Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

[Randwolf]

Do men get raped in dark alleys? I see men walking around the streets after dark.

Are men more likely to get raped if they wear less clothing?

When little boys get raped are they considered as complicit if they left off their shirts?

Editing, I see...
Second question - Yes, I would imagine so. I just happened to watch a rerun of an old Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie in which the main character (a white cop) was forced to walk naked down a New York street in a predominantly black neighborhood carrying placards proclaiming "I hate niggers".

Technically, this would be protected by the First Amendment here in the US, but I can assure you he wasn't happy with the assignment. Furthermore, he was about to encounter some serious problems with the neighborhood residents until fate intervened. Ever seen the movie?


Question 3 - "When little boys get raped are they considered as complicit if they left off their shirts?"

Nice try. I'm not falling for the troll, though.

 

[chimpkin]

Randwolf:
Why are you skulking about in dark alleys though?

Finding Americans to yell at?
*ducks*

 

[S.A.M.]

Finding Americans to yell at?
*ducks*

Oh is that where Americans are found?

So if women are warned off dark alleys and most rapes occur in places where they live or work, what does it mean?

Myth: Most rapes occur as a "spur of the moment" act in a dark alley by a stranger.

Fact: Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.

 

[Asguard]

SAM that last bit is interesting, I would have thought the majority of rapes were by a partner as part of domestic violence which would suggest that it wasn't planned

 

[Randwolf]

So if women are warned off dark alleys and most rapes occur in places where they live or work, what does it mean?

FFS...

Let's just let that comment stand without challenge.

What it means SAM is that maybe, possibly, risk management might apply to a minority of rapes. All rapes minus some rapes equals less rapes. 4-1=3.

Right?

:wallbang:

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM that last bit is interesting, I would have thought the majority of rapes were by a partner as part of domestic violence which would suggest that it wasn't planned

It would appear that most rapes are either partially or fully planned

According to professor Meacham Amir's study of 646 rape cases in Philadelphia he reveals that men who rape are not abnormal Amir's writes "studies indicates that sex offenders do not constitutes a unique or psycho pathological type, nor are they as a group in variable more disturbed then the controlled group to which they are compared".2 Allen Taylor a parole officer who worked with rapist also points that they are the men of normal state of mind. Amir's study reveals that in case of group rape 90% of rapes were planned in, pair rape 83% of the rapes were planned and in single rape 58% were planned.

http://ro.vlex.com/vid/rape-crime-victim-analysis-indian-penal-226338461.

 

[Asguard]

umm is that just those proven or those alleged where the police BELIEVE that a rape has occurred whether they can prove the case or not?

Ie spousal rape and date rape both of which I believe have tiny conviction rate

 

[chimpkin]

I found a different link that talks about the amir study:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c

...Further, approximately 71% of the rapes were planned. The choice of victim was often left to chance and circumstance, but the rapist set out to rape someone. Planning is even more prevalent in pair or gang rapes.

Edited to add...Asguard has a good point-the sample pool is skewed.
Since the study was done from 1958-1960... I'm guessing it almost exclusively contained perpetrators of "stranger rape."
Why? back then I seriously doubt a date rapist would be convicted; and in many states at the time, a husband could not legally rape his wife. She was supposed to have given consent when she married him and to not be able to withdraw it.

 

[Randwolf]

Just to get the context of that study SAM cited...

God endowed man and women with same sense of emotion, passion, pain and pleasure, yet both differ from each other. Her gentle tenderness and tolerance make her different from her fellow partner. Indeed women are given place of pride in almost all the religion. Her importance, rights and privileges are recognized by almost all religious scripture. Even then she is subjected to several social prejudices. Causing carnal catastrophe is one of the most demeaning devices adopted to subjugate women. Today the greater challenging before her is to protect her dignity chastity and virginity.

From the same abstract:

The hypothetical point here is that this crime cannot be prevented only by new enactment or enlarging the law enforcing agencies because several other factors are responsible for increase in crime, to which legal system has to intervene. There is a necessity of more women oriented legislation and policies protecting the right of the women and preserving right of the victims of rape. Since this is a socio-legal issue it is the greatest challenge of the government, women organization and legal system to provide immediate remedy and that's why the study is subjected to consecutive enquiry and research.

