simply chosen a side, for whatever reason, and gone with it.

Sometimes, those in the latter group say something which ought to be perceived as highly objectionable, or just flat out wrong, by those who seem to know something of what they are talking about, but who happen to be on their “side.” And yet, no one (from their own respective side) bothers to draw any attention to it. Seriously, what the fuck is that all about?

It kinda detracts from whatever air of “seriousness” which might remain in this thread, you know.

 

[Trooper]

No... It wasn't dropped because of statistics. It is a statistic. The greater majority never make it to court. My case was not special in that regard. The result was the norm, what is expected and what usually happens.. Out of court.. The case itself is just a statistic in that it never made it to court.

Yes, we have that in the United States, it's commonly referred to as the West plea. However, this plea is not permitted in your country.

In the Commonwealth countries, such as England, Canada or Australia, the plea of nolo contendere is not permitted. The defendant must enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty". If a defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court will record a plea of "not guilty".

Did he plea "guilty" or "not guilty"?

If it was "not guilty", section 88 must be applied.

Would you like me to assist you with the sections?

 

[GeoffP]

Well, when someone says that women should be taking certain actions to prevent being raped, such as watching how she dresses, what she drinks, who she talks to, what party she goes to, who she marries, what would you call that?

Uh, where exactly am I talking about this? I think it behooves a person to take precautions to just about everything - that's part of the "real world" kick that you and Tiassa are on - but are you now going to accuse me of saying that if a woman does not take such precautions that it is her fault or something? I assume that this is your new target, so as to lawyer this thread to a particular resolution, that being strict conceptum quo ante?

Your silence on the issue is noted however. Very much so.

Well, shove your notice up your ass, I guess. :shrug: I haven't been asked about this previously, and I had no reason to, and my opinion is in no way discriminatory or controversial. I do get though that this really is the next thing you'll accuse me of - I wondered about it before, but it was admittedly silly of me to think you wouldn't throw this at me also in retrospect as you lawyer your way through. Here's an interesting link I found in one of Trooper's posts that you'll later pretend you never read.

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

Scan down. #48... hey, that's you! I'd never actually run across the term before, but it looks pretty apt, seeing what you're trying to do now. (See your comments above in this post in case you now decide to pretend not to know what I'm talking about.) Nice work.

The thing is, GeoffP, if you are going to advocate a position, and then bring up certain authors, people are going to assume this is what you believe in.

Well, one of the things that prevents such an idiotic assumption is when a poster clarifies his position on the effect a dozen times in ten pages or less, characterising his stance as a indirect and far less than unitary effect. I mean; sure, I can understand how someone would miss that a dozen times. Just not if it were a central feature of someone's allegations. Then it begins to look more and more like lawyering. Which it is.

But how is their position extreme to you? What is extreme about it? Their belief that if only women would just enjoy it?

That certainly strikes me as extreme.

That particular position is being argued in this very thread, by the very people who rushed to your defense. Kremmen likened a woman and her body to that of a laptop being left exposed and in plain sight in a car, Billvon, well, frankly, the less said about that one the better. Trooper is too busy arguing for misogyny because of who she is arguing against while also plugging rape prevention.

I haven't reviewed their comments. Is this what you wish me to do? If you ask, I will do so, but my suspicion is that there is a confounding of the theoretical expectations with the practical ones. If one claims that people should take reasonable practical precautions as to safety, it would be hard to disagree with that. I don't go about downtown making it obvious that I possess money to hand. In some neighbourhoods I should not even venture out at night alone: or rather, there is a certain statistical risk that if I do so, I might be attacked. There is no practical reason why care should not be taken. I appreciate fully that it violates optimism; I am also offended by this fact. But it does still remain that risks exist. Is it manifestly - hugely - unfair to women, as I think Tiassa said earlier? Of course. The rules change all the time. Which ones should women know? On the other hand, preventative methods for all kinds of crime and for disease and for the risks inherent to every single kind of behaviour change also. I am particularly offended at the new and devious hurdles thrown in the way of women, but I am hardly surprised by it. But I don't believe that these terrible, terrible people (clearly!) ought to be immolated because they think a self-defense class would not go amiss.

Lastly: I remind you that it is possible for Palmer and Thornhill to be right about something, as we've already reviewed. The supposition that because they said it, it must be wrong is called ad hominem, typically. Naturally I would disagree violently with placing fault on women. The fault is that of the attacker. Always. Excuses are those conjured in the minds of the legal profession, with the possible exception of Palmer and Thornhill. One of these days, I'll read their complete book.

