Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 535

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

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    .....It's not because NOW or any other group of women are holding back such efforts. So stop blaming them for our inadequacy........

    this brings me to a promise i made sniffy. it has to do with a certain militaristic precept....attack is the best form of defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    ok i will
    you will love the next episode where i run you feminazis over with a steamroller

    i am now compelled to present it in light of your reference. bummer.
    lets establish a background.... and a title...


    Cry me a River, Bitches. I do not give a Fuck!


    "Girls and young women are generally less inhibited in adopting male forms of behavior, whether it's assertiveness, talking tough or using one's elbows," argues psychologist Arnd Stein, who specializes in the treatment of young people. "Unfortunately, the same goes for the use of brute force." The members of all-female gangs tend to be especially cruel."

    Domestic violence is not a male monopoly either. According to a study carried out at the Institute for Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, women are the first to use physical force in six out of every 10 cases of relationship breakups. "Human aggressiveness is not gender-specific," argues Michael Bock, professor of criminology and penal law at Mainz University.

    Violent Femmes: Girls get ugly


    Still, despite huge gains in public visibility, female ascendance has been hampered by a rarely acknowledged reality: women often betray, hurt, and humiliate one another. Mothers stymie daughters, biological sisters compete, girlfriends gossip maliciously, and women bosses exert arbitrary and capricious authority. Chesler (Women and Madness, etc.) has been studying this phenomenon for 21 years, and her research is fascinating, resonant, and unsettling. While the book focuses on psychological rather than political factors and pays too little attention to race and class, it is nonetheless a groundbreaking look at how women perpetuate oppression.

    Woman's Inhumanity to Woman


    Perhaps the most isolated crime victims are lesbian and bisexual survivors of woman-to-woman sexual violence. Multifaceted sexual-identity issues combine with shame and institutionalized heterosexism to make society unable to acknowledge such assaults. The legal system, women's support services, and the lesbian community are just beginning to name such behaviors, let alone confronting and dealing with them.....

    A study on 70 survivors of sexual violence by Girshick (2002, forthcoming) showed how serious the denial is. Lesbians were caught off-guard by sexual assault at the hands of another woman. Nora's comment is typical: I have a hard time acknowledging that women can be violent and that a woman can rape another woman. In talking about her volunteer training at a domestic violence agency, Cecile said, Obviously I was in some denial myself, but I think that their analysis of battering not only didn't include lesbian battering but made lesbian battering pretty much impossible....

    Denial in the broader society that women might be sexual perpetrators or batterers is not the only problem. Denial in lesbian communities has also hindered acknowledgment of the issue. For some, admitting this abuse shatters the dream of lesbian utopia that our relationships are mutual, egalitarian, and nonviolent. For others, the motivation is self-protective. They fear how this information might be used against us as an already stigmatized population. An additional factor is the insular nature of our community and subcommunities. Who will hold the abuser accountable? She might be an advocate in an anti-violence agency or a leader in the community.

    No more denying: Facing women to women violence


    Discussion of lesbian battering dates back fifteen to twenty years: awareness of woman-to-woman sexual violence is in its infancy. In this regard, the domestic violence movement is far ahead of the anti-rape movement in terms of any admitting of these issues. Yet, in my opinion, the acknowledgement of sexual abuse within lesbian battering and the understanding of woman-to-woman sexual violence outside of relationships can serve as a major impetus to re-politicizing the violence against women movement. This can be done through forging a social change agenda, forcing us to re-evaluate our feminist analysis, and creating stronger anti-oppression alliances. Confronting woman-to-woman violence forces these three components into being.

    Sexual violence within lesbian battering


    "Last summer i was raped by a butch i met from a website. we had been talking online for months…i went to see hym….one thing led to another, and i ended up in the hospital having surgery to repair a 3 inch tear inside my vagina. hy fisted me, with no glove and no lube, the way one would put their hand through a wall."

    The experiences of women who are sexually assaulted by other women are not widely enough known or discussed. This silence makes it harder for those of us who are sexually assaulted by women to get appropriate health care and support. Service providers, media, educators, and assault survivors can help end this silence by talking more openly about this abuse

    Woman-Woman Rape


    For people who are part of a small lesbian community, the social implications of speaking out against their abuser can be terrifying. Girshick reports that some women did become ostracized when they told others. “I’ve heard stories of individuals who say My friends turned against me and protected her.”

    Breaking The Silence: Sociologist Studies Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence


    Domestic violence issues experienced by lesbians only really became visible in lesbian communities in 1986, when Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, edited by Kerry Lobel (Seal Press, Seattle) was published. Without doubt, abusive lesbian relationships have existed all along, but the book broke through the collective denial that some lesbians could, and did, deliberately and systematically hurt their partners. Despite the discussion that the book's premise generated (in my city, it contributed to the creation of the first, and only, grassroots service organization for battered lesbians), fifteen years later the denial has not completely gone away.

    Lesbian battering dynamics: A new approach


    #The silence surrounding the issue of same sex domestic violence is pervasive. The subject remains largely a taboo subject within lesbian and gay communities. Denial of the problem maintains the silence of victims and effectively condones the violence b y allowing it to continue.

    #Two of the more important factors which account for this silence are: [27]The 'Private' Realm of Intimate Relationships Into Which No One or Thing Should Intrude. Intimate personal relationships have long been regarded as maintaining a special 'private' status, out of reach of state regulation. 'What adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business and no-one else's', is a principle held in high esteem in our society, at least in relation to heterosexual co uples.

