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

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by visceral_instinct, May 22, 2008.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Dear God. You're still missing the point.

    There is nothing a woman, man or child can do to reduce their chances of being raped. No one knows what a potential rapist is thinking or attracted to in an individual. So how in the hell are people supposed to reduce their chances when there are so many variables involved?

    Why are you placing the onus on the potential victim to not be raped? Do you think women (as well as men and children) should live in constant fear of being sexually attacked? That we should somehow alter our lives significantly just in case, when nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?

    Of course we can discuss stranger rapes. But your attempts to find a solution for women to take so that they do not get raped is demeaning and insulting in itself. Shouldn't the burden be placed on the rapist or potential rapist to not commit the act in the first place?

    Do you think women should face the burden of not being raped? Because your replies in this thread basically point the finger at women to not be raped.

    What of children? Men? What preventative measures should they take so that some stranger in the street does not find them attractive? Because this is basically what you are expecting women of doing. To somehow have to factor in every single scenario where they will not be a turn on for some particular stranger who might glance at them across a street, in a restaurant, shopping center, etc.

    You are attempting to find a logical solution to something that has absolutely no logic at all. You are trying to find an answer where there are no real answers or solutions. The one solution that would fix the problem is that people should not rape others. That would solve the problem instantly. But that won't happen. But you cannot expect every single living individual on this planet to somehow try to alter their lives to cater for the warped minds of a few... That we should all somehow live in absolute fear and terror and try to somehow disappear so that we do not attract unwanted attention.

    Why do you think Government officials (as one example) and rape counselors and even self defense instructors never attempt to instruct women on how to prevent a rape? Because doing so is not only impossible, it also places the burden on the women to not be raped. It also puts pressure on women to live in constant fear and if a woman were to take all the preventative measures in the world (an impossibility in itself) and still be raped, that woman should not feel that she has somehow failed and that it is her fault for having been raped. But by placing the burden on the potential victim, you are demanding from her that if she does not want to be raped, she should do this and that.

    As a woman and a survivor of a sexual assault, I find your arguments in this thread to be insulting. You basically listed everything I should have done to not be raped or sexually assaulted and I had done all of those things.. I didn't walk in a dark carpark alone, but with someone I knew and trusted.. I wasn't dressed provocatively.. I was in a public place. I was still sexually assaulted. Does that mean I am somehow at fault? That I had failed? No. It does not. But your argument in this thread has placed the burden to not be attacked squarely on my shoulders. There was nothing more I could have done to prevent it. Because I cannot prevent what is completely unknown and unexpected to me personally. I and others cannot factor in every single possibility. If we were to try, we would no longer be free individuals and we would allow the rapists and potential rapists a victory they simply do not deserve.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    so what do you think randwolf's agenda really is?

    i was also pretty shocked by gustav's 'bored cry rape' thing, but he is representing a real issue in his own completely offensive fashion (not sure it belongs in this thread though). yes there is less faith in women crying rape, but isn't this justified by the occurence of 'boy cried wolf' situations? if we weren't skeptical as a result of such occurrences, how many men would be jailed for rapes due to embittered women? "better that 1000 men go to jail than one criminal runs free" - dwight schrute
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Simon, did you even read post 435? I addressed the altruistic angle there. This is not about altruism. At worst you could say my motives are shallow, but they certainly aren't altruistic, except maybe as a byproduct.

    Also, I am very sorry for missing your statistics, because believe me, I have actively been hunting them!
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I'm sorry. I must have misinterpreted the whole " if we can prevent just one rape, Tiassa, just one rape, wouldn't that be a good thing" speech somewhere in the sea of posts above as implying altruistic motives whatever your denials elsewhere.

    I never said I presented statistics. What I did say I presented were, as asked for by you, suggestions for women to reduce their liklihood of being raped. I also said, much earlier than Gustav's post above, that rapes were committed more by men the women know than the stranger rapes I felt were the only ones being pictured by some of the posters here. Hence I was not surprised or confused by that statistic, nor the others, that Gustav presented. I got the impression he thought I would be confused. I do get confused by gustav's posts, so perhaps I misunderstood some of the referents.

    When you say you are missing my statistics it just comes off like you are not reading my posts, yet again.
     
  8. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Simon, codandlad references a post by you in 442 that I can't find:

    Originally Posted by Simon Anders
    Sure, I could pretend that Randwolf, mr. selfinterest, just wants to have a discussion of how women can protect themselves from rape.
    But I don't take it at face value.
    Now your confusing post seems to be suggesting that when women are bored they cry rape.
    That little gem will add to the culture of rape.
    Men nod. Yeah, that bitch probably wasn't raped. She just wants his balls cause he dumped her. And so there is less belief on the non-rapist men's side when women say they are raped.