Is that what you call it?

Yes. That's what I just wrote. Stands to reason. Or are you just looking for any excuse to argue?

No actually. It isn't.

I'm afraid that it is. The biological evidence of forced copulation and sexual violence - which must extend into infanticide and group protectionist strategies - is irrefutable in mammals and other groups. Whether this extends into humans and to what extend are very different issues, as our silly prefrontals create complex, sometimes counter-intuitive structures for behaviour. It is like a cloud, obscuring what would otherwise be simple biological objectives, eradicating some altogether, or re-couching still different objectives in ways that seem objectively benevolent or wise. The behaviour occurs in many mammals, including several primates (three of the four that have been mentioned, not including humans). If it does not occur in humans, the natural suspicion is that it has been driven to extinction by social selection mechanisms against forced copulation as a strategy, so that only psychological 'repertoire' remains. However, humans exhibit numerous behaviours that are also couched in psychological terms: murder and theft being among these. Have we really lost all biological 'taste' for violence and evil? It seems likely to me that some residual impulse regarding each of these behaviours persists. Also, I think there is some behaviour 'room' for this to apply in humans: date rape, for example. The perpetrator drugs, incapacitates or sometimes just forces the victim. But in the former two, is that a power structure issue? That doesn't seem like the primary motivation.

You mention sex attacks on females of non-reproductive age, and on males. These you describe as power issues also, but I'm not sure that they strongly support the contention of absolute power. How much power can be exerted over the infirm/elderly, for example? Or is it a side-viciousness to another crime? Regrettably, I think that's as far as it can be questioned at the moment, owing to Coyne's warning.

What you have is opinion that it could be.

Of course. That's implicit in the making of the statement. Nothing is ever absolute, and particularly not in the case of my supposition.

As I said, show some studies on rapists, on people, to support your claim. As one geneticists I quoted points out, there is absolutely no genetic evidence to support this assertion. Just the opinion that it could be, and so, from that, we should say that is how it is?

I think you're getting too defensive about this. I have cited a list of reports, above, and time permitting I may examine them. Mind, further contributions to this thread strike me as dangerous, so I may or may not return to it.

In 1979, A. Nicholas Groth, an American clinical psychologist working with both victims and offender populations, published a study of over 500 rapists. In his study, he found that rape, like other crimes that satisfy emotional needs, is complex and multi-determined. That is to say, that the act of rape itself serves a number of psychological needs and purposes (motives) for the offender. The purpose of his work was clinical, to understand the motivations of rapists for the purpose of the development of effective treatment plans.​

As I said, he wrote the book on rapists and rape typologies. Also wrote the book on child abusers and pedophiles. I could believe the guy who studied over 500 rapists, or I could believe a couple of sociobiologists who keep referring to Thornhill and Palmer's book (and they do repeatedly) while whining about feminists and advocating rape prevention - based solely on opinion and belief and vague tweaking of studies to support their claims? As a scientists, which would you believe? The person who studied over 500 rapists and wrote the book for law enforcement and universities to use in regards to rape and rapists in legal, psychology, psychiatric, law enforcement courses? Or the person who studied scorpion flies?

I do note that the guy studying the rapists went on to write books for law enforcement. This suggests objectives of his own. However, I would be happy to review his larger sample sizes if you have links to them.

Pray tell, which part of decent discussion was there above?

If you insist on ignoring it for the sake of rhetoric, I cannot - or rather will not - help you.

The rape prevention advocacy from billvon, trooper, captain kremmen? Or the discussion about science? About science, I definitely agree. Which begs the question as to why you are ignoring it?

I am ignoring the faults of my supporters, apparently. I see. Perhaps you could be more specific in your witch-hunt?

I never said it was your job or that you are to blame. Far from it.

But when you advocate a position that diminishes what I experienced to be just 'sex' and demean me in the process by declaring that what I experienced was not about control because it couldn't be, that it had to be about sex, because that is what you personally believe has to be the case

And that is a fucking lie on two counts. First, I have not commented on your experience, because it doesn't matter to this discussion and because I cannot verify it: I do not know you, Bells. At all. I cannot verify any personal facts you care to present, and I do not wish to. Secondly, I never characterised your experience as anything of the kind, and you know it. You have lied yet again. And it just keeps going on.

