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

[Randwolf]

I'm going to try to go about this in a little different fashion today.

Hypothesis: Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce the likelihood of sexual assault.

Question: Does a woman's behavior, and by extension, her attire, influence in any way the probability of being sexually assaulted?

Arguments:

1. People's behavior influences future events, and

2. Prudence and observing precautions are facets of behavior that can influence future events, and

-- therefore --

A. Future events can be influenced, at least to some extent, by observing precautions.

3. Rape and sexual assault are potential future events, even for those people that have already been unfortunate enough to experience them.

4. These precautions can be discussed without denigrating anyone, including women, without "transferring blame", and without restricting legal rights nor anyone's freedom to engage in risky behavior.


Counterarguments that have been proposed throughout this thread: (most of which are logical fallacies)

1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)

* Note to the casual reader: Do not be put off by the sheer volume of fallacies discovered in the anti-precautionary counterarguments and listed below. Just skip to the bottom of the post for the conclusion and some suggestions. These are just here to give Tiassa something to do, and I am sure I will receive a point by point, eloquent rebuttal in about five minutes. Don't know how he does it but bless his heart.



Let's define:

From Wikipedia...
the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

From Wikipedia...
[Anectdotal evidence is] evidence which may itself be true and verifiable [but] is used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence.

From dictionary.reference.com...
hy·per·bo·le
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

From dictionary.reference.com...
non se·qui·tur
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.



Now let's illustrate the counter arguments and their fallacies, by way of reference and example:

Post #14
I do agree it [walk down the streest scantily clad] would be a fucking idiotic thing to do ... [but] I would hate to live mine in the manner of a prey animal

The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

Post #18 (times 5)
Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)[/indent]

I mean, really, at some point we'll just have women hiding away in burqas, ...

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #54
On a given outing a woman may not have been cautious enough, but this has little to do with justifying rape.

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

Sorry, lost this post # ):
No, you seek to excuse the darker sides of your character and transfer the blame onto women.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #60
This ends up as you say as transferring blame.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #66
So we ought to stop and consider the fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.

So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be seen by men?

My Tiassa, you outdid yourself here...

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Wow, three in one paragraph. Nice...

Post #73
You are putting the blame on the victim...

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #75
Because, frankly, I don't see the dignity in pretending a woman is a car or flatscreen television.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #78
Well, what in a rape is the equivalent of a bank robbery taking place?

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #81
Neither does a Club. Because no matter how much someone wants to blame victims for their suffering, I'm not about to lock down my daughter in such a manner.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #81
In other words, when someone says, "Because we refuse to be civilized, you should simply curtail your freedoms so that we don't 'trespass' on them," it's kind of annoying.

The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

Post #81
Additionally, the current discussion makes some absurd, completely stupid comparisons: rape and car theft, for instance...

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #81
Bells and I have already put the issue of the burqua in front of you.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #86
My expectation is that people should be able to go about their business unmolested.

To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

Post #90
The best thing, then, is for women to simply never be alone with men.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #93
... using that as an excuse, and transferring the blame onto the victim.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #97
Amazing. You are comparing the theft of an unlocked car, its stereo and not taking an umbrella on a cloudy day as being akin to a woman wearing "slutty" clothes attracting rape.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #97
What you keep failing to understand is that the greater majority of rapes are classified as acquaintance rape, in that the victim knows the assailant. It has nothing to do with what the victim happens to be wearing.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #97
Most importantly, you are placing the onus to not be raped on the woman...

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #97
At the end of the day, there is nothing a woman (or man) can do or not do to minimise her (or his) chances of being raped.

Hey, a valid argument! Where's the evidence?

Post #97
...the only way for the victim to not be raped for the individual to never leave their house or be alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #97
Because again, women will more likely be raped by someone in their acquaintance than be raped by a total stranger.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #109
If she wears iron underwear.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #109
Keep in mind that the majority of women who become rape victims are raped by people they know, and that very few rape cases actually involve complete strangers.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #109
You are still placing the onus on the victim to not be raped. And you don't see anything wrong in that?

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #113
The thing is that a woman is not a car, and a man is not the weather.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #113
... chaining your wife or daughter to the radiator.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #120
So we're back to putting our women in burquas?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #123
In truth, something that surprises me is the number of people who say, "I'm not encouraging or condoning rape," turn around and do just that...

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

Post #123
Again: the vast majority of women raped are assaulted by someone known to them.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #124
... objectifiying them and denigrating them...

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #124
Oh dear, that really is blame transference, and sounds like some throwback religious belief.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #128
... we should all wear burqas ...

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

[QUOTE=Bells;1881487] Post #149
You are also ignoring the fact that the greater majority of rape victims know their rapists, in that the rapist is either a relative, spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, workmate, etc. [/QUOTE
Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #149
So the only way of reducing rape numbers or reducing the chance of being raped is to simply never meet with anyone of the opposite sex or of the same sex as well (men do rape other men, as to women rape other women).

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #156
Lastly bells and tiassa are right in there comments that a) rape is MOST common by someone you know (ie a partner, date rape, a family member or a close friend). Random rapes are quite uncommon and though i dont have exact statistics i would guess they are probably around the same level as random murders (ie VERY low)

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Post #156
... we shouldnt be blaming the victom.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #179
So statistically speaking, [B]70% of women who have reported being raped know their attacker...

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

Post #218
Attempts to blame women (oh if only were they to behave differently they wouldn't get raped!) are the bleatings of cowards...

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #219
You don't think women have rights then?

To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

Post #219
I think your sympathies lie with rapists, and not the victims, if that makes my position any clearer for you?

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

Post #220
what about girls who were raped in the 20's and they were wearing a few layers of clothing, and they didnt show anything?

I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

Post #222
Women who are raped could only "avoid it somehow" if they never left the house and cut off contact with people in close situations.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #222
Are you actually suggesting it's womens fault for knowing a rapist, marrying one or simple for leaving the house?

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #222
The only clothing that would make them less of a target is a fucking harry potter magical invisibility cloak

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #225
Your analogy I pulled not on the point it's equating rape with theft

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #244
• Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)


And now, as runner up to Tiassa, we have three in one post... Yay team!

Post #248
Violence on males based on attire (which I would assume is associated with either gang 'culture' or with intent to rob) is not the same as rape

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Post #248
Or lets put it another way. If all women donned a burkha and stood stock still in only in brightly lit places that rapes would go down statistically?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #248
Nor does it alter the fact that the largest % of rapes are not committed by strangers out in the dark...

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

Post #253
Dress conservatively, don't be alone with males, don't go on dates. In other words, get frumpy and hide in your room.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #262
Indeed, the number of rapes that could be prevented by changing one's style is fractional...

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

Post #262
Blaming women for the actions of men

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Post #277
Maybe I should hack off my hair to avoid being grabbed by a rapist...

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Post #296
Hey! I lived in the city so I took the 'precautions'. I was fit and could run fast and I never wore shoes that would stop me from running. 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.
...

So I get's in the taxi.
...

Just out of interest. What do you think happened next?

I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

Every one of these anti-precautionary posts was based, at least in part, around one or more of the fallacies described in the "counterarguments" section.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's set aside, for the moment, the counterargument that possibly the percentage of sexual assaults that could be reduced by reasonable precautions is so small as to preclude any need for precautions in the first place.

There has been little or no evidence presented to actually refute the hypothesis, which seems intuitively self-evident. Also, except for the "deterministic" school of thought, most people would agree that you can influence your future, in general, through your behavior.

Therefore, it would seem to follow that...

Conclusion:
Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults.

These precautions must be defined and applied in ways that do not denigrate women or infringe on their legal rights. As it should be, it is left up to the individual's discretion as to what extent they choose to take these precautions, i.e. the risk versus freedom argument.

Post #78
There is a difference between risk management and living in fear.

Thank you Tiassa!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for something, hopefully, useful...

I find it ironic that the best suggestions for sensible precautions came from the anti-precautionary camp!