Any insight on exactly how the legal system intervened? Did it work? (I don't have access to the whole paper)



On point though, again from the same abstract:

The myth that the "bad girls" are raped this theory cannot be always correct. In a study of rape conducted by the NGO'S it was found that 82% of the rape victims had good reputation.

SAM, please don't conflate "bad girls" and reputation with risk management. They are entirely different - risk assesment and mitigation has nothing to do with ethereal concepts of "good" or "bad".

 

[Bells]

What really pisses me off is that I would bet my left nut that every one, every single one of these naysayers advises the people they care for to "be careful" as they leave the house. As they drive home after two beers. After they score a lid. Etc. Etc. Etc. Anyone care to stand up and tell me differently?

There is saying 'be careful' and saying 'don't look pretty'. Everyone takes care of themselves and don't expect to be attacked or raped or sexually abused or molested. But you went a bit further than that, to say that you shouldn't wear things that could attract attention to yourself, restrict your movement somewhat, just in case. What I am saying is that it should not be like that. A woman should be allowed to wear what she damn well pleases without being raped. To not be raped is not her responsibility but is the responsibility of her rapist to not rape. Do you understand now?

Randwolf, I don't know what your issue is, but it would help greatly if you did not post while drunk, assume this debate is a continuation of a discussion from 3 years ago, etc. That would be a start.

Question 3 - "When little boys get raped are they considered as complicit if they left off their shirts?"

Nice try. I'm not falling for the troll, though.

Well the standard earlier was that one should not walk around without clothes on. Why does that only apply to women? You do realise that male rapes is quite common, yes? That boys and men are raped all the time, yes? So why does the naked chest rule only apply to women?

You see, when you cannot explain the logic you have been shoving down our throats to the opposite sex, you accuse others of trolling.

Let's just let that comment stand without challenge.

What it means SAM is that maybe, possibly, risk management might apply to a minority of rapes. All rapes minus some rapes equals less rapes. 4-1=3.

So why is the woman's dress and where she happens to be walking brought up so much in this debate? The majority of people are raped by people they know and usually people they trust. But for some weird and twisted reason, the woman's actions, what she wears, how she looks, where she parks her car, where she walks is always brought up, even by you earlier.

Here are the facts:

"Most victims are either raped in their own home (acquaintance or stranger) or the home of their assailant. Can parking lots and parking garages be dangerous? Yes, certainly; however, no rapist wants to create a public scene and he can never be sure what might happen in a public area. 70-80% of rapists are well known to their victim so have no need to stake out a public location."

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/through_rapists_eyes.htm
​

So why is the dark alley always brought up?

As for her clothing:

"The most common outfit of rape victims is jeans and a t-shirt or sweatshirt. It is true that some articles of clothing are easier to remove than others, but there is no data to suggest that a potential victim is at greater risk because of how she is dressed. Remember, 70-80% of assailants are known to their victim, so tactics of stranger rapists aren’t needed."​

So let us discuss risk management. Should women simply never trust men at all? Should daughters be taught from the age of understanding to never trust the men in their family, just in case? Self defense classes? I am all for it. But the message is simple. The victim has to be able to react in any situation and be able to gauge the situation as it develops. Because the result can be death. In short, you are advised to only fight back if you are trained to and if you are able to. But the main advise is to keep yourself from death and if fighting back can result in your death (ie he becomes angry and kills you), then you do not do it.

In short, there is no true risk management when it comes to rape. Because short of cutting yourself off from civilisation and living like a prisoner in your own home with absolutely no contact with the outside world, you can't really do anything. The greater majority of rapes will be by someone the woman knows and trusts. Most rapes will be in her own home or in the home of her rapist. Very few are in dark alleys. In other words, you are less likely to be raped walking in a dark alley than you are being raped in your own home by someone you know. So what is the risk management Randwolf?

 

[Asguard]

Bells, just 1 point. Why is it a CRIME for a women to walk around bare chested but not a man?

 

[Anti-Flag]

Then why the hell have you been arguing with me for five pages???:facepalm:

Obviously because you weren't paying attention.

 

[James R]

Do men get raped in dark alleys? I see men walking around the streets after dark.

Most rapists are men who target female victims. There are many different reasons for that. So, men getting raped in dark alleys is fairly rare.