I have attempted, again and again, to treat you civilly in this discussion. What I encounter in nearly every post of yours is the accusation that I belittle either the experiences you allege, or women, or sexual assault, or that I am protecting rapists, or encouraging them, or supporting them, or being an advocate for them, or for those that do the above. This is lawyering.

Why is it that the lowering of a rapist's sex drive ineffective if said rapist is not solely driven by his or her arousal - such as a paedophile who is sexually aroused by children?

First, I must seemingly put in yet AGAIN that I have never, nor do I now, consider that sexual assault of any type is entirely, primarily, largely or even in a plurality about arousal, or sex drive, or biology. I am forced to say this because your recognition of this statement - delivered, I think, maybe a score of times or more throughout the thread - has been ignored at various instances from you, probably when you feel that weaseling language on the subject will win points in the discussion. Here it is one more time as we clear this paragraph so that it cannot be... 'forgotten': I have never, nor do I now, consider that sexual assault of any type is entirely, primarily, largely or even in a plurality about arousal, or sex drive, or biology. I would prefer not to have to mention these occasional instances of... 'forgetting' so explicitly, but they do crop up and experience is reluctantly teaching me something about things around here. Fifteen times bitten, eventually shy, some might call it.

Now for the counter that was coming, eventually, but which I hesitated to consider for fear of your reaction: in that such drugs have presumably reduced such drive in paedophiles, sickening as the entire discussion is, does this not suggest that even such 'evolutionarily inept' behaviours have in some cases a 'biological' basis? One would argue that those affected by such drugs were expressors of such a system. Those remaining would then be presumably those with a more 'psychological' disposition to such evil.

That as said suggests that most of the behaviour is biological or has some biological connection. However, I would doubt this, as the existence of the psychological overdrive - and I forget whatever the hell whatever psychologist has coined for this, superego or ego or id or whatever the hell it is - necessarily implies that such behaviours must be transmitted through the forebrain's filter, as it were. That is, whatever motivations or impulses exist, they must pass psychology itself to be expressed. Furthermore, Graph above describes the entirety of sexual assault as heterogenous: that is, with many bases and many forms of expression, and I could not agree more; this is part of the warning of Coyne. A thing is not necessarily a thing because our legal apparatus has a single term for it and under which it is prosecuted. Such a thing may be of many different and/or associated pathways, with partial independence in each sub-behaviour. Do paedophiles, for example, attack elderly women, or reproductive women, or other men? Not usually, is my understanding.

Well, for a comment that I said I would not bother with, this has gone on some way. I await your imminent re-characterisation and character assassination.

James: there you go. As kid-glove as could be wanted. G'day.

 

[parmalee]

OK, I'll make this more concrete--and sides be damned, I'm just goin' with the example I gave above in post #265:

Tiassa? Bells? Are you gonna call Kittamaru out on that bullshit, or not? And if not, why not?

 

[GeoffP]

Not Nearly Clever Enough

I and others were horrified and disgusted. What the hell were you thinking?

Ahhh, now I see the outrage over the 'hand' remark. No, it was not an assertion of any particular behaviour of mine at that time. It was a statement regarding the satiety index on urges relating to sex: the starving man steals to eat, the poor man robs to rise and the trapped man slays to escape the net, but possibly the average pervert can deal with him- or herself. Yes, I know, tasteless and irrelevant and irreverent.

Now... why, hello there, Kittamaru.

Curious... so because someone cites it as interesting how someone says things that are in agreement with the same things a rapist has said... that suddenly makes it libel?

Curious indeed

More curious still is how any of that jives together. Calling me a 'rape advocate' is libel. The above has really nothing to do with it.

Trooper... here's the thing... that is now the fifth or sixth person to think you have done just that... my wife, after reading through the thread, turned to me and asked simply why you and GeoffP seem intent on making this issue as muddy as possible... and she has absolutely zero vested interest in this site at all...

If all these people are getting that kind of vibe from you, then whether you intend it or not, perhaps, just perhaps, that is actually how you are coming across, and you should rethink what you are saying to ensure that your ACTUAL intent is clear.

Or better still, people could just read the arguments as written, instead of trying their hand at an interpretation that makes it personally easier for them. But sure, sure. That's my fault. It's as much my fault as that a simple issue to the simple should actually be a complicated one.

You are the one committing libel, and poorly at that:

Where am I claiming that GeoffP is a rape advocate or a misogynist? I have simply attacked the idea that rape is a purely biological function, as well as the idea that the burden is entirely on women to defend themselves.