Suggestions for evaluation:

Post #296
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.

Post #156
Now we all know there are cirtan things ANYONE can do to protect themselves in SOME situations.

16. For instance making sure you buy your OWN drinks and that no one else every touches them,

Post #159
17. & 18.learn self defense or learn how to wield and carry a weapon, I've managed to do both. Its worked so far... *knock on wood*

Post #231
19. Trust your gut. If you do not feel comfortable in a situation, leave.

20. Be in charge of your own life. Do not put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on other people to take care of you. Also, when on a date, do not feel you owe that person anything.

21. Be cautious inviting someone into your home or going to some else’s home. Three out of five sexual assaults occur in the victim’s home or the home of an acquaintance.

22. Do not mix sexual decisions with drugs and alcohol. Your ability to make smart decisions is hampered when you are high or drunk.

23. When going out with someone new, do not feel you have to go alone. Go on a group date or meet in a public place.

24. Be aware of date rape drugs. Do not accept beverages from open containers and do not leave your drink unattended.

25. Walk near the curb. Avoid passing close shrubbery. Dark doorways or other places of concealment.

26. Avoid falling for lines such as “If you loved me…” if your partner loved you, he/she would respect your feeling and wait until you are ready.

Source: http://www.woar.org/campus_rape.asp

Now, these are definitely potential precautions one can take.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If every woman followed every one of these precautions every time, would one or more sexual assaults be prevented or avoided? Probably.

Is it reasonable to expect anyone to be this consistent, all the time? Probably not.

Does this negate the entire hypothesis? I think not.

It is up to each individual to be prudent to whatever degree they choose. Their rights and freedoms are preserved.

However, there are a lot of very smart people on this forum, and I'm sure we could come up with some more suggestions to add to this laundry list.

If even one person incorporates some of these precautions and it does prevent or avoid even one sexual assault, wasn't all our time worth it?

Wouldn't this, like actually be productive?

[CutsieMarie89]

I didn't read everything you just wrote because I wasn't focusing, but I did get the first part and I think a woman's behavior and how she dresses can influence her chances of being sexually assulted. But as I mentioned earlier, there is no way that a woman can know how any particular clothing item she chooses to wear will affect her chances. I used myself as an example earlier. I've never been sexually assulted, but I am constantly harassed regardless of my clothing choices, so maybe it lies in my behavior somehow.

[Randwolf]

Just curious cutsie, did you happen to scroll to the bottom for the conclusions and, more particularly, the suggestions? This is the area that I would really appreciate some input... Thanks

[Bells]

If every woman followed every one of these precautions every time, would one or more sexual assaults be prevented or avoided? Probably.

Is it reasonable to expect anyone to be this consistent, all the time? Probably not.

Does this negate the entire hypothesis? I think not.

It is up to each individual to be prudent to whatever degree they choose. Their rights and freedoms are preserved.

However, there are a lot of very smart people on this forum, and I'm sure we could come up with some more suggestions to add to this laundry list.

If even one person incorporates some of these precautions and it does prevent or avoid even one sexual assault, wasn't all our time worth it?

Wouldn't this, like actually be productive?

You are assuming that the majority of people, both male and female, do not take such precautions, whether it is against rape or a mugging (as one example). Rapes still happen, regardless. And that is the tragedy of it all. Women and men take numerous precautions, but sometimes things do not always go as planned or expected. Take me for example. I was sexually assaulted by a male I knew and trusted. I supposedly did the right thing and did not go to the 'big scary carpark alone at night', but was accompanied by the very trusted male friend who sexually assaulted me and most probably would have raped me had I not kept my keys in my hand and been able to defend myself by jamming them into his nuts.

Personally, I don't think there is a way to 'prevent' being raped. I can lock my doors and windows at night, but still have an asshat break a window or pick a lock and rape me in my own home. I can take precautions when out at night, but it is still something that is not failsafe. I never walked in parks alone after dark, I never acted or dressed in a provocative manner (in that I am not a sexual tease), etc. But one person I knew and trusted still tried. The hypocrisy of his actions still angers me sometimes... "it's not safe to go to the carpark alone at night.. I'll walk you".. Bleh!

While you can't prevent being raped, you can do something to injure the individual who tries.. whether he/she is successful or not.. you can still injure the perpetrator enough, leave a mark on them so they are more easily identifiable to the police and yourself, hurt them enough that you might just be able to escape. In short, self defense classes.. know who you are and what you are capable of. Learn what you can use to defend yourself against an attacker. While you might not be able to take precautions against being raped (considering the vast number of variables, it would be near impossible), you can still try to defend yourself.

[Randwolf]

You are assuming that the majority of people, both male and female, do not take such precautions, whether it is against rape or a mugging (as one example).

I'm assuming no such thing. Like I said, the whole idea of taking precautions seems self-evidently desirable to me.

Rapes still happen, regardless.

Exactly. Hence..

Conclusion:
Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults.

While you can't prevent being raped, you can do something to injure the individual who tries.. whether he/she is successful or not.. you can still injure the perpetrator enough, leave a mark on them so they are more easily identifiable to the police and yourself, hurt them enough that you might just be able to escape. In short, self defense classes.. know who you are and what you are capable of. Learn what you can use to defend yourself against an attacker.

Now we are getting somewhere - a vote for self defense as a precautionary tactic.

Also, I'm not sure if I interpreted this right, but am I correct in inferring that you also advocate the other common sense precautions, even if only on "general principles"?

It only makes sense, I mean where's the downside, right?

Anyone else with comments on the tactics presented by the members, or maybe some addional precautions to add to the list?

[Simon Anders]

If even one person incorporates some of these precautions and it does prevent or avoid even one sexual assault, wasn't all our time worth it?

Wouldn't this, like actually be productive?

OK. Let's take this at face value. We are making a list of suggestions to help women cut down on the liklihood of them being raped.

1)
Tiassa:
I think this should be moved to a new thread with a more appropriate title. Given the thread title it is very hard to take this as anything but very polished victim blaming. In a new thread, something like 'things women can do to reduce the liklihood they will be raped' for an inelegant suggestion, I think all this altruism could be taken more seriously.

2) I think it might be more productive for the men who think they have some gems to help women not get raped by other men to consider what they could do to reduce the rapists' end of the equation. You might also want to notice that, in fact, there are classes, trainings and books already out there on the subject that is being, now, taken up here.


All that said, here are my suggestions:
My suggestions are strongly influenced by the fact that most rape is committed by men the victims know:
1) Some women need to trust men less, especially in certain situations.
2) Some women need to learn that they have to, on occasion, show their distrust and this may upset men. 'No, I'd rather take a taxi home, but thank you.' Many women and some men have been taught that saying 'no' or showing any distrust of another person - or doing or not doing something that might be interpreted as distrust - is bad.
3) Learn to no brush off warning signals. If something seems threatening, even if it is only a small chance, especially late at night or in private, take steps to get out of the situation. Don't make up excuses for their behavior or feel guilty because some men will think you are a hairy armpitted feminist or hate men or a stuck up bitch - here, men, you might get some hints about how you could reduce the liklihood of rape by confronting other men, rather than giving advice to women.
4) Realize that men who say they can be just your friend may not be able to do that and if you are picking up that they are attracted, they probably are. Nothing wrong in that, but if you are getting warning signals that there is anger in there also, perphaps you need to take those warning signals seriously.
5) If you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable about what a man is giving you - or the favors he does for you, etc. - consider the possibility that you are uncomfortable because he will feel you owe him something. In most instances the worst case is he thinks you are selfish in the end. But this pattern could lead to date rape situations. Again, you must learn not to brush aside warning signals - JUST AS MEN NEED TO STOP FUCKING GOING PAST THEIR FEAR THAT THEY ARE NOT WANTED AND LATER TURNING THAT FEAR INTO ANGER AFTER GOING PAST SOMETIMES FOR YEARS LITTLE SIGNALS AND EVEN OPEN SPEECH THAT LET'S THEM KNOW THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT (another hint area for how men could reduce the milieu of rape and violence against women committed by other men.)