Of course, anybody getting raped by a stranger in a dark alley is far less common than getting raped in a familiar place by somebody you know.

Are men more likely to get raped if they wear less clothing?

Not sure, but I doubt whether women wearing less clothing makes rape more likely either.

When little boys get raped are they considered as complicit if they left off their shirts?

This is obviously a question for somebody else, so I'll leave it.

 

[James R]

Why is it a CRIME for a women to walk around bare chested but not a man?

Public standards of decency?

 

[billvon]

Asteroids move around in space, and sometimes, they collide with other cellestial bodies. This is just how it is.

Yes. And there are sexual predators out there. That's just how it is.

However, that's not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that rape victims are partly responsible for the rape, since they could have done something differently to avoid it. The parallel argument is that the people on the planet that is struck by the asteroid are partly responsible for the impact. After all, they could have moved their planet.

 

[Bells]

Public standards of decency?

So this man's boobs [Warning graphic image of male breasts and nipples] is less offensive and more decent than a woman with breasts the same size?

:m:

 

[Randwolf]

There is saying 'be careful' and saying 'don't look pretty'.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone takes care of themselves...

No, they don't. That's the point.

...and don't expect to be attacked or raped or sexually abused or molested.

Expect whatever you like. Reality is.

But you went a bit further than that, to say that you shouldn't wear things that could attract attention to yourself, restrict your movement somewhat, just in case.

ORLY? Please cite or retract this Bells. Read carefully. Unless you're referring to the comment "Don't walk down SoHo beach naked at night". Did that turn into "say[ing] hat you shouldn't wear things that could attract attention to yourself, restrict your movement somewhat, just in case"? Wow.

Do you routinely parade about in the nude, at night, in the middle of a very big, very dangerous city such as Miami? If so, feel free to continue. In fact carry some signs about saying "I hate spics" just for good measure - it's within your constitutional rights if you happen to be in the US, as you are aware of. Let me know how that works out...

What I am saying is that it should not be like that.

Another point we're in complete agreement upon.

A woman should be allowed to wear what she damn well pleases without being raped.

Ditto.

To not be raped is not her responsibility but is the responsibility of her rapist to not rape. Do you understand now?

Jeez, Bells. I am really sorry that you believe that I am so stupid that I don't understand your point. Do you really not understand mine?

/saddened

Randwolf, I don't know what your issue is, but it would help greatly if you did not post while drunk, assume this debate is a continuation of a discussion from 3 years ago, etc. That would be a start.

Don't start this shit Bells. I'm not playing that game again - I learned my lesson the first time.

Well the standard earlier was that one should not walk around without clothes on. Why does that only apply to women?

It doesn't. Where did I assert that I did? In fact, I specifically excluded gender and sexual orientation from my comments on more than one occasion. Can you not read? So again, cite or retract.

You do realise that male rapes is quite common, yes? That boys and men are raped all the time, yes?

I believe I mentioned during my last "drunken" encounter with you that I am aware that males get raped. So what?

So why does the naked chest rule only apply to women?

Oh, I see. Cite or retract.

You see, when you cannot explain the logic you have been shoving down our throats to the opposite sex, you accuse others of trolling.

Au contraire. I can explain it, I have explained it, others have explained it, you don't get it. I accept this state of affairs. Let's get on with things.

So why is the woman's dress and where she happens to be walking brought up so much in this debate?

Just so you know Bell's, I read these as I respond. This one is getting boring. I opened your post with much hope that things would be different tonight on a personal level with you. Not the case. You're redundant and you fail at comprehension. I'm sorry.

Again, cite where I stated this applies to any one gender. In fact, the opposite is true. I try to generalize the whole mess into risk management, along with other violent and unpredictable events. Apparently, you are simply unable to grasp the fundamental concepts involved. Maybe you could try Fraggle? He seems more willing to explain elementary project and risk management methodology than I...

The majority of people are raped by people they know and usually people they trust.

Agreed.

But for some weird and twisted reason, the woman's actions, what she wears, how she looks, where she parks her car, where she walks is always brought up, even by you earlier.

Bells, why do you insist on sticking with this gender specific, or even felony specific wording? This is why I accuse you of trolling...

