Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...

I'm so sorry... What, exactly, are you advocating?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you're all trying so hard to bag each other out, you're wasting time. a small pot boils easily.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this is for the dumb fucks who beg for answers.....

The rapist is entirely to blame for his actions.
He is out of control. He is like a runaway train
rushing down the tracks and about
to crush whoever is before him. Having said
all of that, you don't try to fight a runaway
train -- you get off the tracks!

No Nonsense Self-Defense

this is like totally classic. i totally cracked up...

Where Peyton's summations won't do you any good is if
a) you have an agenda.
b) you choose to ignore them in the pursuit of and furthering of that
agenda, your emotions or in the name of personal benefit.
c) you don't have a basic understanding of boundaries.
d) you've overly limited yourself to one social-economic level.
e) you have an overwhelming sense of your 'right' to behave a certain
way without suffering any negative consequences.
f) you allow your emotions to hijack your actions.
g) believe you have to dominate or intimidate a potential opponent

/snigger

from what i can tell, the site is worth a browse
there is also contact info

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

who the goddamn fuck do the bitches think they are?
i, a fucking guy, has to watch my back
why not fucking you!!!
you bitches think you are fucking special?

/spits

 

your mom wants you
fuck off

 

Calling all misandrists...

Beware, the philogynist will prevail...

/unleashes reality

 

wise words. piercing, poignant. i salute you.

 

Gustav has a point...

We (men) take precautions, why don't women feel they should consider the same course?

Are you exempt from nature?

 

which begs the question... why? to what end?
i know!

*you use the sarcasm to ridicule and denigrate the "advocates of precautionary measures"
*i am one of those advocates
*you ridicule and denigrate me
*big mistake

/smiles evilly

 

that fucking breaks my heart
fuck humans. fuck em all

 

(Insert title here)

It's not that. Rather, it would be silly to suggest that men's precautions require nearly the investment of personal resources, or that they have nearly as much impact on your quality of life.

The irony that it is men who create the vast majority of that greater precautionary burden doesn't help.

Furthermore, your inability to close the gap in the theory reminds that you have no idea what you're trying to stack on women. Don't think for a minute that will help, either.

Part of your puzzlement comes from two erroneous presumptions, that you know what you're talking about, and that you're right.

 

Are you saying it is harder for a woman to walk down the side of the street that is brightly lit up than it is for a man?

The only thing I am puzzled about is your obtuseness...

Let's talk about your "theory of displacement", i.e. it wouldn't be fair of any particular woman to take precautions against being raped, because if the precautions were successsful, they would only result in some other woman being raped in her place.

Great theory, am I my sister's keeper? Ever hear of self interest and individualism? Somehow, I think these are foreign concepts to you.

You seem to think, for example, that there are a "fixed" number of people that are going to starve to death this week, so I should stop eating, out of fairness to my fellow man. Fuck off...

Follow reasonable and prudent precautions and reduce your chances of assault, or not. Free will, you know?

 

i think a woman has to take a lot more precautions to reach the same level of risk a man would be at. also, precautions such as 'be capable of fighting off your assailant, don't appear vulnerable, be an unattractive target (assuming more rapists are hetero males) etc.' are much easier for men to achieve. as a dude, if i was walking through a dark empty carpark, i wouldn't worry about rape, just assault and robbery.

i agree with your criticism of the theory of displacement. if a rapist is prowling a particular area, and you would have been the only target had you not taken precautions, perhaps the rapist will be discouraged. a greater presence of vigilant, possibly armed or dangerous people will also discourage rapists. at worst, you're potentially limiting the number of easy targets.

 

Showing your true colors?

Are you pretending that it's that easy?

Speaking of obtuse .... The point is that precaution theory does nothing about the general problem of rape.

Two words: Civilization. Society.

You are part of them. Get used to this fact.

Weren't you recently whining about hyperbole?

Now that is a good argument.

Anything to reduce your obligation to be a civilized human being, eh? Nothing surprising there.

 

No.