See the way women get boxed in does not happen, generally in alleyways, with the cliche stranger rapist.

1) The boxing in happens in vastly more subtle ways by the way women are punished and categorized by men, including, of course, non-rapists who either nod, initiate these punishments or categorizations, or silently sit there while other men make them.

Men reinforce each others ideas about what a bitch is and whose pussy that really is - who 'should' have access to it - and how crazy, irrational, mixed up women are. (see the 'women love assholes thread' for example. There you have at least one man who notices only a very small portion of the dynamic between men and women. He does not realize that he, just like the women is angry at, is attracted to members of the opposite sex who do not treat him how he would like to be treated. He confuses these women with all women AND does not take responsibility for how similar in many ways he is to them. The end product is that women are crazy in some way and contributing to injustice (he deserves access to their hearts and genitalia) and adds to a climate where rape is more likely. Do I think that guy is a rapist? I haven't even remotely drawn such a conclusion.

There is a gossip laden atmosphere in which men contribute to myths about women and stoke the coals of a rage that is sometimes simmering, sometimes lashes out and in rarer instances lashes out as rape from a small minority of men. But the atmosphere is tacitly or actively added to by many men who would never commit a rape. Some of these men have suggestions about how women can reduce the chances of getting raped and in their interest in focusing on the issue they are sublimating their rage at women. I am sure others have better motives, but that is where the prickly anger comes up, which anyone should understand in a threat entitled as this one is.

2) The boxing in process, generally, is not happening on a dark street and the woman is wearing a short, short skirt and it is 3AM and she is stumbling drunk. It is happening interpersonally between people in bars and parties, sitting in cars. They know each other, at least a bit. And on the woman's side this boxing in is happening - in that area where she has any control at all - because guilt and fears or hurting men's feelings and of being categorized are preventing her from doing or not doing something.

How can you, personally, change the atmosphere of male rage and the ways women are made to look crazy, frigid, stuck up, irrational not giving access to their pussies to the men who really deserve access and so on that makes rape more likely?

How are you already contributing to that boxing in, even though you would never ever consider raping a woman?

[Randwolf]

OK. Let's take this at face value. We are making a list of suggestions to help women cut down on the liklihood of them being raped.

OK... Thanks for the benefit of the doubt there...

1)
Tiassa:
I think this should be moved to a new thread with a more appropriate title. Given the thread title it is very hard to take this as anything but very polished victim blaming. In a new thread, something like 'things women can do to reduce the liklihood they will be raped' for an inelegant suggestion, I think all this altruism could be taken more seriously.

As I discovered after I joined the fray, this topic apparently goes back a long way beyond the beginning of this thread, and has a lot of hysteria and connotations associated with it. I learned this the hard way. In any event, for whatever it's worth, I have no objection to changing the title...

2) I think it might be more productive for the men who think they have some gems to help women not get raped by other men to consider what they could do to reduce the rapists' end of the equation.

It might possibly be more productive, or not, as the case may be. But this proposal would certainly seem to warrant the establishment of a new thread, if you think it might deserve its own topic. Why don't you start one?

All that said, here are my suggestions:

So, even though there seems to be a little reticence on behalf of certain posters to back off the whole mistrust issue, it would seem that the thread has changed tone.

My only question...

Why did it take 341 posts just to get to the point where we could grant that it might be possible for women to help lower their chance of becoming a victim of sexual assault?

All we were getting was flames, histrionics, accusations and straw man arguments.

Anyway, we finally got here...

[shorty_37]

I think post 341 should go down in the Sciforums Record book for longest post.
WTF???? I thought Tiassa held the record but I think Rand just made a new one.

[Tiassa]

Hypothesis: Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce the likelihood of sexual assault.

Question: What qualifies as sensible and prudent? You have provided a list based on other people's suggestions, but left the proposition open-ended.

1. People's behavior influences future events, and

2. Prudence and observing precautions are facets of behavior that can influence future events, and

Relying on general terms like "prudence and observing precautions" doesn't help make any real point.

3. Rape and sexual assault are potential future events, even for those people that have already been unfortunate enough to experience them.

4. These precautions can be discussed without denigrating anyone, including women, without "transferring blame", and without restricting legal rights nor anyone's freedom to engage in risky behavior.

You really ought to try discussing the issue without transferring blame, then.

1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Even when that defense and transference is occurring?

3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

It is fallacious to depend on definitions you refuse to provide.

5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

So what other precautions should a rape survivor have taken?

6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Rape is not unique, although how many other crimes take place inside a person's body?

The problem with analogy comes when it is inapplicable. Comparing women to a cars or laptop computers, for instance, or a men to wild dogs and machines, is an invalid analogy.

Your attempt to avoid this point by leaping from the particular to the general is disingenuous.

7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

Again, disingenuous. The precaution theory is open-ended.

8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Again, disingenuous.

The slender portion of rapes in question has been inflated to a caricature of women. Caricaturizing rape victims is not a worthy discussion.

9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)

A convenient and disingenuous reformulation of arguments fostered by your "different fashion".

These are just here to give Tiassa something to do, and I am sure I will receive a point by point, eloquent rebuttal in about five minutes. Don't know how he does it but bless his heart.

The mechanics of typing will take more than five minutes, but you're pitching softballs. Rancid softballs, but softballs nonetheless.

The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

As with certain prior points, openly disingenuous. You're still leaving the precaution theory open-ended.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Another disingenuous reformulation. Address the problem of the limitless precaution theory.

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

You cited the post number, but apparently didn't pay attention to the context. Discussing the precautions as an open-ended theory, in the context of mitigating a rapist's actions, is a defense of rapists.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Another disingenuous leap from the particular to the general. Phlog's response that you quoted was to the member who originated and never recanted the argument that women, by their attire and location, are asking to be raped.

The same goes for your repetition of "(hyperbole)" in response to Anders' point in #60.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

There are precautions that would help: don't go on dates with men, don't ever be alone (without line of sight to other people) with a man. These are, in principle, unreasonable; while there is some practical merit to such measures, would you consider them prudent?

Personally, I would find it sad should things come to that.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Again, your apathy toward context serves you poorly. And, again, the failure to assign reasonable boundaries to the precaution theory damages its credibility.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Your persistent disdain toward context makes your argument

dis·in·gen·u·ous

: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating

(Merriam-Webster)

• • •

disingenuous

Main Entry: insincere
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: Not being what one purports to be.
Synonyms: ambidextrous, left-handed, mala fide
__________

Main Entry: underhand
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: Marked by treachery or deceit.
Synonyms: devious, duplicitous, guileful, indirect, lubricious, shifty, sneaky, underhanded

(Roget's)

Indeed, the member to whom Bells was responding did attempt to transfer the blame for rape to women.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Disingenuous, which is becoming a fairly distinct pattern for you. As I have noted before, the police cannot recover, and insurance cannot replace what is taken from a rape victim.

Women are not cars. They are not flatscreen televisions. And men are neither thoughtless animals nor brainless machines.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Fallacious and disingenuous restatement. Perhaps at some point you might try answering the question instead of making a point of raising it and then ducking it.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Your litany is ridiculous, Randwolf. Isolating a point from context in order to conveniently reformulate the principle and duck the question is disingenuous at least, and certainly doesn't serve any real argument.

The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

Speaking of avoiding the question, how are you doing on closing up that open-ended precaution theory?

Thought so.