    I'm very confused, this seems to be written after I talked about the altruism thing, but I can't find it. It also seems to mix references to my posts as well as Gustav's. Could you clear this up a little?

    Also, if your first two lines referenced here were written after post 435, WTF? If I told you the earth revolves around the sun, would that make it a false statement? I mean, WTF?
     
  9. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Sorry, the posts crossed, got it... Ever hear of rhetoric? I mean "if we can prevent just one rape, Tiassa, just one rape, wouldn't that be a good thing", is still a true statement isn't it?
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    This is where the confusion on the statistics I thought you presented comes in, your post #439 to Gustav refences a one liner from another post without mentioning the source - go check.

    This reference is identical to Gustav's statistic, then you immediately follow that with the statement "I mentioned this pages [sic] ago" - can you see how that might be interpreted to mean that you mentioned this statistic ages ago?

    I definitely read your posts, quickly once, then again more carefully...
     
  11. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I think randists in the broadest sense feel victimized by people who do not share their philosophy. I think they have trouble distinguishing empathy from guilt. So part of the agenda here is to reduce the set of experiences one might have to feel empathy. In the specific case I think there is victim blaming here. It may be part of a broad victim blaming on his part and he is not specifically sexist. Or it may be part of a sexist attitude. I don't know. There is a strong need in some people to say that if I have it, I deserve it. Even if that thing that is had, is a state of, for example, not being raped, or not being poor, etc. Rand is often associated with free markets and money and that kind of independence and success. But success is much broader than that. It is kind of like if you refined the philosophy - not much, but some - of the cool people in high school, the cliche captain of the (men's) basketball team and the female counterparts - you know the cool, proud of themselves crowd - and turned their attitude - we are winners, and you clearly are not - into a kind of metaphysics and political stance. I am being very literal here. It is kind of like the New Agers with their positive thinking. There can be a kind of cursory sympathy for those who are not winners. But let's quickly move past that and analyze what they did wrong. And, of course, some people are just not cool.

    Randians like to see themselves as monads. Connections to other people and noticing how their lives may in fact be intertwined with the problems of others are threatening to them,which is why for example, most Randians are men, because men are vastly more threatened by ideas of interconnection, and vastly more threatened by feelings of empathy, the two being interrelated.

    Rand, Thatcher. Ah, the good, iron ladies.
     
  12. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Pages (sic). It was pages before that. Anyway...

    I said that his statistic backs up what I said. It did. His statistic backed up what I said - that most rapes were committed by people who the women knew. His statistic, my have said something.

    But I can, now, imagine where the misunderstanding came in.
     
  13. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    well you've described his motivations i suppose, but what is his agenda?regardless of his perspective, and even if he is threatened by interconnection and empathy, he's still promoting ideas which will benefit individuals without a cost to others, and therefore supporting society.

    imo, his agenda has been to subdue the off topic emotional responses of others in order to discuss methods of prevention.
     
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Why are there so many books, pamphlets, courses, etc. addressing this issue then? Do a google search on rape prevention - do you think this is all some giant conspiracy to get rich selling books and so forth by feeding on people's fear? Really?

    Onus - what a wonderful word. Ok, you're going to say I imply onus on the victim, but that's simply not the intent here. With out getting trapped in the whole analogy crap, why is the onus on anyone to protect anything they hold dear? Life, person, freedom, property, anything? The "onus" isn't! The onus is on the perpetrator not to perpetrate! However, people still have a responsibility to protect what they hold near and dear. This precept is common in law, at least here in the US. For example, and OMG, do not say I am comparing a woman and a sign or anything ridiculous like that, I am trying to illustrate a precept of law for you, so here we go: In the US, a real property owner has greater rights, or at least more easily enforceable rights in a court of law, if they put a "No trespassing" sign on the perimeter of their property. This doesn't transfer the onus to the property owner from the trespasser, but it is a reasonable and prudent precaution. Now I am NOT comparing rape to trespassing, I am NOT comparing a woman to a piece of land, what I am saying, again, is that reasonable and prudent precautions are a good idea.

    Quite the contrary.


    The first problem I have here is the "nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?" Aren't you kind of "begging the answer here", to paraphrase? I mean isn't this the very question we are so vehemently debating? Furthermore, as I have stated before I am not advocating promulgating laws to force anyone to do anything, let alone "alter our lives significantly". My problem is solely with the concept that reasonable precautions are not a good idea. If you truly believe that "nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances", and you are not yet persuaded differently, I imagine that when all is said and done we will have to agree to disagree.