It would be much more interesting if you could explain where either of those sentiments occur, and identify the culprits for orderly character assassination.

Ah, the fallacy of bifurcation... classic.

There is no such agreement at this time.

Oh, so I am one, then? I see.

An interesting ploy to try and trap me though... either I disagree with your statement, and thus need to back my claim-by-disagreement that GeoffP IS a "rape advocate or misogynist", or I agree with your statement and as such "provide evidence" of some misdeed by Bells and Tiassa.

Clever... but not nearly clever enough.

Not for someone with your steel-trap mind, Kitta. You've handily evaded the facts, stated clearly in black-and-white. No one could mount a rope-a-dope defense with such clarity. I mean, it was only your opinion she sought, but... well. Opinions can be dangerous things, hereabouts.

And lookie what I found on a search! (Not the SF search engine... that sucker's like shotgun surgery.)

See, it's that attitude that makes me doubt you initially, while the stuff in this thread just clinches it...

It wouldn't matter what the subject material was... GeoffP, billvon, you Trooper... you would attack Bells for it regardless, just because of your apparent hatred for her.

Ya'll paint it to sound like you believe she deserved to be raped, then when she gets defensive about it, you call her abusive...

I beg your fucking pardon?

By the by, have you stopped to explain this little gem to Bells:

Of course there is a sexual motive in many cases of rape... if it was purely about abuse or control or power, they'd just beat the hell out of them instead and it'd be called assault and battery.

Oh dear. I don't suppose we could have a ruling on that one. Not even I, the devil, made that claim.

Remember that this long path of misogyny and misinterpretation began with her pitching an irrelevant fit in that riot about Sciforums' atheists. And she has people like Yazata to lie on her behalf (or did you ever get an answer?) so that she can feel better; frankly, Geoff has been begging for attention like this the whole time.

Yes, I'm sure a short thoughtful response to a complicated issue certainly does seem like "begging for attention" in the simple view. It always amuses me how you two characterise disagreement as attention-seeking when I contradict you; it's even more amusing in juxtaposition to your philosophy-as-stated. Is it the way I dress?

 

[GeoffP]

OK, I'll make this more concrete--and sides be damned, I'm just goin' with the example I gave above in post #265:

Tiassa? Bells? Are you gonna call Kittamaru out on that bullshit, or not? And if not, why not?

One does not wrench blood from stone.

(Nor polish a turd, come to think of it.)

Anyway, parma - and all - I don't know if it's worth bothering with. This is the new language and the new reason. For us or against us. Our way, highway. Patriot and traitor, etc. One must do as our better Kittamaru has done, and "get with the programmed".

 

[parmalee]

And then there's this:

Originally Posted by Kittamaru
On what happens during a rape, and even the motivations of why a rape occurs and when/where/how. That's a large part of what has me so irritated in this thread - yes, that advice might help prevent a small number of rapes... but honestly, most of them don't follow the "date rape" pattern. I dearly, dearly wish they did, because then it WOULD be so simple to avoid them, to prevent them... but sadly that just isn't the case.

(bolding mine)

Say what?!

You are aware that "date rape" is kind of a misnomer, and what it is actually referring to is more accurately described as "acquaintance rape," i.e., the rapist is known to the victim, yes? And I'd say that when roughly 70 percent of rapes follow this "acquaintance rape" "pattern," it would be appropriate to say that "most" of them do, in fact, follow this "pattern."

Why are you even in this? How many books on rape have you read, how many studies and articles? Are you actually interested in learning anything, or are you just fightin' for fightin's sake?


Edit: To which I'll add, I can only assume that some (many?) are just fightin' for fightin's sake, rather than because they actually take this matter seriously; otherwise, people would start calling out their allies for the idiotic bullshit they spew, instead of simply brushing it aside so as to keep the numbers.

 

[GeoffP]

You forgot your entrance in this thread?

I'd just been repeatedly abused, accused of somehow benefiting from being rape because apparently it was such a great experience and all, that it gave me leverage. You enter the thread and declare how Rodger was right about women and the behaviour they reward, in your opinion, and then in a following post, after James R advised Balerion that he should apologise on his return from his ban, you respond with how much you agreed with Balerion, parroted the exact same pure bullshit foil hat accusation that the guy abusing me had been spouting.

