|
to clarify, dressing revealingly increases the chance only of spontaneous rape rather than premeditated rape. However, there is also a chance that a consistency of continuous 'slutiness' could eventually lead to a tipping point. But studies have shown that rape is more of an exhibition of power rather than a sustaining of sexual lust.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 03:52 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
|
On April 07 2011 01:59 Flat Zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 01:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 07 2011 01:39 Flat Zerg wrote:On April 07 2011 01:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
This is wrong, in the effort to educate, what would it take to convince you otherwise? No, it is not wrong. And I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me, but I have lived and breathed in the air of this sort of rhetoric for the past seven years of my higher education. So you can feel free to understand our discussion as the enlightened you graciously deigning to educate the unenlightened me, but odds are I bring the same refinement of interpretive faculties to this issue that you do. What your stance does is takes an artificially narrow look at the "advice" phenomenon, but almost any sort of human interaction is too complex to be adequately addressed by formulae like "if you say X, then you obviously believe Y." You seem to want to divide everyone into two camps: I. the bad guys: people who would advise women to avoid risk factors for sexual assault (because obviously what that boils down to is total complicity with sexual assault). II. the good guys: people who want to reduce rape in the long-term by changing social norms via education (because obviously the one thing that improves morality is a good education). Not only do I distrust the methodology of this anti-misogyny crusade of awareness, but more importantly I don't think that membership in the "advise right now" camp and the "work for the future" camp are mutually exclusive. It is your worldview that demands such black and white. Fair enough, so what do you tell your daughter to do to not be raped by her friends and relatives?
There is nothing that you can tell your daughter that will actually remove the possibility that she might be raped by a friend or a relative. That is one of those many thoughts that keeps a parent lying awake on certain nights.
|
On April 07 2011 01:58 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 01:42 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 07 2011 01:07 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 01:02 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 07 2011 00:43 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 00:19 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 19:22 Monsen wrote:On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote:
[quote]
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped. You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances. I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like. However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals. I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue. Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol. Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drink ers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!" As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit. And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones. Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that. People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer. Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves. I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull". To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up. I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking. Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here. Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea. Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice. He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime. Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here. On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
Possible but not feasible ? Are you reading yourself ? Oops, meant to say that avoiding some risks is not worth the risk itself. On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ? Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?" It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women). Ridiculous again. Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency. You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position. What you say in your last two paragraphs has to be invented by you. No one gets convicted if it's only word against word. Nowadays with DNA evidence together with bruises or smth, I believe you can make pretty sure to not be mislead by liars. And every report about statistics I remember was mentioning how their is a minuscule percentage of false accusations.
DNA evidence means jack all if they actually had sex and the woman regretted it afterwards.
If you have stats, please share them.
|
Do you have stats on how many women make rape accusations because they regretted having sex, because I'd like some evidence to show that you're not just using a misdirection tactic.
|
On April 07 2011 02:21 Flat Zerg wrote:
Do you have stats on how many women make rape accusations because they regretted having sex, because I'd like some evidence to show that you're not just using a misdirection tactic.
I don't have stats, I just know it happens; ie: Julian Assange. It could be an isolated case, it could not be, I don't know, which is why I want stats. There's also that false rape accusation site mentioned many pages back.
Also, how is it misdirection? It's completely related.
EDIT: if you want misdirection, go read the posts spouting off about women's rights.
|
On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote:
Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject.
It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small.
But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault.
|
On April 07 2011 01:58 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 01:42 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 07 2011 01:07 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 01:02 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 07 2011 00:43 buhhy wrote:On April 07 2011 00:19 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 19:22 Monsen wrote:On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote:
[quote]
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped. You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances. I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like. However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals. I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue. Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol. Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drink ers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!" As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit. And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones. Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that. People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer. Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves. I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull". To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up. I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking. Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here. Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea. Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice. He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime. Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here. On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
Possible but not feasible ? Are you reading yourself ? Oops, meant to say that avoiding some risks is not worth the risk itself. On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ? Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?" It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women). Ridiculous again. Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency. You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position. What you say in your last two paragraphs has to be invented by you. No one gets convicted if it's only word against word. Nowadays with DNA evidence together with bruises or smth, I believe you can make pretty sure to not be mislead by liars. And every report about statistics I remember was mentioning how their is a minuscule percentage of false accusations.