    #Indeed the 'privacy' principle has been a major obstacle in effectively addressing heterosexual domestic violence in terms of disclosure and official responses. The police, for example, have historically shown a great reluctance to interfere in the sa cred patriarchal domain of personal (heterosexual) relationships.

    #Interestingly, 'privacy' arguments have frequently been relied on in efforts seeking to advance the rights of lesbians and gay men, by claiming that sexuality is a personal, private issue which the state has no business regulating.[28] Arguably, such an approach leaves untouched institutionalised homophobia and heterosexism and may serve to inhibit open discussion of same sex abuse.[29] There is a very real danger that adherence to the 'privacy' prin ciple might insulate same sex abuse from community scrutiny. It is not uncommon, for example, to hear the view expressed from within the lesbian and gay community that domestic violence between lesbian and gay couples is a 'private' matter.[30] Reliance on 'privacy' arguments can therefore be seen to have an unintended negative outcome in terms of reinforcing the silence surrounding same sex domestic violence.

    The Second Closet: Domestic Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships: A Western Australian Perspective


    as a denizen of la, i know about gangs. while compassion could be had from the guys. the girls are know to be merciless.

    the crux of the matter i see it. the bitches will rant and rave about the hated men and yet hypocritically conceal their despicable and criminal behavior that occurs at a regular and sizable frequency. 30% of all lesbian relationships have had some form of violence perpetrated within.

    what am i to then infer from this? could it be that they are not genuinely concerned about the welfare of women in general or do the lynch mobs with their pitchforks emerge only when the oppressor is of the male sex? i think so. indeedly doodly and yessireebob! they much rather continue bashing males that have been practically been castrated in the eyes of the law. we are fault for defending ourselves from physical abuse. we cannot get custody of our children because we sexually molest them. such are the tactics of the gentler and kinder sex.

    i aint done but.....you were saying...?
    i must now investigate the seemingly token references made in this thread on this particular angle. hopefully i would i find it to be substantial in its treatment

    /snicker

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by visceral_instinct View Post
    DT, I feel the need to ask you something.

    of course you do, darling. it is entirely expected of you and your ilk to ask that question

    the only reason that "taboo" subjects are brought up in sciforums is one of advocacy

  3. #303
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,674

    Cool On the equality of hypocrites, or something like that

    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav

    the crux of the matter i see it. the bitches will rant and rave about the hated men and yet hypocritically conceal their despicable and criminal behavior that occurs at a regular and sizable frequency.
    I will attempt to give broader consideration to your post later, but this part really stood out.

    Would you postulate that the silence surrounding domestic violence among homosexuals is purely a matter of personal corruption, or is it possible that cultural influences—including homophobia—contribute significantly to the outcome?

    One of my favorite feminist quotes comes from Simone de Beauvoir, who asserted that there are two kinds of people: human beings and women. And when women start acting like human beings, they are accused of trying to be men.

    The general concept, as I see it, applies to homosexuals as well. When homosexuals act like human beings, they are accused of trying to be like heterosexuals. Indeed, just yesterday, we encountered in another discussion the proposition that "some gay people just want a child has a fashion statement". This denigrates homosexual families by accusing them of merely "playing house", rejecting the possibility that gays, too, appreciate the idea of a family. As I asserted in my reply, many heterosexuals treat their children in a similar manner. As the general public debate goes, the fact that some homosexuals make bad parents is an argument against homosexuality. Yet this same leap is somehow inappropriate when applied to heterosexuals. How does the fact of bad heterosexual parents constitute an argument against heterosexuality?

    Likewise, the fact of domestic violence among homosexuals is relentlessly held up as an argument against homosexuality. How does the fact of domestic violence among heterosexuals constitute an argument against heterosexuality?

    I would propose that homophobia in this form is a significant contributor to silence. The fundamental connection in the argument of domestic violence to homosexuality can condition a response that, "I am a homosexual and a victim of domestic violence, therefore I am a bad person." Even taken in its absolute best context, that a homosexual is aware of bigotry and therefore remains silent so as not to inflame and empower further oppression, we face a perverse outcome.

    The argument that gays "hypocritically conceal their despicable and criminal behavior" tends to place the burden on homosexual victims of domestic violence. The general context of public discourse does not view hypocrisy as a symptom of victimization, but rather a form of aggression. If we should prefer, then, to open the context of accused hypocrisy to consider the possibility that hypocrites are manifesting a symptom of victimization, that is certainly fine with me. In fact, I think it's about time we did so. However, the general trend toward denouncing the hypocrite as an aggressor is exactly what prompts this inquiry.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    One of my favorite feminist quotes comes from Simone de Beauvoir, who asserted that there are two kinds of people: human beings and women. And when women start acting like human beings, they are accused of trying to be men.
    And it's a stupid bullshit quote. But then, what does one expect from a dumb ignorant motherfucking feminist?
    Last edited by lepustimidus; 06-05-08 at 05:31 PM.

  5. #305
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,674

    Cool Mod Hat - Contribute or don't bother posting in EM&J

    Mod Hat — Contribute or don't bother posting in EM&J

    Quote Originally Posted by Lepustimidus

    And it's a stupid bullshit quote. But then, what does one expect from a dumb ignorant motherfucking feminist?
    Either contribute something substantial to the topics in EM&J or else take your angry, special-needs routine elsewhere.

    This is your only warning.