Trooper's advancing of an alternate socio-psychological theory to explain this Rogers' actions has nothing to do with your personal experiences at all. Nothing. At all. Her comments in those links do not resemble your claims about your experiences which, again, have no place here. I think she and Balerion have advanced some concepts here that deserve consideration, whether I agree with them or not.

It's not about content, is it?

You remind me of Wynn. She once went after a woman who posted here, who had been violently raped when she was 3 and after she recounted her experience, Wynn told her how she was partially responsible for her rape and that perhaps she should take ownership of the part she played in said rape. I don't see you as being any different, to be honest.

Then you are not honest.

I get it, you're arguing against me. Big bad Bells. There's only so low you can go in this limbo game before your head has drilled a hole to China, Trooper. You don't like me? That's fine. But this? Going this low?

IKR! Next she'll be accusing her opponents of being apologists for rape, or defending rapists, or... well, I'm sure you can imagine how low a person can go in pursuit of a point.

I'm sure he will really appreciate that. Whether he appreciates the fact that you've taken it into rape prevention advocacy remains to be seen. Perhaps he is being silent about it because he either agrees with you or does not want to hurt your feelings by asking you to stop advocating rape prevention theories for women when you defend him.

Or, perhaps, she has a right to an opinion that is not abusive whether I agree or not. Perhaps she doesn't deserve the kind of abuse you hand out. Perhaps she's already made her provisos. Or, really, perhaps Geoff is busy enough with various topics - you know, R/L - and conducting his own defense against libel yet. Fucking. Again. on this forum that he hasn't made time to do what a competent moderator is meant to do.

The law is not about doing what is right. It's about doing what is the most efficient most of the time.

An interesting admission, in context of thread behaviour.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to AIP's this thread, re: motivations.

I am convinced that Rogers Elliot was consumed with his "self-loathing" with regard to his "coveting" of women's "sexuality". What do I mean by this?

Simple...at an early age, he realized he was more attracted to being sexually "female" than male...and he was disgusted with this preference!

The idea of being a "submissive" homosexual was both an "attraction" and "repulsion"...a continual state of emotional discordance.

He simply could not accept his own innate attraction, and began to assign "blame"...an effective way to cover his own nature, his true "wants and desires".

......

What better way to "deny" to himself that he is homosexual than to "blame" women for it..."I'm good-looking, I have money and social status...ANY WOMAN WOULD BE LUCKY

TO HAVE ME WANT HER!" "I'm a "real man" and women who don't want sex with me when I WANT IT are to blame for my "feelings".

.....

I think he very likely deliberately sabotaged any chance of a "real" relationship with a woman by inventing "slurs" against himself in his own mind, such as "She's teasing me with

her sex...I bet she's screwed half of the guys on campus! But she won't put-out for me!"

"Why don't women want me?" ( he's making certain in advance that any possibility of a sexual relationship won't happen, as in "I know what will happen already, because

it always happens") He is deliberately "setting things up" to fail with regard to sex with woman (and likely is not aware of doing so) because his nature is "male", and yet

his true sexual "attraction" identity is being "female", a fact he cannot admit to himself...he refuses to admit to himself he is homosexual and blames women by "proxy".

"They won't give me sex...all women are teasing bitches! That's why I hate them...everything is their fault!"

(I think it likely that Elliot never actually had experienced sex with a woman or a man, at least as a young adult...the situation of "real" sex would then force him to admit

that sex with a woman could never satisfy him emotionally or sexually...and by not engaging in sex with a male, he could "preserve" his self-image as a "real man")

And the more time that passed, the greater the likelihood that he would "give in" to his "true nature" as a "female" homosexual, something he could not accept.

.....

A way out? Suicide by proxy....forcing someone to kill him, and punishing others for his own self-loathing. "They made me do it!" if he were still alive to speak.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Tiassa]

¿Just Don't Call It By Its Name?

Take away the sexual penetration aspects of rape and it becomes just another example of physical assault.

Well, you started off okay.

Any measures potential assault victims can employ to defend against or discourage such attacks is to their advantage.

In abstract theory, yes. We'll come back to that in a moment.

Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, would you suggest measures aimed to prevent the most common types of rape fall under that rubric? There are some who would argue against that, such as Billvon. See, that's one of the reasons this Infinite Protection Advocacy annoys the hell out of other people; it's bullshit.

Self defense training, home and public surveillance systems, avoiding being alone with questionable men or in unsafe environments, and getting a protection dog are a few that come to mind.

This is where the difference between abstraction and reality shows through.