Wrong. People get convicted for word against word in Canada, at least. What happens is two people have sex, then the female accuses the male of rape. The male admits to the sex but not the rape, and it becomes a he said/she said thing. Sometimes they even perform super invasive tests on the male anyways, before they have a chance to say that sex actually did happen. With all the ultra-biased sources on one side, here's a little something for people who think the only bad guys are the men. Humans all have the potential to be terrible, vile creatures, and with the prominence of feminist groups making wild accusations (I've heard from people's mouths, that 35% of men are rapists) it's only natural that some types people will feel that they were raped whenever they end up being ashamed of having sex with someone.
This thread is primarily about rape victims, but remember that creating a culture of misandry and pushing the assumption that men are all potential rapists has consequences.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html
|
I really find it curious that some users think giving advice is equal to a kind of "pre-blaming" for the possible outcome of not following said advice.
Maybe there are two kind of people discussing here- the ones who give advice to help, and those who give advice so they can later say "I told you so".
Just speaking for myself here, when I tell a kid not to touch the oven door, I do so to prevent burnt hands. Now while this certainly limits the kids freedom to touch oven doors I still think this is a good idea.
There have been similar examples throughout the thread, running through a dark, poor neighborhood with 100 dollar bills sticking out of your every bag/clothes/orifice is usually advised against. So is leaving your purse/mobile/radio lying openly in your car- because it increases the risk of being subject to a crime.
By the logic of some posters here, people giving such advice are ignorant, freedom hating, crime condoning victim blamers. Mind boggling.
|
On April 07 2011 02:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote:
Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject. It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small. But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault.
84 percent of those raped knew their attacker.
84 percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape.
Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
So, glibness aside, what's your advice? These statistics are from college campuses keep in mind.
Also, apparently both rapists and victims are drowning in a pool of denial but what we should really be talking about is misandry and false accusations.
|
On April 07 2011 02:09 HULKAMANIA wrote:
But I simply will not agree with anyone who conceives of advising people to avoid certain risks as tacitly approving of and perpetuating a culture of sexual assault.
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting):
Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is.
This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!)
Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
|
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 03:52 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape? It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges. She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
By the letter of Canadian law (a country often seen as fairly progressive with feminism) this is false. Reason being, the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the person not initiating sex. This means that if you are in a situation where you coax someone in to having sex with foreplay/testing the waters/being persistent and the only form of resistence they show is not consenting, that can still be considered rape. I don't really know what to make of this, but it amounts to the fact that someone doesn't have to create a confrontation to stop sex from happening. This is why so many rape cases come from relationships. One partner (usually only ever the male) wants sex, and the other party does not want a confrontation to occur in the relationship, either out of fear or some other emotion. It becomes rape when the offending party starts the physical act of sex on the basis that the other party does not make any direct move to deny it.
|
On April 07 2011 02:46 Flat Zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote:
Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject. It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small. But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault. Show nested quote +
84 percent of those raped knew their attacker.
84 percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape.
Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
So, glibness aside, what's your advice? These statistics are from college campuses keep in mind. Also, apparently both rapists and victims are drowning in a pool of denial but what we should really be talking about is misandry and false accusations.
What do you mean what's your advice? I don't have some wonderful advice to dispense to the world, nor have I ever claimed that I did. Good advice is generally ailored to a specific situation. It's detail-oriented. It's local. In this, it resembles good thinking, which doesn't waste time dealing in massive and convenient generalities.