  6. #306
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Tiassa, I hate to annoy you, but I invested a lot of effort in answering your post, could you perhaps return the favor?

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=294

    Thank you in advance, and I apologize if you planned to respond but have not had time...
    Last edited by Randwolf; 06-05-08 at 09:29 PM.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    Would you postulate that the silence surrounding domestic violence among homosexuals is purely a matter of personal corruption, or is it possible that cultural influences—including homophobia—contribute significantly to the outcome?

    yes tiassa, yes
    of course it is the latter

    /miffed

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    Mod Hat — Contribute or don't bother posting in EM&J



    Either contribute something substantial to the topics in EM&J or else take your angry, special-needs routine elsewhere.

    This is your only warning.
    I simply disagreed with your quote, Tiassa. What, now I'm not allowed to point out when one of your paragon's is talking out their ass?

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    I will attempt to give broader consideration to your post later, but this part really stood out.

    well it is gratifying to see the intentionally loaded rhetoric have its intended effect.

    /smirk

    now, it would be in everyone's interest if this "broader consideration" include an examination of the validity of common perceptions or conventional wisdom if you prefer.

    let me explain.... the fear is that admitting that women are actually humans just like men, given to the same fears, foibles and hang ups, would somehow reinforce and amplify misogynistic and sexist attitudes.

    show me. is this actually the case? give examples. present case studies. cite laws. give me anything that has a direct and unambiguous correlation to the proposition that airing ones dirty laundry (lesbian battery and rape) would adversely impact the hard won battles for equality and perhaps cause a regression to a........victorian nightmare

  10. #310
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Come on Gustav... You know "they" are not going to respond to you in any logical or coherent fashion...

    /pearls before swine

  11. #311
    first off...welcome. a worthy addition
    second....you are a noob. you dont know shit about sciforums
    or me

    i can adopt the feminazi position and prevail

  12. #312
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Gustav, I am quite sure you could prevail in just about any situation you might encounter...

    And now, the tables are turned. My turn to ask...

    Do you think my remark was adversarial? Let's think...

    I am trying to draw the rats out of their hiding places...

    I am, most definitely, a noob here at sciforums.... But, one forum is similar to the next, logic and common sense usually prevail, etc....

    Gustav, I look forward to many campaigns... Stamp out idiocy!

    Oh, Greetings and felicitations....

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by lepustimidus View Post
    And it's a stupid bullshit quote. But then, what does one expect from a dumb ignorant motherfucking feminist?
    I'm sorry that you are against women's rights, but I have to disagree with you. I think this is quite a valid quote. Things that are considered part of "human nature" are usually associated with men. To stay on topic, I'll use sex drive as an example. When a man as many of you have mentioned can't seem to control himself in a sexual situation or has an insatiable sexual drive. Thats to be expected, but if a woman has a strong sex drive and isn't offended or put off by dirty jokes then she's just acting like a guy or behaves too much like a man. Because real women don't like sex and they are offended by off color jokes, they are only interested in love, and babies, and vacuums, and more babies.

  14. #314
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Randwolf View Post
    Hi CutsieMarie89, I think I might have misunderstood you here...

    Are you saying that your attire actually influenced "practically every guy in the room"'s behavior?

    OMG, no say it ain't so...

    That would mean that you could influence the probability of certain reactive behavior by what you choose to wear (or not wear). How can this be? Isn't sexual harassment just, like, totally random?
    Quote Originally Posted by CutsieMarie89 View Post
    I'm sorry that you are against women's rights, but I have to disagree with you. I think this is quite a valid quote. Things that are considered part of "human nature" are usually associated with men. To stay on topic, I'll use sex drive as an example. When a man as many of you have mentioned can't seem to control himself in a sexual situation or has an insatiable sexual drive. Thats to be expected, but if a woman has a strong sex drive and isn't offended or put off by dirty jokes then she's just acting like a guy or behaves too much like a man. Because real women don't like sex and they are offended by off color jokes, they are only interested in love, and babies, and vacuums, and more babies.
    As usual from this camp, no direct answer to my questions...

    _________________________________________

    OK people, let's try to stay on topic...
    _________________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Randwolf View Post
    Let's summarize..

    Maybe we can agree on some points:
    1. Rape exists
    2. Rape is usually perpetrated on women
    3. Rape is bad
    4. Reducing the incidence of rape is good

    You with me so far?

    Now it gets dicey...

    How can society as a whole or people as individuals reduce the incidence of rape?

    ...

    Let me ask a very simple question:

    Would you advocate that it is a good idea for your daughter (girlfriend, sister, mother, etc.) to walk around a known criminal area in a bikini?

    Yes or No? If no, why not?

    And let's assume that for some reason she wants to do this, don't avoid the issue...
    It gets better...

    Here are some suggestions, from a most vehement opponent... (although silent as of late)

    Quote Originally Posted by sniffy View Post
    Ok lets play
    I lived in the city so I took the 'precautions'.

    1. I was fit and could run fast and I never wore shoes that would stop me from running.

    2. Anyway if ever i did wear shoes that would make it difficult to run I figured I could kick them off and run like hell or even use them as a weapon.

    3....we never hung around with the drunks cos we knew it could easily 'kick off' usually over some trivial matter.

    4. We didn't drink too much

    5. I always did was wear a long double-breasted coat which buttoned up the front.

    6. I tucked the hair in so in the dim night it just looked like short hair.

    7. Ok now another thing I've always hated handbags and would NEVER carry one cos they were an easy target for theft and identified you as a bit girlie (feminazi!).