    I stated "My problem is solely with the concept that reasonable precautions are not a good idea.", and that was absolutely true at the beginning, but I have developed another issue over time. This isn't so bad with you Bells as it some of the others, but why all the vitriol over this seemingly simple concept? I mean if you truly feel nothing can be done, and I truly feel something can be, why does that in and of itself make us mortal enemies? Live your life the way you would like, teach your daughters what you would like etc...

    I don't know how to say this without seeming, or even being, insensitive to your situation, believe me, if I knew a way I would use it, but there is this issue that "so and so" took 17 or whatever of these precautions and still got raped, therefore precautions don't work. That is simply a scientific fallacy, akin, if I may to the fallacy in claiming a vaccine doesn't work because Joe caught the flu anyway. Now this doesn't mean that there is transferance of blame to that victim. I do not disagree with, and have stated repeatedly that their is no "guarantee' against rape except total isolation. You and I agree on this. We simply, and without animosity on my part, disagree over whether "...nothing we do or do not do will reduce those chances?" is true or not. Period.

    I already addressed the burden issue. But I would like to clarify something about this "stranger rape" business. I am not trying to say that is the be all end all of rape preventions or even this so-called precautionary theory. The reasons I seemed so fixated on this were twofold - one, it would seem that if precautionary theory were to have any merit, it would most easily apply to this type of rape, then to first date rape, then to acquaintance rape and so on, with the hardest to combat being spousal rape, second, it seemed as if everyone, or maybe mostly Tiassa, was trying to dismiss it as "insignificant", a caricature, and that didn't set right with me. I think we all knew in a general fashion that most rapes are committed by people known to the victim, but that's all I knew. A majority, of course, still potentially leaves up to 49%, and I had no idea where the actual number lay, but my gut told me that, caricature or not, the percentage was not "infitesimal."


    Ok, first the easy part, men. Anytime the topic was even broached here in this thread, OMG was that shot down quick. "It's not the same", they wailed. And it's not. If nothing else, there is a least one extra trauma inherent in women's rape than men's and that is the pregnancy possibility. However, to answer your questions, a lot of the same precautions that apply to women would apply to men. It's just, as it has been pointed out here, easier for them to take these precautions, and of course are less likely to be assaulted in the first place.

    Children are little trickier, but if one believed in precautionary measures, would not the "onus" fall on the parents to take those precautions on behalf of the children? I mean that's the way it works for other dangers associated with children, such as drowning, right?



    Wasn't aware of this "fact". I'm not disputing your veracity, I am simply saying that I don't know it to be true. The only evidence I have at this point to refute it is the research I've done online since this thread started, and this is by no means exhatsive. However, it would seem from what I have seen, that at least some rape prevention guidelines are out there, and a couple of sources on point have already been cited in these posts. I will do more research in this are, but meanwhile, what do the other members think? Is there consensus that "Government officials (as one example) and rape counselors and even self defense instructors never attempt to instruct women on how to prevent a rape"

    Let us know...


    I believe these issues have already been addressed here (burden, fear, transferance of blame, inability to guarantee success). Again though, Bells, I am sad for your experience; as I said earlier I know women who have been raped, and while I can not begin to comprehend the magnitude of the suffering, I can certainly see that it, in one case at least, dramatically changed her character and outlook on life. Again, I apologise for offending you, that was not my intent.

    One last aside, did you used to believe in precautionary tactics and change your mind after what happened? I'm curious because you stated "You basically listed everything I should have done to not be raped or sexually assaulted and I had done all of those things". Oh, remember, you may think it's hair splitting, I think its substantive, that list was compiled from women's suggestions.
     
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    You know, I'm not sure I disagree with any of this. I'm not sure I like it either. But at least it's better than all this misogynist stuff, because that was really starting to affect me. If I have to pick a subconscious motivation, I'll go with this one...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    Anyone can tell a woman to be afraid ....

    You use bizarre descriptions that do not accurately describe what you are referring to. It's a similar problem to your ridiculous "fallacy" litany. In this case, you got all huffy at me about something that I did not argue, but rather is your own clumsy, inaccurate condensation.

    Frankly, I'm sick of your dishonesty. Cram the attitude. Nobody is impressed.

    You already responded to it. Did you actually miss that? Were you not paying attention to what you were doing?