In the meantime, you really do need to pay attention to context:

The current discussion is an excellent example of the problems people encounter with the argument. This topic came about in consideration of an argument about sexual harassment. The argument about how a woman dresses was raised to justify harassment. In other words, when someone says, "Because we refuse to be civilized, you should simply curtail your freedoms so that we don't 'trespass' on them," it's kind of annoying. (#1877939/81)

When you ignore the context (boldfaced above) in order to fallaciously exploit a statement (italic above) and dismiss the issue as a fallacy, you are, in fact, avoiding the issue.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Instead of avoiding the issue, you ought to try addressing it. Is a woman a car or flatscreen television or laptop computer? Can the police recover what the rapist took from her? Can the insurance company replace what she has lost?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Careful, Randwolf. Your persistent refusal to close up the gap through which the precautionary theory spills into such extremes as sequestration and the burqa is verging toward misogyny.

Continuing to avoid the issue only hurts your credibility.

To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

Your refusal of context seems deliberate, which is even worse than simply making you look clueless. If you're clueless, that's something we can still work with. But if you're dishonest, there's not much to be done. Your argument loses tremendous credibility because it's not an argument at all. Rather, it's just a string of convenient, disingenuous reformulations intended to facilitate your continued avoidance of the issue.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

What precautions would you prescribe against date rape? The most effective is to simply not trust men. You might consider that point hyperbole, but until you define the boundaries of precaution theory, it's still in play. And that fact, that such measures are still in play, is what people find so distasteful.

It seems you'd rather duck such ... uh ... "subtleties".

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Your refusal of context precludes you from actually addressing the point Phlog raised. Of course, that seems to be what you intend.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Here, try this the next time you're dealing with a rape survivor: I know how you feel. Someone stole my umbrella last week.

It's not a matter of "unique", which is your own assignation. Rather, it's a matter of scale.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.

Hey, a valid argument! Where's the evidence?

In the fact that people are raped despite the precautions, even extreme ones like sequestration and burqas.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Close up the open-ended precaution theory. Stop avoiding the question: What are the boundaries of the theory?

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Your reformulations seem rather a form of hyperbole, Randwolf. The only person you're actually responding to with such points is yourself.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

I thought it was iron underwear.

Nonetheless, the hyperbole is yours. Stop ignoring the context of the points you are reformulating in order to respond to yourself.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

(Yawn.) Stop avoiding the question with fallacious reformulations that are nothing more than hyperbole.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

How about you? Do you think the fact of someone's sex should assign them the burden of calculating the desires, intentions, and behaviors of the entire opposite sex?

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Are you incapable of figuring out ideas like scale?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Close the gap in the theory, then. That's all I'm asking precautionary theory advocates to do. It is not exactly surprising, at this point, that they refuse to do so.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

As you continue to avoid the question, you might find people wondering how seriously they should take you. On the one hand, your argument—consisting almost entirely of talking to yourself—has no credibility. To the other, your determination to pretend some kind of validity about that process casts you in a dubious light. Why are you so determined to avoid the question while transferring the open-ended, impossible obligation of predicting men's desires, intentions, and actions onto women?

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.

I should probably throw in disgusting here, since by attempting to throw context out the window, you end up tacitly supporting the argument that a woman, by her conduct, attire, or location, "asks" to be raped.

If you actually paid attention to context, you would have saved yourself a good deal of cutting and pasting, and spared other people that bizarre sympathetic agony that comes with watching a person embarrass himself.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

Get a grasp on the context of the portions of the discussion you're citing. If, for instance, we follow your citation back to post #123 and read that portion in context, should we believe you're advocating the proposition that all men are sociopaths? Because I'm pretty sure you're not, although this is largely because you're not really saying anything. You're just repeating a litany of fallacious reformulations designed to make a point of avoiding the issue.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

The context of the point you're trying to dismiss involves the question of whether women are people. How curious that you would rather cry fallacy and avoid the issue.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

At the time I wondered if maybe Phlog had missed some poorly-timed sarcasm on that response. But if we take DT's comment at face value, we have the explicit proposition that women should be completely covered.

I would say it's interesting that you avoided that issue, except it's not.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

You are avoiding the proposition that men are animals without thought or conscience or will, that they are mere brainless machines. Personally, I find that notion rather a bit of hyperbole.

But, you know, whatever helps you duck the question, right?

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

One of the things you have yet to address is the hyperbole that comes in inflating such a small statistical portion of rapes into a caricature in order to pretend it is the standard.

I understand that this is inconvenient to your self-centered fallacy, but you're reducing yourself to a caricature, too.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Precautionary theory at this point is invalid because it is open-ended. There is a gap wide enough to put a planet through, and pretending it doesn't exist does not change the fact that it does.

Since you seem to like loose analogies: If a friend is going on a road trip, and asks me how far it is to the Idaho border, I might choose, if I am so inclined, to respond, "Seattle is in Washington."

Sure, it's a true statement, but it doesn't answer the question.

Moreover, the refusal of the attire faction of precaution theory to address in any reasonable terms what sort of clothes won't inspire a rapist would be akin to responding to the Idaho border question by saying, "There are cities in Washington."

Again, a true statement. But one of absolutely zero value to the question.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

To reiterate a point: A fact in evidence is that, despite some pretty extreme precautions—including sequestration and the burqa—rapes still occur.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Your own leap to hyperbole. Your problem. Stop trying to make it anyone else's.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

You might have a point that Sniffy was overreacting to something; I have a hard time determining what that post responds to. However, this does not license your reformulation in order to duck the broader question.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Again, suggestions that you are aware of the context of the post in question is nowhere to be found in your dismissal.

And this in the same post in which you were lamenting the idea that some people's points might be avoiding the question.

To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

Context. Try it sometime. It helps. It would save you quite a bit of cutting and pasting. Although it won't do much for whatever gratification you seem to get out of these reformulations designed to avoid the issue.

Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

If you bothered with context ... oh, right.

I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

Again, your leap from the particular to the general doesn't work. Your context-blind reformulations don't make much of an argument.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Why are the precaution advocates so afraid to put boundaries on their theory? It's fairly apparent to those who aren't sold to the idea that a woman is responsible for a man's desires, intentions, or behavior.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

You might try answering such a question instead of running away from it.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Apparently, it's inconvenient for the precaution advocates to detail their theory and close the gap. That, in and of itself, is significant, but does it point to the weakness of the advocates or the theory?

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

It was a nice attempt at a snip job.

What are we to think when you appear so blind to the context of discussions you're involved in?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Close the gap in the theory, then. If it's so obvious, this should be a simple job. As such, it is a curious that neither you or any other precaution advocates want to.

And now, as runner up to Tiassa, we have three in one post... Yay team!

Your insincerity—already obvious, but grossly accentuated here—undermines any pretense of credibility you might rely on.

If you don't want to be taken seriously, just say so.

Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

Context, scale, relevance. These are three concepts that seem to have no place in your argument.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Dismissing the question according to a contextually blind reformulation intended to dismiss the question only shows that you want to dismiss the question without answering it.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

It is rather a spectacle that you would put any real effort into supporting such grotesque caricaturization of rape. Or maybe that's the point: you're not really putting any effort into it at all. Which does seem likely, I admit. After all, you're simply attempting to reformulate various points and propositions, with no attention to or care for context, in order to avoid the question.

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

Here's the link to the post you cited. If you can demonstrate that you understand its context, that will be a start. However, as long as you leave precautionary theory open-ended, you are advocating a theory that includes what you seem to think unreasonable or extreme.

If you don't like that implication, then don't advocate the point.

Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence)

Close the gap in the theory then.

On the one hand, I understand that avoiding the issue is easier, but that only points to the question of this particular performance. Obviously, I do not object to long posts, but the remarkable lack of diversity about the content of your post is striking.

Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

Speaking of striking, that's a particularly desperate forfeiture of context. I mean, on the one hand, you've generally just been disingenuous so far. But this, Randwolf, is a curious distortion. To revisit the broader point:

Indeed, it is arguable that broad sexual repression might actually aggravate the situation. As so many of our anti-Islamic posters are willing to point out, Islam is sexually repressed; women still get raped, and then they are often killed for being raped. Some have acid thrown in their faces. And some are whipped in the public square. Blaming women for the actions of men—placing upon female members of society the burden of calculating and predicting the behavior of males—seems to complicate the situation even more. And it's not just Islam. In American history, there is the infamous Cotton Mather, whose father—Increase Mather—was said to perform a laying on of hands, literally. There appears to be, in American religious history, an undeniable tradition of preachers sexually molesting those for whom they pray. The Puritans even went so far as to strip down uppity women, put them in the back of a horse-drawn cart, and parade them through town in the middle of winter. I mean, come on. They're Puritans. Can you get any more sexually repressed in the American heritage? And what's with the magnificent Mormon magic underwear? Sexuality will always find a way to the surface. Suppressing it only forces it to twist and bend in order to find its way into the light ....

Your snip-job is so devoid of context that we might wonder at your actual intentions. Apparently, to take your dismissal at face value, an historical consideration of sexual repression is fallacious.

Part of the way to set that history aside is to disqualify it by closing the gap in precaution theory.

Then again, snip-jobs and fallacious dismissals intended to avoid the question are a whole lot easier, aren't they? Even when you make a point of doing it over and over and over again to the point of being ridiculous?

Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

So you would propose, then, that a woman shaving her head in order to give a rapist one less thing to seize her by is extreme?

Well, that, despite being accidental, would be a start.

I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

Apparently, Sniffy didn't take enough precautions?

Every one of these anti-precautionary posts was based, at least in part, around one or more of the fallacies described in the "counterarguments" section.

Specifically, every one of your reformulations of people's points and arguments was intentionally calculated to reduce them to your farcical litany of fallacies. It goes beyond disingenuous, Randwolf.

Let's set aside, for the moment, the counterargument that possibly the percentage of sexual assaults that could be reduced by reasonable precautions is so small as to preclude any need for precautions in the first place.

Yes, let us set aside another of your tailored reformulations.

There has been little or no evidence presented to actually refute the hypothesis, which seems intuitively self-evident

Ah, your intuition. There's a convincing argument.

The problem with what seems "intuitively self-evident" is that whatever seems so "intuitively self-evident" has yet to be defined.

Prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults.

That's a fairly big "maybe", Randwolf. It is more likely to simply displace the rapes and other sexual assaults. And while this is of no small implication to any one potential victim, the reality is that it does nothing to address the larger problem of rape.

And I do, in fact, wonder why so many people seem to insist on this route. As the topic history suggests, other people don't wonder. They're more willing to draw the conclusion that seems "intuitively self-evident".

We're approaching three hundred fifty posts in this topic, and the precaution advocates continue to insist on this microcosmic approach while refusing to define its boundaries. Their chosen method is to put specific burdens on individual potential victims instead of approach the rape phenomenon as a whole. Precaution is its own argument, when reasonably defined, but such dedication suggests that the advocates are happy enough attempting to displace rapes, and that actually reducing the general threat of rape.

The determined insistence on an open-ended precaution theory, on the one hand, is unsettling for its refusal to address the broader question of rape, and, to the other, problematic for its lack of boundaries.

These precautions must be defined and applied in ways that do not denigrate women or infringe on their legal rights.

That's a start. Yet in the face of responses to an open-ended precaution theory, you did nothing to close the gap, but chose instead to disingenuously dismiss such concerns and complaints as fallacious.

As it should be, it is left up to the individual's discretion as to what extent they choose to take these precautions, i.e. the risk versus freedom argument.

How nice of you to include that.

Thank you Tiassa!

And thank you for the lip service.

I find it ironic that the best suggestions for sensible precautions came from the anti-precautionary camp!

Living in fear, packing heat to threaten anyone who looks at you wrong, and, of course, a tragic tale of precautions that were insufficient.

Now, these are definitely potential precautions one can take.

To reiterate a point: Seattle is in Washington.

If every woman followed every one of these precautions every time, would one or more sexual assaults be prevented or avoided? Probably.

Is it reasonable to expect anyone to be this consistent, all the time? Probably not.

Does this negate the entire hypothesis? I think not.

It is up to each individual to be prudent to whatever degree they choose. Their rights and freedoms are preserved.

It is also up to each individual to decide to wear a burqa or sequester themselves away from the rest of society. At this point, you seem to be operating under the presupposition that the threshold of what constitutes arousing stimuli is static. As I discussed in the footnote to #262, that would be incorrect. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed it. Until you close the gap on precaution theory, we're still left with a possible reduction to sequestration and the burqa.

It would be better and more effective to reduce the number of rapes by reducing the number of rapists as much as we can, and figuring out from there what's left.

However, there are a lot of very smart people on this forum, and I'm sure we could come up with some more suggestions to add to this laundry list.

Add as much as you want. To reiterate:

The object isn't to come up with one, or even a few measures, though. Rather, it is to establish reasonable boundaries.

Until you close the gap in precaution theory, reasonable and prudent measures will evolve much as the rapists and the rapes do. We are still left with a slide toward the extreme.

If even one person incorporates some of these precautions and it does prevent or avoid even one sexual assault, wasn't all our time worth it?

Presuming this information is new, it might happen.

Wouldn't this, like actually be productive?

As long as limit ourselves to short term and microcosmic goals, sure. It would be better, though, to actually address the general phenomenon of rape itself.

On a personal note, though, Randwolf, after all your chest-beating—

"Rest assured, however, that I will take your post apart, point by point within the next twenty-four hours" (#1887687/323)

—and melodrama—

"Well, I am not going to fall for it - you have already made several logical errors in your argument - and ... these ... will ... be ... brought ... to ... your ... attention ... painfully." (#1887727/331)

—and provocative hostility—

" And now, one more time, since you seem to have trouble comprehending at first:

Rest assured, I will take your post apart, point by point, within the next twenty-four hours." (ibid)

—I confess I'm a bit disappointed. That was a bit anticlimactic. You gave a protracted whimper after promising a bang.

Next time, at least if you're inclined to try again, might I suggest some context and good faith instead of a mewling litany of declared fallacies intended to avoid actually addressing the issues you identify? Or would that be asking too much?

[Simon Anders]

Man, Tiassa. In some way I see your post above as having incredible optimism about what a (potentially merely seemingly) intellectual encounter can accomplish. Your patience is incredible. I find myself both admiring you and concerned that you will burn out - in life that is.

[Randwolf]

Man, Tiassa. In some way I see your post above as having incredible optimism about what a (potentially merely seemingly) intellectual encounter can accomplish. Your patience is incredible. I find myself both admiring you and concerned that you will burn out - in life that is.

I too admire his fortitude, patience and sheer speed, but like you I have some concerns about burn out. Oh, and sanity.

[Randwolf]

I think post 341 should go down in the Sciforums Record book for longest post.
WTF???? I thought Tiassa held the record but I think Rand just made a new one.

I think Tiassa has the record back...

[Gustav]

a job well done, randolf
you delivered in spades

[Gustav]

as for the "open ended precautionary theory"..... do not bite
a strawman and slippery slope is what i see
there are far too many variables
what works in peoria may not work in chicago let alone saudi arabia
furthermore, a self confident, 6 foot martial artist would definitely find life a breeze compared to some green highschooler

there are plenty of do's and dont's issued by ye local constabulary if one is desirous of knowing the perils and pitfalls present in any neighborhood. one could even simply ask a policeman about whatnot

from our viewpoint, we can at the most, offer only the most banal of generalities

[Gustav]

Personally, I don't think there is a way to 'prevent' being raped.

another example of the strawman
it seems like someone in this thread might have promised to deliver a utopian paradise.

either that or it is simply pulled out of one's ass

[Gustav]

The object isn't to come up with one, or even a few measures, though. Rather, it is to establish reasonable boundaries.

Until you close the gap in precaution theory, reasonable and prudent measures will evolve much as the rapists and the rapes do. We are still left with a slide toward the extreme.

come now
i suppose you mean like this........

* Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)
*...rapes that could be prevented by separating female children from male family members.
* Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now. (tiassa)

its a 100 mph skid down to the bottom of the ravine and there is no one but you on that ride.
hmm. i guess bells and sniffy too

paranoid and hysterical fear mongering at its best

youse a dad, ja?

/shocked

the rest us understand that we can have at best, a limited control over our environment. ja, no sky daddies promising heaven on earth

[Tiassa]

as for the "open ended precautionary theory"..... do not bite
a strawman and slippery slope is what i see
there are far too many variables
what works in peoria may not work in chicago let alone saudi arabia

There are far too many variables to define the theory, but not too many to declare it successful? That sounds like a theological proposition. No, not even that. It sounds like a religious argument.

It is very easy to admonish women to conduct themselves better while resenting the implications that you are proposing a repugnant escalation of misogyny despite the fact that you refuse to address the limits of what oppression you would prescribe.

another example of the strawman
it seems like someone in this thread might have promised to deliver a utopian paradise.

either that or it is simply pulled out of one's ass

Quit making excuses.

Certainly, we should focus on what is easy, and hang the idea of what is fair. Right?

Much applause.

Would you like an actual strawman? I'm happy to oblige:

What is most repugnant about the open-ended precaution theory instead of addressing the root causes of misogyny is that in assigning to women the burden of predicting men's desires, intentions, and behavior, these repugnant fools are simply trying to increase their chances of getting laid. You know, like that argument went earlier, "I'm not condoning or encouraging rape, but if something about her arouses me, she's asking for it"?

Goddamn rapists. I mean, really, if you can't simply lie your way into the sack, you're really pathetic.

[Randwolf]

Question: What qualifies as sensible and prudent?

Oh, sorry..

sen·si·ble

1. having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment: a sensible young woman.
2. cognizant; keenly aware (usually fol. by of): sensible of his fault.
3. significant in quantity, magnitude, etc.; considerable; appreciable: a sensible reduction in price.

and

pru·dent
1. wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.
2. careful in providing for the future; provident: a prudent decision

You have provided a list based on other people's suggestions, but left the proposition open-ended.

At this point, that is the idea. The list will, presumably, be finite and considered prudent and sensible by some. Those that find it so are free to follow some, or all of the suggestions as they see fit. Conversely, they are free to point out the items they do not believe fit this criteria, and some consensus will emerge. I am sorry that at this time I am unable to "close the proposition".

Relying on general terms like "prudence and observing precautions" doesn't help make any real point.

Well let's see. So far, we have thirty two suggestions by six members. Haven't you been harping about "So why don't you enumerate for us your rape-prevention dress code?". Just because it's not limited to dress code, haven't you been requesting this list for a while? Oh, and to preclude what I anticipate coming next, "enumerate" explicitly refers to "list".

e·nu·mer·ate
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.

Now, if you are saying you want to see my personal suggestions, I am deliberately abstaining from adding to the developing list at this time. I fear provoking some of the members who may harbor resentment towards men who "offer little jewels of advice on how to prevent rape." As thing continue to move along in a positive direction, I fully intend to contribute.

Remember, we have thirty two suggestions by six members. It seems to be working. There seems to be at least some agreement that prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults. I am sorry if you can not grasp the implicit meaning of "prudent and sensible". Oh, did I say implicit? I think I may have meant explicit denotations. What is your issue with these words anyway?

It appears that it is now permissible to discuss how women can go about reducing their likelihood of being a victim of rape. Without the thread dissolving in flames. This is progress, yes?

You really ought to try discussing the issue without transferring blame, then.
Even when that defense and transference is occurring?

You're actually going to use the same strawman argument to refute the original one? I have read every single post on this thread more than once, that should be obvious to even you. Whether my level of comprehension is adequate, or if I interpret them the same as you are other questions. What I do know, is that you refuse to accept a retraction, or even outright apologies from members who have chosen words poorly. More than one member attempted to do this, and failed.

Let it go man, we're beyond that now.

It is fallacious to depend on definitions you refuse to provide.

*Sigh* What words do you want defined now?

So what other precautions should a rape survivor have taken?

Great question! Wish I had thought of it...

Rape is not unique, although how many other crimes take place inside a person's body?

I geuss I would have to do some research to get the exact number, and of course I would want you to define "Inside the body". I can think of one offhand though, and that is murder. Are you contending that murder happens outside the body?

The problem with analogy comes when it is inapplicable. Comparing women to a cars or laptop computers, for instance, or a men to wild dogs and machines, is an invalid analogy. Your attempt to avoid this point by leaping from the particular to the general is disingenuous.

Ok, let's start at the beginning.

a·nal·o·gy
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Let's go with definition five, although allow me to digress for a moment:

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

How can that be, hmmm? I mean the heart is inside the body, for God's sake.

Back on point,

5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

One 'thing' - a woman (please allow the use of the word 'thing', as it is used in the dictionary definition of analogy, I am fully aware that a woman is not a 'thing') Or maybe, it just occured to me, is that your issue here? Because the dictionary utilizes the word 'thing' in the definition of analogy?

In any event, let's assume that it is, in fact valid to use some analogies that refer to women, and you just don't like the ones mentioned in this thread.

If that is the case, let me proceed. One 'thing' (in this case a woman) is inferred to be similar to another 'thing' (a car, a computer, etc.) in a certain respect (precautions can convey safety) on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. (aren't all these precious to varying degrees, and don't they share the trait of "it is desirous for them to remain unharmed"?)

Now to refute the validity of an analogy viewed in this way, you would seem to have to disagree with at least one of these:

A car and a woman can have their safety enhanced by observing certain precautions. If you attack this one, then we are arguing in a circle here, because that is the point of the analogy.

It is desirous for both a car and a woman to remain unharmed. It's not?

What I think you're going to do here, is stir back up all the hysterics again because I have to try to explain to you what an analogy is. I mean, theoretically, an analogy could be drawn between [I]any[I] two items or entities. I mean everything is made of matter isn't it? And yes, I am aware of the duality properties of particles at the quantum level, are they technically matter, let's not go there, OK? So for purposes of this illustration, everything is made of matter, so a man and a golfball are both similar in the sense that they have volume, mass, etc. This does not imply that a man is a golf ball, anymore than anyone ever tried to imply that a woman was the same as or equivalent to a PC or a car, nor was there any intent to dehumanize anyone. IMHO

Maybe what you were trying to say is that these weren't good analogies, and that better ones could be devised. You are no doubt correct, at least to some extent. However, the purpose of an analogy is to facilitate communication. So, if you didn't "get it", why not just ask the poster what he was trying to say?

That's the nice thing about analogies, you "can break them down". Why not try asking sometime, instead of immediately going on the offensive and attacking? Oh, and by the way, going from specifics to generalities is not necessarily disengenous, it's called "inductive reasoning", so if analogies in fact do have validity, this point is moot.

Again, disingenuous. The precaution theory is open-ended.

We've covered this...

Again, disingenuous.

Purely your opinion. You can do better than that.

The slender portion of rapes in question has been inflated to a caricature of women. Caricaturizing rape victims is not a worthy discussion.

We haven't even established how "slender" this percentage is. Several people have mentioned they don't know the statistics, including me. Do you? Consensus is, they are in the minority and that would seem sensible. There's that word again... In addition, I think we are beyond this whole "caricature issue" now, try to keep up.

A convenient and disingenuous reformulation of arguments fostered by your "different fashion".

WTH does that mean?

The mechanics of typing will take more than five minutes, but you're pitching softballs. Rancid softballs, but softballs nonetheless.

Good point, you obviously don't understand the concept of an "aside", where the rules are a little different. And no, I have no desire to explain what an aside is, I will simply stop using them when communicating with you. You need to relax a little.

As with certain prior points, openly disingenuous. You're still leaving the precaution theory open-ended.

We've covered this...

Another disingenuous reformulation. Address the problem of the limitless precaution theory.

And this, your getting repetitive...



Ok, now here we go with the examples.