    8. I would only ever take out money stashed in pockets , door keys and a comb - the latter two of course that any self respecting self defence teacher would tell you can be used as weapons. So whenever I walked along I always kept a hand on my keys with one of them primed for a good eye gouging.

    9. Keep to well lit areas and main roads where possible;

    10. don't take short cuts;

    11. walk tough and swiftly as if you are have somewhere to get to.

    12. Don't engage anyone in eye contact as eye contact can act as a trigger.

    13. If you hear footsteps behind you cross to the other side of the road,

    14. if footsteps persist and you feel threatened go to a brightly lit house and hammer on the door;

    15. shout, scream, shout "no" or "help", although bear in mind that this can agitate a potential assailant and actually precipitate an attack.
    ...

    What's wrong with taking these precautions? Would you seriously tell a loved one not to behave in this fashion?

    Let me know...

  15. #315
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Gustav...

    Addendum to

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=312

    and

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=311

    "/pearls before swine"

    You didn't seriously think this was directed towards you, did you?

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by Randwolf View Post
    Do you think my remark was adversarial? Let's think...

    I am trying to draw the rats out of their hiding places...
    yes, it was. so fucking what

    sci is not a fast food forums
    we post at our convenience not another's
    a day, week, month, year or whatever

    furthermore, an acknowledgment of an argument can be overt or covert
    an actual post to the former, a non response or lack of, to the latter.
    be content either way. it is always fun tho to rub salt on the wounds. childish but fun

    i find it thus interesting that you exhibit a discordance with the events that have unfolded. you have prevailed and you appear not to know it.

    a job well done
    our inhumanity and disdain toward one another persists unabated
    congratulations to all

    Quote Originally Posted by Randwolf View Post

    You didn't seriously think this was directed towards you, did you?

    i suggest you keep your wits about you
    Last edited by Gustav; 06-06-08 at 12:02 AM.

  17. #317
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,674

    Cool Easy fear in patterned leaves

    Quote Originally Posted by Randwolf

    Tiassa, I hate to annoy you, but I invested a lot of effort in answering your post, could you perhaps return the favor?
    My pleasure.

    ... let's think about the cost/benefit ratio...

    1. Dress appropriately - cost: some inconvenience, perhaps even minor loss of freedom. benefit: oh, I don't know, the prevention of even one rape?
    (Again, appropriately is stressed, as I have tried to say before, it is not necessarily the scantiness of clothing at issue here, at least not for me. It is more a matter of simply acknowledging that behavior, in this case choice of attire, can affect outcome. Wear a bikini to the beach, evening clothes to a cocktail party, sexy clothes to the nightclub, conservative clothes to the office, etc.) Now, I don't consider this view misogynist, or even sexist, because I advocate the exact same thing for males!

    2. ...separating female children from male family members - cost: Complete disintegration (for good or bad) of the nuclear family. Loss of many enriching experiences while growing up. Lack of appreciation for others viewpoints. An even larger gap in understanding between the sexes. Perhaps, an even greater occurence of "stranger" rapes later on in life, because we tend to attack that which we do not understand... benefit: The prevention of several rapes.

    This part of your argument seems reactionary in its own right. Try this analogy - I will lock my doors at night because it is very easy for me to do, and will help prevent burglary. I will not surround my house with a moat, a ten foot high brickwall topped with concertina wire, and post armed guards about the grounds. Why not? Isn't it obvious that these measures would probably eliminate a far greater percentage of home invasions than a $2.00 latch? Well, maybe, but at what cost? I hope this clarifies things a little...
    The word appropriately sticks out, and not just because of the boldface. Sometimes dressing appropriately for the occasion means wearing something someone might consider arousing, including an evening dress, sexy clothes to a nightclub, or a bikini at the beach, to use your examples. Some people consider certain business attire a turn-on.

    Additionally, I would ask you to consider whether or not your advocacy of the exact same thing for males is relevant. Aside from the basic fact of forced or coerced sexual intercourse, how often is dress considered a factor in the rape of males? I would propose that the answer is considerably less than that slender portion in which it might be a deciding factor for the rape of a woman.

    To return for a moment to propriety of attire, what of a young boy on a swim team? Quite obviously, a Speedo swimsuit is appropriate attire for a swim meet. And, quite obviously, some people find that look titillating.

    Consider a creepy phrase: "I see you parading around in your tight swimsuit. I know you like it. I know what you want."

    Replace "tight swimsuit" with other clothing, like "skimpy dress" or "tight jeans and halter top". Maybe the sexy clothes at a nightclub or theme party—appropriate for the occasion—drew the attention of the rapist. And maybe the rape occurred later, at a time when the victim was wearing baggy jeans and a frumpy sweatshirt.

    Regarding your second point: you have identified the problem almost exactly. I would dispute the word several; it is likely more appropriate to say many.