• Self-defense training: Yeah, sure. I have exactly zero formal martial arts training. The crime I suffer is pretty stupid; my car has been stolen twice in the last twenty years, and some drunk women rose to the legal standard of threatening my life with the gun she kept. I've technically been assaulted in a club; my favorite was breaking up a pit fight at a concert, walking the guy off, repeating in his ear, "Shit's not worth it, shit's not worth it." I had him calm, and then the assailant came after my back, so guy I was walking off returned the favor and just hauled me out of his way. I knew he wasn't attacking me because I saw his eyes react to the incoming, and as we hit the floor and I rolled over, four more people were hauling the assailant away from us. A security guard who stayed behind to make sure we were okay, simply communicated with us by nods. You know, that tacit, manly language: You good? All good. A'ight. I walk through Seattle without thinking about who's going to try to jump me. And when a woman is circumstantially obliged to train herself to defend against rape, we have a problem. As a human rights issue, women have every right to live in this world as carefree as I do.

• Avoid being alone with questionable men in unsafe environments: Um, right. One of my favorite Seattle tales to tell was the time I was leaving a jazz club in Belltown. As I walked back to my car, a woman emerged from an alley, a prostitute offering her services. I politely declined and wished her a good evening. And then this hulking shadow of a pimp emerged from the alley to offer me a selection of drugs. I thanked him, told him my stash box was good, and I was on my way to it, but thank ye kindly, sir. Even if I was looking to score, I'm not about to do a back-alley deal under those circumstances. It seems rather quite ludicrous to presume women are so fucking stupid that they need to be told, "Avoid being alone with questionable men in unsafe environments". Indeed, when I dive into such advice with people face to face, it consistently emerges that that they don't think women are so stupid as to need the advice, but too ignorant to know who is questionable and what is unsafe. Strangely, none of these people ever include themselves among the questionable or unsafe. Well, okay, it's not all that strange. It's expected.

• Getting a protection dog: That would work reasonably well in Seattle, which is a dog-friendly city. That is to say there are a number of pubs who disregard certain rules and regulations in order to allow dogs to accompany their humans into the establishment; the patrons have no objections, and even like the dogs; regulators have figured out it would be really, really bad for neighborhood small businesses to start kicking the dogs back to the curb. To the other, Fremont can reclaim its mantle as the coolest neighborhood in the state by drawing a significant portion of downtown businesses' female custom. See, that's the thing. The dogs are welcome in the neighborhood pubs. This willful apathy toward various rules and regulations just can't exist in the downtown grid. While that outcome would probably force a certain change of attitudes within Seattle, it would also be tragic because such a process would signify that the only reason to put a sincere effort into addressing poor public attitudes about rape is that the downtown businesses are losing revenue they otherwise project and presume a right to. That is to say, if a woman wants a night out with friends and the protection dogs, they ain't goin' to the Icon, on Fifth, or any of the clubs around Pioneer Square; they'll stick to the neighborhood pubs where their rape prevention efforts are welcome. As to the rest of the state, outside Seattle? Well, I know you think that women getting dogs not because they like dogs, but as anti-rape tools, seems like a good idea, but it ain't gonna fly in Puyallup or Omak or Ellensburg. Patrons in Seattle, both male and female, have the economic power to make that sort of thing happen, since there is only so much the regulators and city council will hear, "Well, after you made me kick the dogs out, people stopped coming", before the political lust to be "pro-business" pushes through and convinces everyone to turn a blind eye. Consumers in smaller municipalities don't have that sort of economic power. There are ways around this. We can classify "rape dogs" with other certified guide dogs, because just like being blind, we've arrived at the point that being female is a disability. Or we can try a sex-based, discriminatory approach: Women can bring dogs in, but men can't. Daresay the result of that is predictable: How dare you discriminate against the poor, innocent, defenseless men!​

Meanwhile, I would note another prevention technique: firearms.

Concealed-carry permit applications in Washington state have risen dramatically, and there is an even greater spike within that statistic of women seeking their first permits.

Now, here's the important part: We have a castle doctrine law in this state that counts under SYG insofar as it extends outside the home. But we're not like Flordia, where that right is effectively conferred only to white men. We're not like Florida, where proponents of the law are hoping to put black men in their proper place, i.e., morgue, grave, crematorium.

Generally speaking, it works out okay.

The problem with Infinite Protection Advice is that it obliges a woman to consider every man she encounters as a potential rapist, and guard against him.