I think you missed something. Let's break it down.

dis·in·gen·u·ous

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

I think I was pretty candid about these examples.

"Note to the casual reader: Do not be put off by the sheer volume of fallacies discovered in the anti-precautionary counterarguments and listed below. Just skip to the bottom of the post for the conclusion and some suggestions. These are just here to give Tiassa something to do"



My position is that the thread is rife with fallacies, that they can be broken down into broad categories and refuted logically.


Which of these has not been proposed throughout this thread?

1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)

Hmm? Which one?

Was I lax with my context while I was pulling these examples? You betcha, you got me... So I guess that I am guilt of disingenous, definition two.

I stand by my argument that everyone of these counterarguments, as I have defined them, are invoked multiple times in many, as in a lot, of posts.

However, i am not going to debate the relative merits and nuances of context in each and every post. The language was there, in every case, no matter how contextually relevant. These counterarguments account for the majority of posts by the anti-precautionary crowd, and most of them are based on fallacies.

I will address some of the specifics you mention, though.

There are precautions that would help: don't go on dates with men, don't ever be alone (without line of sight to other people) with a man. These are, in principle, unreasonable; while there is some practical merit to such measures, would you consider them prudent?

I don't know, are they on the list? After all, it is supposed to represent precautions that the members have found to be prudent and sensible. Hmmm, nope, don't see 'em, guess not. If you think they are sensible and prudent, why don't you suggest them to the crowd?

And, again, the failure to assign reasonable boundaries to the precaution theory damages its credibility.

These "reasonable boundaries" that you keep going on about are contained in the denotations of the words prudent and sensible. I apologize again for not having included the definitions in my prior post.

Your persistent disdain toward context makes your argument ... insincere

I take very much offense at the word "insincere". My argument is anything but insincere, and since neither of us can prove this either way, you're just going to have to take my word for it. And just go hang the rest of the name calling...

Women are not cars. They are not flatscreen televisions. And men are neither thoughtless animals nor brainless machines.

Your repeating yourself again, see above

Speaking of avoiding the question, how are you doing on closing up that open-ended precaution theory?

Your repeating yourself again, see above

Thought so.

Did you?

Is a woman a car or flatscreen television or laptop computer?

Your repeating yourself again, see above

Can the police recover what the rapist took from her? Can the insurance company replace what she has lost?

No, and irrelevant. No, and irrelevant.

Your persistent refusal to close up the gap through which the precautionary theory spills into such extremes as sequestration and the burqa is verging toward misogyny.

Your repeating yourself again, see above. Oh something new there at the end, I almost missed it. Howabout:

3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

I thought you might have figured out yet that I put "burqas" and "sequestration" in the same category as "complete isolation", ergo I do not advocate. I have no problem categorically taking a stand on that particular "suggestion". Did you seriously think I was on board with having women wear burqas? Unless they want to of course.. I guess I should have broken this down for you earlier. The fault lies in the words "complete isolation" in: Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. I think revision two will expand on that to say something to the effect of "isolation or other such ridiculous extremes" - not that it will matter to you, but that is the intent.

Here's a challenge for you - find a single, solitary one of my posts that implicitly or explicitly advocates burqas or sequestration.

How about extra points if you can find anyone's post that explicitly recommends either of these?

What precautions would you prescribe against date rape? The most effective is to simply not trust men. You might consider that point hyperbole, but until you define the boundaries of precaution theory, it's still in play. And that fact, that such measures are still in play, is what people find so distasteful.

It seems you'd rather duck such ... uh ... "subtleties".

No I'm not ducking subtleties, and I think there are a few suggestions that would have some applicability about "date-rape", especially if you mean "date" and not "husband" or "significant other". Keeping control of who orders your drink if you are at a bar is one I seem to recall being on the list. You do grant drugging of drinks is a significant factor in date rape, right?

OK, I have been reading this as I answer it, and I am beginning to see where you are headed here. I think we have several serious misunderstandings, so I will concentrate on clearing those up when I post the remainder of this reply.

I want to get this part out before all hell breaks out as other people start reading

[Randwolf]

OK, Tiassa, part 2...

More of the same stuff:

Your refusal of context precludes you from actually addressing the point Phlog raised. Of course, that seems to be what you intend.
Here, try this the next time you're dealing with a rape survivor: I know how you feel. Someone stole my umbrella last week.

Oh something new...

It's not a matter of "unique", which is your own assignation. Rather, it's a matter of scale.

Let's play with the concept of scale. It would seem to me that if equivalence of scale was a prerequisite to forming an analogy, that no analogies could be formed. How did I arrive at that conclusion? Well, I am unable to offhand think of any two events that are of precisely identical scale, even the same kind of events. Are two different earthquakes or floods of the "same" scale? Any two crimes? Doesn't the impact of the event vary according to circumstances, no matter if both events are absolutely horrible? Or are you saying some types of events are superlative in nature, and therefore it is valid to compare these, and only these in an analogy? Who decides these things, you?


Let's see, a lot more of the same stuff:

Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.
Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.
In the fact that people are raped despite the precautions, even extreme ones like sequestration and burqas.
Close up the open-ended precaution theory. Stop avoiding the question: What are the boundaries of the theory?
Your reformulations seem rather a form of hyperbole, Randwolf. The only person you're actually responding to with such points is yourself.
I thought it was iron underwear.
Nonetheless, the hyperbole is yours. Stop ignoring the context of the points you are reformulating in order to respond to yourself.
(Yawn.) Stop avoiding the question with fallacious reformulations that are nothing more than hyperbole.

It's been done already...

How about you? Do you think the fact of someone's sex should assign them the burden of calculating the desires, intentions, and behaviors of the entire opposite sex?

No.

Are you incapable of figuring out ideas like scale?

Here we go again, this stuff has been covered, see above and/or previous post...

Close the gap in the theory, then. That's all I'm asking precautionary theory advocates to do. It is not exactly surprising, at this point, that they refuse to do so.
As you continue to avoid the question, you might find people wondering how seriously they should take you. On the one hand, your argument—consisting almost entirely of talking to yourself—has no credibility. To the other, your determination to pretend some kind of validity about that process casts you in a dubious light. Why are you so determined to avoid the question while transferring the open-ended, impossible obligation of predicting men's desires, intentions, and actions onto women?

Gap's been addressed, you're also strawmanning your strawman again. I am not transferring anything onto women.

Context. Reformulation. Avoiding the issue.
I should probably throw in disgusting here, since by attempting to throw context out the window, you end up tacitly supporting the argument that a woman, by her conduct, attire, or location, "asks" to be raped.

Same old strawman, what's wrong are you low on originality today?

If you actually paid attention to context, you would have saved yourself a good deal of cutting and pasting, and spared other people that bizarre sympathetic agony that comes with watching a person embarrass himself.

You would know, you would know...

Let's address the whole context thing again, my turn to repeat myself.

I think you missed something. Let's break it down.

dis·in·gen·u·ous

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

I think I was pretty candid about these examples.

"Note to the casual reader: Do not be put off by the sheer volume of fallacies discovered in the anti-precautionary counterarguments and listed below. Just skip to the bottom of the post for the conclusion and some suggestions. These are just here to give Tiassa something to do"



My position is that the thread is rife with fallacies, that they can be broken down into broad categories and refuted logically.


Which of these has not been proposed throughout this thread?

1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)

2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)

3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)

4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)

5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)

6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)

7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)

8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)

9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)

Hmm? Which one?

Was I lax with my context while I was pulling these examples? You betcha, you got me... So I guess that I am guilty of disingenous, definition two.

I stand by my argument that everyone of these counterarguments, as I have defined them, are invoked multiple times in many, as in a lot, of posts.

However, i am not going to debate the relative merits and nuances of context in each and every post. The language was there, in every case, no matter how contextually relevant. These counterarguments account for the majority of posts by the anti-precautionary crowd, and most of them are based on fallacies.



OK, resume previous broadcast...