    However, I'm not sure you're in a position to complain that the extrapolation is reactionary. To revisit a point I've made repeatedly in this discussion:

    • The problem is that the current advocacy of precautions seems unwilling to discuss the full range of those precautions, preferring instead to exploit a really cheap men's sexual fantasy about a scantily-clad, innocent woman wandering alone through dark alleyways as the sex-hungry pervert vampires assemble and consider the harm they can do. (#1878030/90)

    • I have attempted repeatedly to address the implications of the excuses put forward according to this scenario, and get nothing in response except a blind repetition of the excuses. (#1879170/123)

    • So why don't you enumerate for us your rape-prevention dress code? (ibid)

    • So start with that. As you enumerate your rape-prevention dress code, consider that what you don't think of as overtly sexy will still turn men on. (ibid)

    • The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument. (#1884434/244)

    • As I said, these precautions are an open-ended proposition. And they fail to address the perpetuation of ideas justifying or even encouraging rape. (#1884557/253)

    • Yeah. People should always take precautions. In this case, however, the open-ended proposition is untenable .... (ibid)

    • Maybe, but the precaution advocates don't seem to be up for it. As I noted earlier in the discussion:
    The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument.(#1884721/262)

    • Furthermore, even when prodded to clarify in ways that might defuse people's disgust, they're providing only the most general of outlines. "There are heaps of clothing that ... aren't designed to get male attention." That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it? (ibid)

    It should be noted that Codanblad offered a general and, as noted in #262, unsatisfactory boundary. Indeed, that boundary was more of an anti-response, as it gave a vague suggestion that there are "heaps of clothes" that apparently do not inspire rapists, and is a bit more specific about what does apparently inspire rapists.

    You did, in your reply, present a paragraph pretending to respond; I will address it here, out of order:

    This is obviously an opinion, and one that I disagree with. If we can gain consensus on the basic idea that behavior can alter the likelihood of sexual assault, perhaps we can move on to a discussion of what is prudent in this area. I have tried to head this debate in that direction several times. Problem is, this line of reasoning gets sidetracked and bogged down in the whole "transferring blame /responsibilty" and "misogyny" issue. That doesn't not seem constructive to me, but I am at loss as how to proceed. Do you have any ideas on how to "move on", so to speak?
    In the first place, what you consider "obviously an opinion" seems fairly demonstrable. You even make the point for me. Missing from your response is any suggestion of those boundaries. Rather, you ask me for ideas.

    If you are interested in proscribing the boundaries of your precaution argument, then by all means do so. If not, don't complain that the extrapolation is reactionary.

    Huh? I'm not following this... "Evenly around this argument?" What are you going on about? I draw on whatever I think might aid in conveying a point of view, whatever is expedient.
    It's kind of like politics. "Yes, I made a mistake, but everyone is making the same mistake." Except your assignation of hyperbole is disproportionate compared to the record. For instance, as you noted:

    Who here, or anywhere else has "advocated" rape, explicitly or de facto? Isn't this position founded on an implicite interpretation of a particular post? I highly doubt anyone is condoning rape. Of course, you can argue that "they don't know they are doing it, it's subconcious", but I just don't buy it. Where is your evidence of this "advocacy of rape", de facto or otherwise?
    What about the phrase "asking for it" doesn't assign blame for a rape to the victim? How, in blaming the victim, would we not justify the rapist? Oh, they were equally to blame, maybe? O-tay. Then let us punish the victim as well. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

    Saudi Arabia defended on Tuesday a court's decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes of the whip, after the United States described the verdict as "astonishing".

    The 19-year-old Shi'ite woman from the town of Qatif in the Eastern Province and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.

    Ruling according to Saudi Arabia's strict reading of Islamic law, a court had originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between 10 months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.

    Last week the Supreme Judicial Council increased the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison and ordered the rapists to serve between two and nine years in jail.


    (Reuters)
    Furthermore, let us consider the evolution of the discussion as relates to the phrase "asked for it". Our neighbor Francois wrote, in the early going:

    "I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it." (#1869513/13)

    And this is where a dying thread suddenly launched into the stratosphere. Accused of attempting to "mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate" rape, he focused on the word justify and chose the belligerent response. Yet despite his anger, he chose to blame victims for being raped.

    Seriously. Admittedly, the discussion was a mess by the time you joined it. Perhaps you overlooked that part:

    "I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make." (#1871614/21)

    And so on:

    "Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes." (#1871793/24)

    He even compared what a woman wears to the provocation of assaulting someone:

    "If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid." (#1876836/56)

    And repeated the point:

    "For example, if you walk out of your doorstep and get murdered instantly for no apparent reason, that's different from provoking a thug in a dark alley and getting murdered: there are different levels of culpability here. The same is true for all crimes, including rape." (#1877762/68)

    It is worth pointing out here, also, that as some of us live in a country where asking directions or being a homeless kid looking for food in a trash can is sufficient cause for someone to shoot you to death, it's a hard case to sell that someone who kills you in self-defense is murder.

    And all the while, he remained belligerent. In an interesting twist, Francois attempted to assert that the phrase "asking for it" is synonymous with "you should expect a much greater than average probability":

    " Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.

    So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are.
    " (#1878006/87)

    And he was emphatic:

    "They. Mean. The. Same. Thing." (ibid)

    In the face of overwhelming opposition, Francois reconsidered his statement—

    "If I'm to be completely honest, I originally carefully considered whether or not I should have used the phrase "asking for it." I thought about it, and it means the same exact thing. How does it not mean the same exact thing?" (#1878036/91)

    —and reaffirmed himself.

    He even claimed that by not blaming the woman, we are insulting rape survivors—

    "All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped. You're not allowing for a difference. How insulting to women who have had rapists break into their homes to rape them! If you're going to be so insulting to those women, why don't you complete the deal by slapping them in the face and calling them whores?" (#1878120/101)

    —and accused people who disagreed with his equivocation of being crazy:

    "Alright man. You see no difference. Fine. I call that crazy, and I believe other rational people would too." (#1878184/103)

    Francois withdrew or temporarily exited the discussion two-hundred posts ago, still holding the line.