Here are the facts:

"Most victims are either raped in their own home (acquaintance or stranger) or the home of their assailant. Can parking lots and parking garages be dangerous? Yes, certainly; however, no rapist wants to create a public scene and he can never be sure what might happen in a public area. 70-80% of rapists are well known to their victim so have no need to stake out a public location."

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/through_rapists_eyes.htm
​

Thank you.

So why is the dark alley always brought up?

It's a handy example. Would you prefer a different hypothetical? I hardly think it would matter to you.

As for her clothing:

"The most common outfit of rape victims is jeans and a t-shirt or sweatshirt. It is true that some articles of clothing are easier to remove than others, but there is no data to suggest that a potential victim is at greater risk because of how she is dressed. Remember, 70-80% of assailants are known to their victim, so tactics of stranger rapists aren’t needed."​

Thanks again.
Also, thanks for the {INDENT} tag usage. Wasn't aware of that one, I always used {quote}.

So let us discuss risk management.

Let's.

Should women simply never trust men at all?

Not in my world.

Nor should we have one hundred percent faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. I'm going with the odds that it will though, which coupled with the fact that there is absolutely nothing I could do to mitigate the risk in this case, I would just have to accept it if we have no star on the morrow.

Should daughters be taught from the age of understanding to never trust the men in their family, just in case?

No, but they should be told that rape is not confined to strangers, at an appropriate age. You decide what age is appropriate for your family, or for yourself, or whatever.

Self defense classes? I am all for it.

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

You just said what I am trying to point out. What do you call that? Would a self defense class perhaps mitigate risk here? What else could possibly be the point? Physical fitness? Why do you agree with only this one simple precaution?

Please believe that I am not trying to tell you what to do or not to do. I am just curious why you affirm this one, lonely, particular cautionary measure and not others?

But the message is simple.

Apparently not.

The victim has to be able to react in any situation and be able to gauge the situation as it develops.

Yes. This is called "situational awareness" Bells. Please feel free to use big words - I can handle it.

Because the result can be death.

Bingo.

In short, you are advised to only fight back if you are trained to and if you are able to. But the main advise is to keep yourself from death and if fighting back can result in your death (ie he becomes angry and kills you), then you do not do it.

Depends on who's advising you, but that's not my point. My point is that you have a strategy with boundaries set by you, your family and the state to minimize risk. Any problems with that?

In short, there is no true risk management when it comes to rape.

Please define "true" risk management. It is a "scientific discipline" able to be applied to any risk - from the chances of losing or winning a card game to assessing the odds of a devastating meteor impact. I am sorry you are not familiar with the discipline. Take a class...

Because short of cutting yourself off from civilisation and living like a prisoner in your own home with absolutely no contact with the outside world, you can't really do anything.

Wrong.

/very, very patiently...

You can manage the risk.

The greater majority of rapes will be by someone the woman knows and trusts. Most rapes will be in her own home or in the home of her rapist. Very few are in dark alleys. In other words, you are less likely to be raped walking in a dark alley than you are being raped in your own home by someone you know.

Thanks for some more facts that I am already oh so painfully aware of. But thanks again, anyways.

So what is the risk management Randwolf?

Are you asking for my personal strategy? Are you sure?

I mean, what if it includes not walking down a dangerous street in a war zone in broad fucking daylight? Regardless of gender, age, race, religious affiliation or sexual orientation? Would you accept it then?




Bells, I know you're not going to concede. However, I'm not breaking any forum rules here (that I am aware of). I don't misquote you - you misquote me. Let's just try to live with each other's POV's, hmmm? OTH, my bet is you will not even return the courtesy of a point by point reply to my comments.

We will see....

 

[billvon]

Bells, just 1 point. Why is it a CRIME for a women to walk around bare chested but not a man?

Just a societal holdover from stricter times. Women's breasts actually work, and our mores are to hide working reproductive equipment - partly for old "public decency" reasons and partly for sanitation. I have a feeling this will eventually go the way of requirements for skirts, dresses, hats etc.

 

[chimpkin]

So this man's boobs [Warning graphic image of male breasts and nipples] is less offensive and more decent than a woman with breasts the same size?

:m:

Hey, your moobie link is no good.
Um, not asking you to correct that.

 

[James R]

I don't think we need to see the man boobs.