Get a grasp on the context of the portions of the discussion you're citing. If, for instance, we follow your citation back to post #123 and read that portion in context, should we believe you're advocating the proposition that all men are sociopaths? Because I'm pretty sure you're not, although this is largely because you're not really saying anything. You're just repeating a litany of fallacious reformulations designed to make a point of avoiding the issue.
The context of the point you're trying to dismiss involves the question of whether women are people. How curious that you would rather cry fallacy and avoid the issue.
At the time I wondered if maybe Phlog had missed some poorly-timed sarcasm on that response. But if we take DT's comment at face value, we have the explicit proposition that women should be completely covered.
I would say it's interesting that you avoided that issue, except it's not.
You are avoiding the proposition that men are animals without thought or conscience or will, that they are mere brainless machines. Personally, I find that notion rather a bit of hyperbole.
But, you know, whatever helps you duck the question, right?
One of the things you have yet to address is the hyperbole that comes in inflating such a small statistical portion of rapes into a caricature in order to pretend it is the standard.
I understand that this is inconvenient to your self-centered fallacy, but you're reducing yourself to a caricature, too.
Precautionary theory at this point is invalid because it is open-ended. There is a gap wide enough to put a planet through, and pretending it doesn't exist does not change the fact that it does.

OK, commercial break, cause this is just laughable!

Since you seem to like loose analogies: If a friend is going on a road trip, and asks me how far it is to the Idaho border, I might choose, if I am so inclined, to respond, "Seattle is in Washington."

Sure, it's a true statement, but it doesn't answer the question.

Moreover, the refusal of the attire faction of precaution theory to address in any reasonable terms what sort of clothes won't inspire a rapist would be akin to responding to the Idaho border question by saying, "There are cities in Washington."

Again, a true statement. But one of absolutely zero value to the question.

You know, I thought you were being facetious, but you really don't understand the basic concept of analogy. I'm glad I took the time to spell it out for you, please see my previous post for an explanation.



Back to the grind:

To reiterate a point: A fact in evidence is that, despite some pretty extreme precautions—including sequestration and the burqa—rapes still occur.
Your own leap to hyperbole. Your problem. Stop trying to make it anyone else's.
You might have a point that Sniffy was overreacting to something; I have a hard time determining what that post responds to. However, this does not license your reformulation in order to duck the broader question.
Again, suggestions that you are aware of the context of the post in question is nowhere to be found in your dismissal.
And this in the same post in which you were lamenting the idea that some people's points might be avoiding the question.
Context. Try it sometime. It helps. It would save you quite a bit of cutting and pasting. Although it won't do much for whatever gratification you seem to get out of these reformulations designed to avoid the issue.
If you bothered with context ... oh, right.
Again, your leap from the particular to the general doesn't work. Your context-blind reformulations don't make much of an argument.
Why are the precaution advocates so afraid to put boundaries on their theory? It's fairly apparent to those who aren't sold to the idea that a woman is responsible for a man's desires, intentions, or behavior.
You might try answering such a question instead of running away from it.
Apparently, it's inconvenient for the precaution advocates to detail their theory and close the gap. That, in and of itself, is significant, but does it point to the weakness of the advocates or the theory?
It was a nice attempt at a snip job.
What are we to think when you appear so blind to the context of discussions you're involved in?
Close the gap in the theory, then. If it's so obvious, this should be a simple job. As such, it is a curious that neither you or any other precaution advocates want to.
Your insincerity—already obvious, but grossly accentuated here—undermines any pretense of credibility you might rely on.
If you don't want to be taken seriously, just say so.
Context, scale, relevance. These are three concepts that seem to have no place in your argument.
Dismissing the question according to a contextually blind reformulation intended to dismiss the question only shows that you want to dismiss the question without answering it.
It is rather a spectacle that you would put any real effort into supporting such grotesque caricaturization of rape. Or maybe that's the point: you're not really putting any effort into it at all. Which does seem likely, I admit. After all, you're simply attempting to reformulate various points and propositions, with no attention to or care for context, in order to avoid the question.
Here's the link to the post you cited. If you can demonstrate that you understand its context, that will be a start. However, as long as you leave precautionary theory open-ended, you are advocating a theory that includes what you seem to think unreasonable or extreme.
If you don't like that implication, then don't advocate the point.
Close the gap in the theory then.
On the one hand, I understand that avoiding the issue is easier, but that only points to the question of this particular performance. Obviously, I do not object to long posts, but the remarkable lack of diversity about the content of your post is striking.
Speaking of striking, that's a particularly desperate forfeiture of context. I mean, on the one hand, you've generally just been disingenuous so far. But this, Randwolf, is a curious distortion. To revisit the broader point:

Got it, close the gap, context, scale - check, check, check - all addressed, analogy, oh wait, that's your problem.

So you would propose, then, that a woman shaving her head in order to give a rapist one less thing to seize her by is extreme?

Yes.

Apparently, Sniffy didn't take enough precautions?

My personal opinion? She took a whole lot of precautions. Whatever happened to her was not her fault, quit trying to transfer blame there.

However, are you advocating she should not have taken these precautions?

Are you expecting a fool proof rape prevention scheme to arise from precaution theory? You're going to be sorely disappointed if thats the case. Revisit the conclusion section...

The problem with what seems "intuitively self-evident" is that whatever seems so "intuitively self-evident" has yet to be defined.

Check again...

That's a fairly big "maybe", Randwolf. It is more likely to simply displace the rapes and other sexual assaults. And while this is of no small implication to any one potential victim, the reality is that it does nothing to address the larger problem of rape.

And I do, in fact, wonder why so many people seem to insist on this route. As the topic history suggests, other people don't wonder. They're more willing to draw the conclusion that seems "intuitively self-evident".

We're approaching three hundred fifty posts in this topic, and the precaution advocates continue to insist on this microcosmic approach while refusing to define its boundaries. Their chosen method is to put specific burdens on individual potential victims instead of approach the rape phenomenon as a whole. Precaution is its own argument, when reasonably defined, but such dedication suggests that the advocates are happy enough attempting to displace rapes, and that actually reducing the general threat of rape.

Now let me make sure I have this straight, we have over three hundred fifty posts, and everyone seems to be playing nicely for the last ten or so. Except you of course.

We have thirty something, real, concrete suggestions, from a half dozen members.

We seem to have moved past the "Can we" to the "How do we" lessen the probability of sexual assault.

I think we've made major progress, if you don't upset the applecart. Silly me, I thought you would be happy about this.

The point that you scored, and I granted was context. I apologize to any individuals who may be offended over the charactarization of some particular post.

However, I stand by my categorization of the eight or nine primary arguments proposed by the anti-precautionary group. I also haven't seen anyone, besides you, present one of these fallacious arguments since they were first laid out in my post.

I have now addressed, your concerns. If you continue to rant, it will be obvious that you are attempting to sabotage the progress made so far.

P.S. - I am quite dissapointed with your efforts this time around as well - total inability to see the forest for the trees. Ah well, we shall see what comes of these two posts.

[Gustav]

There are far too many variables to define the theory, but not too many to declare it successful?

successful in bringing the incidence of rape down to zero?
someone here has propounded measures that prevent rape from ever happening?

who did this?
what were the measures?

/rotfl

you actually called me a rapist, did'nt ya?

Anastasia screamed in vain

that was the post title for randolph

We see right through the rapists' ruse

that was for me

i titled this post tiassa the death peddlar
what childish fun we are having now

jeez buddy, get a fucking grip
you are fast becoming a goddamn embarrassment

When I was just a little girl
I asked my daddy what will I be
Will I be pretty, will I be rich
Here's what Tiassa said to me.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

When I was young, I fell in love
I asked my sweetheart what lies ahead
Will we have rainbows, day after day
Here's what Tiassa said to me

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

Now I have children of my own
They ask their daddy, what will I be
Will I be handsome, will I be rich
Tiassa tells them tenderly.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.