Are you saying the general problem as a whole is greater than the sum of the parts?

Exactly. I can best fulfill my duty to civilization by altering my own behavior. Society starts with the interaction of two individuals. We can only change a societal negative by changing individuals' behavior, one person at a time or in groups.

Yes. The sentence you were referencing (starvation) was an analogy, hopefully one with nearly the same "scale" as sexual assault. My, you do have issues with the concept of "analogy", don't you?

It's not meant to be an argument.

It would seem that I am at least trying to fulfill my obligations by coming up with something concrete here. As opposed to: There is no guaranteed way to avoid sexual assault, especially not for society as a whole. Therefore, let's not try to mitigate any individual's chances, because that would only displace the assault somewhere else. Ergo, do nothing.

Is that really helpful in any way?



And, finally, just for fun, let's play analogy 101 again.

Nice story, but would you care to do the substitution in this analogy as it applies to women and sexual assault?

Surely you're not saying that women should not take precautions against sexual assault (akin to not taking precautions against getting your shoes stolen) because there are some people who have no sex at all (there are some people who have no shoes at all). Say it isn't so. Also, by your own arguments, this analogy is the most demeaning yet. I mean, shoes for God's sake?

Please explain the "context" here...

 

I completely concur. Perhaps this disproportionality contributes to the hostility that runs rampant when men talk about precautions, because we really can't relate from the women's point of view.

Perhaps if this thread is created we will be better able to contribute:

It may be a philosophical issue. I don't think that they are very fond of rational self-interest, ala Ayn Rand. Oh, well...

 

Yeah, right. It's you who can't go anywhere at night unless there's 20 of you in case you get raped. It's you who can't wear what clothes you like in case some pervert takes it as an excuse to rape you. It's you who has to watch your body language and constantly make sure you come across as firmly non-sexual, lest the 6ft, 100kg woman whose company you are in gets the wrong ideas. It's you who cannot go out for a walk without constantly jerking your head sideways to see if anyone is following you. It's you who despite sitting in the pub drinking red bull with a face on you that's a mix of hostility and severe constipation, wearing a leather jacket and combat pants that make you look 20kg heavier than you actually are and looking anything but sexually attractive, still gets harassed by members of the opposite sex.

There's a difference between having to watch your fucking back and having to live like to prey animal because you have 2 X-chromosomes.

Thanks, though, you messed with my adrenaline level there. I was feeling a bit dead 'cause my blood sugar was low, but that post pissed me off so badly, I actually felt better.

 

Calm down there, visceral. I just addressed this disproportionality with conanblad:

Maybe you didn't see that post?

 

Further to visceral..

Remember, I am just trying to facilitate discussion, not promulgate laws regulating women's behavior, nor infringe upon women's rights to do as they please. I am a firm believer in personal liberty, so long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights.

That said, I think you should take note, that with very few exceptions, every single sensible and prudent suggestion mentioned in this thread has come from women. (to my knowledge)

I believe there are about thirty five of these so far...

 

(Insert title here)

Well?

So, have you just not been paying attention?

Right. So stop promoting rape.

And yet your focus here is on women. Is on victims in general. What your precious fails to address—gee, I wonder why?—is the actual problem you're telling people how to respond to.

Only poorly-conceived and stupidly or dishonestly-applied ones.

Yeah, we know. It's what you come up with when you've got nothing else.

The problem with that sentence is that the rapist could say the same thing. You know, like the pedophile teaching a child how to "love"?

Try honesty, Randwolf.

Or should people just take precautions against you lying to them?

In order to not confuse you, we can stick to the absolutely simplest and most superficial interpretation: We can argue about precautions all we want, and yet the whole time we won't be doing a damn thing about the fact that rapes happen.

See, when you write things like that, it's hard to tell whether you're stupid or just trying to be cruel. It all amounts to the same thing, though: resolve your ignorance; don't simply follow it where it takes you.

Living in fear is no way to live. Maybe you'll figure that out when you grow up.