My point in this thread from post one has been to defend the principle of giving advice and that principle is perfectly sound. As fun as the "you don't have perfect advice so I win!" tack would be, I think I'll just avoid going down that rabbit hole if I may.
(Also, I think you're conflating my opinion's with SharkSpiders—not to mention, yet again, simplifying his opinion to the point of absurdity just so that you can mock it. That’s a very tedious way to argue.)
|
You claimed giving advice is not victim blaming. I would argue that while not synonymous, it happens to be the case so frequently that it's worth being highly suspicious of men who happen to be experts at not getting raped and their turds of wisdom.
|
analogy: rich people deserve to get robbed.
|
On April 07 2011 03:15 spacecoke wrote:
analogy: rich people deserve to get robbed.
Socialism is rape, yo
|
On April 07 2011 02:47 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 02:09 HULKAMANIA wrote:
But I simply will not agree with anyone who conceives of advising people to avoid certain risks as tacitly approving of and perpetuating a culture of sexual assault.
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting): Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is. This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!) Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
I think you and I actually agree for the most part (except for the part where we draw conclusions about society from this thread. this is a tl.net thread populated in the majority by young, single men. skewed as hell!).
Right off the bat, I started with the assertion that dressing in a revealing manner is not a significant risk factor for rape. I agree. I don't think that it has much bearing on the question either way. All that I have been arguing in this thread is that, in principle, giving advice about avoiding actual risk factors for sexual assault is not equivalent to condoning sexual assault.
To speak in the broadest terms, one should work against sexual assault both locally and globally.
Local work means that one should watch out for female loved ones, encourage them to conduct themselves with reasonable caution, and to help those around us, by whatever means necessary, avoid potentially threatening situations.
Global work means making society safer (a lot of which would be reforming various laws and courtroom practices). A component of this work might be an educational campaign, but personally I am skeptical of the efficacy of such a campaign, especially when it is spearheaded by such radical ideologues as the ones who crusade against "rape culture."
Will local action be 100% effective? No. Will global action be 100% effective? No. Will both of them taken together be 100% effective? Still no. Should we stick at it anyway? Of course.
That's the human condition. You're in a shitty world. The world will stay shitty. You do your best to remove what bits of shit you can from the larger scene regardless and you keep those close to you clean to the best of your limited abilities.
What I take issue with is framing this issue like it's some war against "medieval thinking." What I take issue with is people treating their opponents as if they were cogs in the great machine of sexual assault simply because they don't want their loved ones to behave in risky ways. As a brother to a sister and a husband to a wife, I'm all for a world in which sexual assault does not happen. In the meanwhile, we must make do with whatever ad hoc measures are at hand.
|
On April 07 2011 03:10 Flat Zerg wrote:
You claimed giving advice is not victim blaming. I would argue that while not synonymous, it happens to be the case so frequently that it's worth being highly suspicious of men who happen to be experts at not getting raped and their turds of wisdom.
I would argue that you're so invested in your side of the argument and so contemptuous of your opponents that you have very little to bring to the discussion in the first place.
|
On April 05 2011 03:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny. If this is that obvious? Then why has no one been able to produce even the slightest statistical evidence or indication for it? There is no statistical evidence for this, and indeed, far more evidence for the inverse case.
Most studies in to rape overwhelmingly show that arousal has very little to do with the movtivation for rape. Most rapists have control or power issues, they rape people because they like to have power over people and this is the only way they can get it.
Just like most types of assault, whether physical or sexual, the vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knew, more often than not their partner/husband. Until very recently there was no such thing as rape within marridge, there are many countries where this is still the case.
I know 3 girls who have been raped, two by their boyfriends and one by their father. While anedotal evidence is certainly not real evidence, the fact that of everyone I know, 3 people have been raped and all by people who they trusted and knew very well immediately makes me doubt it has anything to do with how the girl dresses.
|
On April 07 2011 03:15 spacecoke wrote:
analogy: rich people deserve to get robbed.
Better analogy: cops tell rich people to get good home security, rich people start protesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