Let us think for a moment about Florida. There, a white man has the right to pick a fight and then stand his ground against fear of losing. A black woman has no right to stand her ground against legitimate physical threat. Indeed, Florida officials are so disgusted with the backlash against Marissa Alexander that prosecutors are seeking revenge by aiming to triple her sentence at retrial next month.

We don't have that problem in Washington state.

So consider this: A woman taking the advice of the Seattle Police Department, various advocacy organizations, and the men in her life that it is her job to prevent men from raping, decides to protect herself, and decides that should include a gun.

A man walks up to her, lays down a cheesy pickup line.

She shoots him to death on the spot, standing her ground against a potential rapist.

In King County, Washington, they might not even bother taking it to trial because it's hard to imagine a jury there looking at our castle doctrine law and the flood of official advice to women suggesting they should protect themselves against any man in public, and convict.

This is not a world I wish to live in. It is not a world I would oblige my daughter to. This is a bad outcome.

And, yes, the first time one of those protection dogs is sicced on a man who just said hello, men will start complaining about how badly women treat them.

And you can say #NotAllMen all you want, but stop saying it to the women. Tell those men that they don't speak for you, to shut their fucking mouths.

It's like the whole NRA vision for America; if we build a society in which the only pretense of civility is that everyone is a lethal threat to everyone else, the only people who win are the arms manufacturers and sellers.

And if this is what you want for our daughters and sisters and wives and mothers and friends, fine. Just be honest with them up front.

I know you want to hear us say that society needs to do more to condition it's male members to not be rapists, misogynists, murderers, thieves and swindlers so that women will be less burdened with matters of personal security. I can't imagine anyone participating in this thread that doesn't share that sentiment and would love to see it happen ASAP, but just as Elliot Roger couldn't wave his magic wand and make society bend to his wishes, neither can you. It's as if you're advising women to wait until utopia arrives instead of personally doing what ever they can to mitigate their victimization in the hear and now.

It always cracks me up when someone says they can't imagine something happening while it's actually going on. The reason people are sick and tired of this Infinite Protection Advocacy is that it's all that ever happens.

Furthermore, you're attempting something consummately dishonest:

"I know you want to hear us say that society needs to do more to condition it's male members to not be rapists, misogynists, murderers, thieves and swindlers so that women will be less burdened with matters of personal security."​

There are any number of crimes we all have to guard against; theft, murder, fraud, &c. But compared to you or me as men, the rape question in this context is aimed exclusively at women. When a man rapes another man, the police don't put out a list of things men are doing wrong that encourage rapists. Nobody tells the victim he shouldn't have been downtown, in a well-populated area, without a companion. Nobody tells him his haircut is too rapey, or that he wears the wrong shoes, or that it's dangerous for him to use his mobile phone in public.

And you might notice that some of the IPAs compare rape prevention to simple things like wearing a seat belt, not leaving your laptop in the car, or locking the car doors. This is insulting beyond belief.

Furthermore, as you might have noticed, some IPAs suggest that rape prevention tips addressing three quarters of rapes apparently defy common sense.

It is absolutely, egregiously dishonest and stupid to say you "can't imagine anyone participating in this thread that doesn't share that sentiment and would love to see it happen ASAP" when there are people participating in this thread trying to stave off that very outcome.

The problem is that it's easy enough for men to say, "I'm not the kind who will stalk a woman and rape her in an alley." And that's fine. Where these men get nervous is when the idea of who is a rapist might include them. Women should be guarding against other men, not these men.

And this sort of selfish, idiotic misogyny needs to be taken out back and put down.

The hate Elliot Rodger had for women, their male partners, and society in general was derived from the delusional perception that each represented a roadblock to the realization of his ill conceived social order.

Well, you're almost there. There is a functional difference, however: Men are the competition, while women are the prizes to be won.

The guy announces his misogyny to the world, and people want us to look away from that. Hell, Trooper nearly swoons at Rodger's victimhood. ("And then he saw a beautiful girl while out for a walk"? Well, sure; he saw a bauble that he wanted for his own.)

You might as well tell me that triangles and octagons are the same thing because they're both polygons.

She ignores misogyny by suggesting motivations for it? She’s a self loathing woman for wanting to understand behavior rather than simply label it? Being a woman she’s had to personally deal with its consequences every day of her life to some degree. As man you’re either a casual observer or a perpetrator, but never a victim. So how does your experience trump hers in regards to understanding misogyny?