    My bad. I intended for that question to refer to what is, according to your Randian outlook, your motivation for giving a damn if a woman has been raped. However, thank you for that wonderful explanation—your most detailed effort so far—of how you're a victim.

    Do you even pay attention to what you type?

    Think of it this way: if nobody needed to be reminded, the only rapes occurring would be committed by people with psychiatric problems.

    • • •​

    It is the determination with which he insists on focusing the question of rape on the women. He has been repeatedly asked to close a gaping hole in the precaution theory, and that the problem with such an open-ended theory is that it does nothing about rape in general. Thus, while continuing to assign women the burden of calculating and predicting the desires, intentions, and behavior of men—e.g. all men are rapists and should be avoided; would that be fair?—he promotes a path that leads to a degradation of women's quality of life while avoiding entirely the fact that men are committing the vast majority of the rapes and that history indicates quite clearly that sexual repression does not end sexual abuse.

    As Simon pointed out, for instance:

    "And there are advantages for men to keep the focus on women and not to look at their own behavior. Sadly some men only see these advantages, rather than seeing that if they focused on the male side of the equation, it might be more challenging for them, but real change is there for everyone.

    "You have concluded that the women contributers here have made the best suggestions. Well, that should support the notion that you can leave this discussion to the women, who in fact, have these discussions all the time, and focus your energies on what you can do to challenge the male culture that contributes to rape, if we are supposed to take your implied goals as the real ones - ie. the reduction of rape.
    " (#1890253/421)​

    What we have is someone who is a devotee of selfishness as a philosophy pretending to be a hallelujah chorus regarding the potential address of a problem in a manner that—surprise—is most convenient to his self-interest.

    He wants to talk about what rape survivors should have done instead of what he and his fellow men can do to stop communicating the poison ideas and attitudes that perpetuate the rape culture.

    Add to that his disingenuous chest-puffing throughout the topic and it's a challenge to take him seriously. Quite clearly, it is in his self-interest to avoid a discussion of men's contributions to the rape of women. It is in his self-interest to prescribe as few restrictions as possible on his behavior. It is easier to pretend that one performs a vital service by looking at a rape survivor and saying, "If only you'd _____, you wouldn't have been raped."

    Let's take the Ohio University page, for instance. "Real men accept the responsibility to not harm another person." How much would it annoy you to hear this on a near-daily basis, or have someone hand you a flier with that printed at the top? But would you get angry at the people repeating the point, or would you stop to wonder, first, how they came to think people need to be told such things.

    The concept of manly men doing manly things isn't so uncommon, after all. Tea parties and lace doilies aren't generally considered manly, especially compared to shooting things, or beating things up. To the other, we might consider that it is these same notions of manliness that contribute so strongly to the silence of male rape survivors.
     
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    I do read your posts, I think you actually know that. I would like to amend my earlier request from "Why can't you just contribute here, instead of continually bashing those of us who at least try?" to "Why can't you just continue to contribute here, instead of continually bashing those of us who at least try?"

    Sorry...
     
  18. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    *Sigh* Ok, Tiassa, whatever, you win... *yawn*
     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Random thought...

    I would think this would be semantics, but choice of words seems to be a sensitive subject.

    Based on what I'm seeing online, as well as reflecting on some of the undertones in these posts, is there a difference between "avoiding" and "preventing" rape? Reason I ask is the former seems more prevalent out there...
     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    too late
    i already did

    now
    this.....

    # 77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997)

    was in response to...


    the rhetoric obviously leans towards stranger rape being more pervasive that acquaintance rape. a further extrapolation would find visceral with her guard down and in a trusting mode with the latter. it is obvious the distrust and fear is misdirected for while 33% of rapes are committed by strangers, 77% are by those she knows.

    living like a prey animal, darlin? sorry, wrong venue. so much for your "visceral instinct". it is plainly outta whack.

    /snigger

    oh


    there is 77% chance that one of the 20 might do the dirty deed.
    this bring to mind a drunk girl on campus who calls a security escort (created in response to assault and rape incidences on campus) and ended up getting raped by the very guy supposed to see her dorm safe.

    i tell ya!
    mind fucking boggling
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2008
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    In rereading your post, I did find one item I feel compelled to comment on.

    Do not presume to inflict the status of victim on me. Save it for your bleeding heart friends. I can not believe I missed this subtle, yet incredibly offensive insult.
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    for the record, in case you feel overwhelmed, you have conducted yourself admirably
    my hat is off, mr randwolf, to you

    /kowtow
     
  23. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    Thanks. Overwhelmed? Sometimes, but all in all I'm having a blast.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page