    Moving on ....

    Codanblad's part is a bit shorter. He entered the discussion by picking up Francois' point—

    "a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex ...." (#1878878/119)

    —and even attempted to reduce men to unthinking sex machines:

    "i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." (ibid)

    And while he tried to claim that he was "in no way encouraging or condoning rape", it seems rather fallacious to say that something is the way it is, but he's not encouraging or condoning it; rather, if it is the way it is, there is no encouraging or condoning it.

    Reducing men to unthinking animals or machines—

    "... if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (ibid)

    —is a mitigating assertion.

    Here we return to my first response to the "asking for it" rhetoric. Acknowledging that rape is a fact, I told Francois to "Stop trying to mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate it".

    The counterpoint has been that nobody is trying to justify rape. The response to that has been to focus on the word justify. But even this approach fails under scrutiny.

    The animal and grenade comparisons suggest that while an outcome is bad, it is somehow unavoidable. With an unavoidable outcome, there is no moral or ethical question about it. Removing the moral or ethical question from rape is certainly a form of mitigation. In excusing rape as such, one does, in fact, justify it: Because of ____, the rapist bears less culpability. In justifying rapists, one inherently advocates on their behalf, thus advocating the effects of their behavior.

    mit·i·gate

    2 a: to make less severe or painful : alleviate b: extenuate

    • • •

    jus·ti·fy

    1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable

    • • •

    2ad·vo·cate

    : to plead in favor of


    (Merriam-Webster)

    The animal or mechanical argument does, in fact, make less severe the transgression of the rapist. After all, it's just the way it is. Animals and machines are amoral. Indeed, a natural process is inherently reasonable, owing to the fact that it is a natural process. Do you look at a volcanic eruption and say, "Now, that's just not reasonable!" Sure, the event might ruin your day—or even your life—but reasonability does not enter the discussion. And, certainly, asserting that men are animals or machines is to plead in their favor: We should not be so hard on rapists because it is a natural process and consequence without any morality, much like the behavior of animals or machines.

    Codanblad even expressed sympathy with the rapists:

    "i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals" (#1879105/121)

    I find that point particularly unsettling.

    But he did try to distance himself from his statements in the course of a couple of posts (#130, #132), and while he would still place the burden of calculating men's minds, intentions, and behavior onto women, he has, over the long run, taken a slightly more moderate approach.

    What we are dealing with is more than "position founded on an implicite interpretation of a particular post". The amount of interpretation involved is minimal, and pertains largely to people's understanding of the definitions of words. Given the record of this topic, I wonder, on the one hand, at your questions about evidence while, to the other, acknowledge that you might simply have missed them by joining the fracas in media res.

    Strictly speaking, I suppose you are right, our lives will be diminished to some extent. This does not change the fact that precautions may reduce the chance of sexual assault. Some sort of balance is called for, this aspect of the world is no different than any other - life is a tradeoff.
    Not all trade-offs are equal. Some would compare women to cars, or rape to getting hit by a car. What is the dress code? What are the precautions? Are they specific to rape, or applicable to other crimes?

    Hey, I love topless beaches. The more the better...
    And yet we find all those women, apparently encouraging rapists. Or, as the arguments have them, "asking for it", attacking people, or pulling the pin on a grenade.

    Who said anything about women being expected to be stoic?
    It is the eventual result of the open-ended precaution argument.

    2stoic

    2: not affected by or showing passion or feeling; especially : firmly restraining response to pain or distress <a stoic indifference to cold>


    (Merriam-Webster)

    Stoicism in this form is the alternative to going absolutely fucking bonkers while hiding away in fear as a precaution; it is the alternative to expressing one's passions or feelings, especially, as the present consideration has it, when those expressions might somehow "ask" for rape.

    And what does this have to do with anything?
    Consider your declaration that you are not being misogynist because you would expect the exact same thing from men. While men undoubtedly are raped, the threat and fear are considerably less pervasive.

    Furthermore, I thought the concept of whether precautions and prudence offered anything more than "an illusion of safety" was the whole issue here. What if it is not an illusion? What then? What if it is real in at least some cases? Why would we throw out the idea? Is the cost/benefit ratio too low? Are we simply unable to discuss the topic because of the "de facto" implications? Maybe?
    We cannot assess the costs or benefits of precaution and prudence until its advocates provide some sense of the dimensions. Some would compare the precautions against rape to locking your car door or looking both ways before crossing the street. Such analogies are ludicrously understated.

    Cite your source
    I'm still looking for specific enough numbers. However, given that we have thus far been expected to consider a hyperexaggerated caricature, a couple of things on the part of the precaution advocates would help:

    • Realistic and genuine acknowledgment of the diversity of what stimulates people.

    • Again, it would be helpful if the precaution advocates would offer some realistic and genuine suggestion of precautions; on this particular point, we should explore what constitutes conservative dress, and whether or not it is possible that one still might find that appearance stimulating.