Capracus, remember that she's not arguing on principle, but because she doesn't like Bells. And remember, she's the one romanticizing the mass-murdering misogynist.

Furthermore, she's had this burr under her saddle for a while. She got pissed off on your behalf, so you can consider your debt of absurd humiliation paid.

I would also direct you to Bells at #261:

"I'd just been repeatedly abused, accused of somehow benefiting from being rape because apparently it was such a great experience and all, that it gave me leverage. You enter the thread and declare how Rodger was right about women and the behaviour they reward, in your opinion, and then in a following post, after James R advised Balerion that he should apologise on his return from his ban, you respond with how much you agreed with Balerion, parroted the exact same pure bullshit foil hat accusation that the guy abusing me had been spouting. But then again, you've already declared that it's about who you are arguing against.. It's not about content, is it?"​

And yes, remember, Capracus, that this is what you're defending:

"I agreed that Bells was using the Elliot Rodger tragedy to push her own agenda. The whole damn world was using it to push some agenda or another.

And this makes me a rape apologist and a misogynist?"​

It's easy to see how Bells or I might be seen as pushing an agenda. But once upon a time, when something godawful happened in society, people talked about it. The difference between discussing an event and pushing an agenda, as Trooper has explained, is that she doesn't like Bells.

Giving cover to misogyny, as she has, and willfully reinforcing rape prevention myths that address a 1:3 minority of rapes while ignoring the 3:1 majority of rapes, is certainly rape apologism and misogyny.

 

[Trooper]

It always cracks me up when someone says they can't imagine something happening while it's actually going on. The reason people are sick and tired of this Infinite Protection Advocacy is that it's all that ever happens.

Well, we could put up a bunch signs telling rapists not to rape.

Capracus, remember that she's not arguing on principle, but because she doesn't like Bells.

I don't know Bells. I dislike what she and you are doing. You're making insulting, threatening, and unfounded accusations against several members.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

First let me say this... i can only try to emagine you'r pain.!!!

I suspect that you are projectin... an what you describe above is sopmtin that recently hapened to you... an if so i am so very sorry.!!!

In any case... you'r responses to the cruel hateful misogynists have been right an proper an a shinin example of the moral standard such people shoud expect from Sciforums.!!!

Down with the misogynists!
Up with Tiassa and Bells!

 

[pjdude1219]

I don't know Bells. I dislike what she and you are doing. You're making insulting, threatening, and unfounded accusations against several members.

no that's what your doing. what their doing is calling you out on your bs. don't like it make a better argument. you've done nothing here but attack bells and tiassa and others protesting misogyny and than whine that your being attacked when getting called on it. no one threatened, no one insulted you outside of mentioning your viewpoint if loathesome, and no made any unfounded accusations against you. that you seem intelectually incapable of even being able to concieve of sound like doesn't make you victim it just means your incapable of self reflection.

 

[billvon]

Here’s the thing:

In this “debate,” or whatever the fuck it is, there are clearly but two sides.

Here's the issue here:
No one seems to know what the sides are. Bells and Tiassa have decided that anyone who disagrees with them are hateful, rapey misogynists. It's like a partisan republican seeing a democrat and yelling "HE WANTS TO KILL BABIES!" No intelligent discussion generally ensues from such foolish beginnings.

 

[Trooper]

no that's what your doing. what their doing is calling you out on your bs. don't like it make a better argument. you've done nothing here but attack bells and tiassa and others protesting misogyny and than whine that your being attacked when getting called on it. no one threatened, no one insulted you outside of mentioning your viewpoint if loathesome, and no made any unfounded accusations against you. that you seem intelectually incapable of even being able to concieve of sound like doesn't make you victim it just means your incapable of self reflection.

The initial point was made by Steven Pinker in regards to political correctness trumping common sense and good judgment. He was discussing campus rape.

Here is the link.

I provided you earlier with a link from the National Library of Medicine offering the same advice.

Again, here is the link.

There are many programs and thousands of research papers indicating that rape prevention can be effective.

"Researchers suggest that educational programs are the most effective acquaintance rape prevention approach. Research has found that comprehensive programs with these key components can reduce sexual victimization of college women by up to half."

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

Providing student escort and/or shuttle services.
Providing rape aggression defense training.

Acquaintance Rape of College Students

Once again, this does not make me a rape advocate or misogynist. If you lack education in this matter, and have nothing else to contribute, I would appreciate it if you would stop insisting that I'm protesting against misogyny.

I am not.