    Even in your opinion, what does "infintesimal" mean? How "infintesimal" is the effect to the rape victim(s) in question?
    Given that, compared to the overall phenomenon of rape, the hyperexaggerated caricature of stimulating dress and conduct we've been repeatedly asked to work with, the number of rapes we are arguing about is a mere fraction of the total, and furthermore considering that a rape "prevented", in this case, can also mean "displaced to another victim", the number of rapes truly prevented—e.g., to rape this woman or nobody at all—is, it would seem,

    2infinitesimal

    1 : taking on values arbitrarily close to but greater than zero
    2 : immeasurably or incalculably small <an infinitesimal difference>


    (Merriam-Webster)

    The appeal to emotion—"How 'infintesimal' is the effect to the rape victim(s) in question?"—is a valid question, but in a different discussion. In the present context, you are attempting to address rape on a case-by-case basis, which leads to this open-ended theory of precaution, which leads to a choice for women between two forms of injustice.

    And while you seem to consider a broader address of rape a "great idea", here we find ourselves cycling back to simply asking women to choose between two forms of injustice.

    Personally, I think the choice of the words "asking for it" was certainly not a wise one. However inappropriate those words may have been though, I would hope that people are mature enough to look past this and focus on the actual issue. Can a woman's behavior influence her likelihood of being sexually assaulted / raped? If so, what measures make sense? Could we just try addressing these questions without the inflammator rhetoric prevalent thus far? Like, please?
    Some would say the actual issue is the broader question of the rape phenomenon. Quite clearly, the injection of "asking for it" caught a number of people off-guard. After all, the topic post dealt with arguments of sexual harassment, and the obligations of women to suppress themselves in order to avoid such treatment. Indeed, the arguments in the prior topic were much the same: Men can't help themselves, so it's up to women to figure out what the hell titillates this or that individual man and take necessary precautions to avoid inciting harassment.

    The reality is that the vast majority of men who behave in such manner have no excuse. They ought to be able to control themselves. A complicating factor, as noted earlier in the discussion, is how these men are educated regarding human respect. In this sense, we might propose four general categories of rapist to serve our purpose:

    (1) Ignorant — These are the vast majority, the date rapists and such who justify themselves by falling back onto the very principles they were taught. Theoretically, we can educate future generations to eliminate (maybe) or greatly reduce (likely) the number of these rapists. The failures of this approach fall into the other categories.

    (2) Criminally Stupid — There are some out there who are simply too stupid to understand concepts of human respect. They would be, as such, the ignorant who just don't get it.

    (3) Dysfunctional — These need specific, possibly inpatient, help; they are unable to control themselves.

    (4) Sociopathic — These are beyond reach.

    The goal is to eliminate ignorance. Unfortunately, it might be that the only way to separate the stupid from the ignorant is when the failure to understand is manifested in a rape. Given that these rapes will include dramatic proportions that have nothing to do with a woman's dress—e.g. marital and date rape, and, also, as Deep Thought has noted, assertions of vengeance and propriety—we still have before us the questions of the significance of appearance and the diversity of stimulation. We might also include under the rubric of stupidity rapes attributed to superstition, such as the HIV/virgin myth. It is worth noting that, while Africa is the most common focus about this myth, it also persists in places many consider more modern and civilized:

    A recent survey conducted by UNISA at the Daimler Chrysler plant in East London, found that 18 percent of the 498 workers questioned believed that having sex with a virgin would cure HIV/AIDS.

    (IRIN)
    While some of the dysfunctional are capable of seeking help, the majority of these, along with the sociopaths, will likely only emerge when they commit a rape. In these cases, while appearance may be offered as an excuse or defense, the reality is—especially in the case of sociopaths—that such an argument is merely exploitative and not genuine.

    Even with the ignorant and stupid, we are presuming that the justification put forth after the fact is, in fact, genuine, and not merely an excuse; we cannot presume that these rapes would not have occurred anyway.

    Few precautions beyond total lifetime sequestration of women will have even remotely significant impact compared to the scale of the general rape phenomenon.

    Tiassa, perhaps we are frustrated, can you blame us?
    It would probably be useless to turn the question back at you. And yes, you do bear a heavy element of culpability. Between the proposal itself and the ongoing lack of definition suggests that the argument is, to a significant degree, thoughtless. Certainly, it seems a convenient argument, but placing on women the burden of calculating the desires, intentions, and behavior of men is something akin to treating cancer with a Band-Aid.

    As far as "personal pride" is concerned, I'm afraid you have lost me again.
    The most ferocious part of the argument put forth by the precaution advocates, and certainly no small portion of the words they have spent, has had to do with defense of their character. While they want to believe and advocate a certain position, they do not want or appreciate its implications.

    No, but neither is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the central issue. Can a woman's behavior (attire if you prefer) alter the probability of sexual assault?
    Depends on the behavior. As I noted above, we cannot presume that an attire defense put forth by any given rapist is necessarily genuine.

    If so, what sensible steps can be taken to mitigate the risk?
    It depends entirely on what one considers sensible. We return to the point that the precaution advocates have yet to outline the range of sensible, reasonable, or effective measures.

    Aren't these the real questions?
    They are the real questions if we are to assign women the burden of calculating or predicting the desires, intentions, and behavior of any given male.

    As far as specifics, I can't even seem to get consensus that it is not a good idea to walk naked down certain city streets, let alone the advisibility of wearing a turleneck sweater to a cocktail party. That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it?
    What is wrong with a turtleneck at a cocktail party?

    Walking naked down certain city streets? Come on, man, we're back to caricatures on that one.

    OK, and...?
    And?

    Okay, I'll take a chance on what you mean and reiterate:

    Anyone should be able to feel sexy without inviting anyone and everyone to hop on. (#1884434/244)

    Theoretically, yes. But, and it is a big but, is that advisable? What are the costs / benefits?
    At some point, this whole open-ended precaution theory gets ridiculous, doesn't it?

    No, it doesn't "transfer the responsibility". If anything, it would seem to empower women. Wouldn't you rather have some control of your destiny than simply be told "deal with it, that's life"?
    That is absurd. You are proposing that the obligation to live in fear is empowering. Let's try out that approach: "Hmm ... it's a really cute blouse, but someone might rape me for wearing it. Okay, I won't buy it. How empowering it is to be afraid!"

    How does prudence preclude implementation of any other valid methods of preventing rape?
    The insistence on open-ended precaution theory instead of finding ways to help men account for their behavior before things come to such a drastic point as rape only precludes the latter because its advocates (A) insist on the one instead of the other, and (B) refuse to delineate any boundaries.

    It seems to me that paranoia is rampant on both sides of this discussion. That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it?
    Neither was that.

    Where you have missed the point here is that the open-ended precaution argument at present ranges all the way to paranoia. Without boundaries, it includes things like burqas and sequestration.

    What exactly are you getting at here? It seems to smack of determinism. Are you proposing that there are a "fixed" number of rapes that are going to occur regardless? That if one person reduces their chances of being sexually assaulted, it increases someone else's chance? Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
    To revisit the footnote from the post you are responding to:

    While taking certain precautions might bring certain benefits, all one has accomplished is individual protection. This result cannot be dismissed as unimportant, but it does nothing about the general problem. And history suggests quite clearly that broad sexual repression within a culture doesn't do much about rape itself. If all women became stoics, the culture would adjust. An ankle? A knee? An exposed forearm? The definition of suggestive, provocative, slutty, ill-repute, &c., is not static. (#1884721/262)

    It persists because it intuitively seems to have merit. And, if there is any validity to the "precautionary" argument, it certainly is not going to be "insignificant" to the individual who's destiny is altered by taking those precautions.
    Destiny. That's a powerful word, isn't it?

    And it's a fairly strong appeal to emotion. That a woman's daily affirmation might be, "Hooray! I didn't get raped today! Good for me! I'm such a good girl!" is just a bit sickening. Furthermore, "destiny" is not guaranteed by precautions.

    We return again to the question of what precautions you advocate:

    I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify. (#1884434/244)

    Look, I'm aware that it's a difficult list to conceive. But you're pushing an amorphous theory on fallacious appeals to emotion. One wonders why the precaution advocates are so unwilling to even try.

    We are in complete agreement here.
    And yet you seem to be giving over to the darkness. What seems so obvious to you, left without any form or boundary, cascades into a tragic and ghastly condition. Asking women to blindly leap into such a fearful abyss is simply unkind. As long as we concentrate so exclusively on individual avoidance, we do nothing to address the general rape phenomenon. This is beyond unkind. It is vicious.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Reid, Scott M. and Dan Albano. "Secret snapshots". OCVarsity.com. January 19, 2008. http://www.ocvarsity.com/ocvarsity/h...le_1962662.php

    Hammond, Andrew. "Saudi defends verdict against gang-rape victim". Reuters. November 20, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...57524920071120

    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/

    IRIN. "SOUTH AFRICA: Focus on the virgin myth and HIV/AIDS". April 25, 2002. http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=39838

  18. #318
    I'm sorry Randwolf, I must have skipped over your post or something. Your right I don't think that sexual harrassment is really a random event. All I was saying before is that you can't predict what it is that some weirdo in a park is looking for or is attracted to. I seem to attract unwanted attention no matter what I wear. I even cover my face with a hat. I guess I should invest in a paper bag. So frustrating.

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    The word appropriately sticks out, and not just because of the boldface. Sometimes dressing appropriately for the occasion means wearing something someone might consider arousing, including an evening dress, sexy clothes to a nightclub, or a bikini at the beach, to use your examples. Some people consider certain business attire a turn-on.

    not too shabby
    you introduce rapist with a fetish as an argument against precautionary measures?

  20. #320
    Ignorance killed the cat Randwolf's Avatar
    Posts
    3,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    yes, it was. so fucking what

    sci is not a fast food forums
    we post at our convenience not another's
    a day, week, month, year or whatever

    furthermore, an acknowledgment of an argument can be overt or covert
    an actual post to the former, a non response or lack of, to the latter.
    be content either way. it is always fun tho to rub salt on the wounds. childish but fun

    i find it thus interesting that you exhibit a discordance with the events that have unfolded. you have prevailed and you appear not to know it.

    a job well done
    our inhumanity and disdain toward one another persists unabated
    congratulations to all

    i suggest you keep your wits about you
    Thank you... (I think?)

    And yes, I am aware that I am prevailing here, except perhaps for Tiassa, but we shall see...

    I'm still not sure that this means I should...

    "allow no quarter"
    "take no prisoners"
    "show no mercy"

    Anyways, it was real, it was fun...

    Oh, and I will try to keep my wits close, and under surveillance!

    (by the way, it really wasn't)
    "

Similar Threads

  1. By S.A.M. in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 06-02-08, 06:13 PM
    Replies: 117
  2. By ashpwner in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 05-30-08, 08:54 PM
    Replies: 43
  3. By James R in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 06-18-07, 05:41 PM
    Replies: 513
  4. By Zardozi in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 05-25-07, 12:42 PM
    Replies: 2
  5. By Solve et Coagula in forum Politics
    Last Post: 02-22-06, 06:44 PM
    Replies: 4

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •