Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

[Trooper]

Really? No clue at all? That explains a lot. The central subject of every one of my posts here is completely missing - and this is invisible to you.
Anything with tiers has a hierarchy. The language reveals. Do you know what it is, or is that another of those invisible elephants in this room?

I don't know. You tell me, or is this the part where I give you a blowjob or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling?

It’s insulting to see some of the efforts misconstrued as victim blaming. It is clear that the perpetrator is the only person responsible for an act of sexual violence, but that does not mean that we should dismiss all preventative measures. There is nothing wrong with women recognizing the survival skills that they have.

Combination is best. A combination of female empowerment, social pressure, and punishment may be the most effective way to modify behavior. We do not live in a Utopian world. We may never live in a Utopian world. There are precautionary measures that we can take to minimize potential dangers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ght-self-defense-can-prevent-sexual-assaults/

 

[Kittamaru]

What is absolutely ridiculous is the expectation that women have to get better home security, to the point of suggesting guard dogs, and failure to do so means that we are responsible if we are raped in our own homes.

Seriously? It's come to this now?

What the hell kind of hellhole of fear are women meant to exist in to the point of absolute paranoia if we want to not be blamed for being raped? If prudence extends to having to get guard dogs, armed guards and bars on windows, then perhaps the focus should not be on women, but on rapists. Because if alarms, high walls and fences and security gates and doors and windows is not "prudent" enough and that I am somehow responsible because that wasn't enough, then really, rape apologists can go and jump off the highest cliff they can find.

Exactly - there is a point where good home security should be considered... but rape prevention is NOT one of the primary reasons to consider it... burglary/break ins should be... and the problem with even that is the police response time. My mothers house is roughly 10 minutes away from the township police station... yet the last few times they have been needed (one was for a suspected intruder, one was when we had a nearly dozen vehicle crash in the front yard due to a poorly plowed/salted street and people driving too fast, etc) it has taken on average anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes for them to arrive.

Even if we halve that... 10 minutes... what could an armed intruder do in your house in 10 minutes?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...there is a point where good home security should be considered... but rape prevention is NOT one of the primary reasons to consider it... burglary/break ins should be... and the problem with even that is the police response time. My mothers house is roughly 10 minutes away from the township police station... yet the last few times they have been needed (one was for a suspected intruder, one was when we had a nearly dozen vehicle crash in the front yard due to a poorly plowed/salted street and people driving too fast, etc) it has taken on average anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes for them to arrive.

Even if we halve that... 10 minutes... what could an armed intruder do in your house in 10 minutes?

What next... a 20 foot electrified razor fence.!!!
Why are you placin the onus of not bein burglarized on the home owner... are you a suporter of burglars.???

 

[Kittamaru]

What next... a 20 foot electrified razor fence.!!!
Why are you placin the onus of not bein burglarized on the home owner... are you a suporter of burglars.???

Given your name (clueless) I think I can let it slide that you've completely missed my point... that point being that there comes a time where we pass the realm of "good common sense" (such as locking your door, not leaving ground-floor windows open when nobody is home, etc) and into the realm of the impractical/insane (laser defense networks, moats of acid, et al)

 

[pjdude1219]

I don't know. You tell me, or is this the part where I give you a blowjob or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling?

the only dishonesty and trolling here is your own. trooper. for such a strong women your really have zero sense of personal responsibility.

It’s insulting to see some of the efforts misconstrued as victim blaming.

no whats insulting is you telling the victims of sexual assualt that they failed because they were raped. I specificlly brought my own sexual assualt something i loathe to do with people i know, just to make a point because that's how badly your ideology attacked me, and ask what as if in my case your rules wouldn't have prevented what was i to do. you ignored so you could continue to attack and harp on preventention tactics that aren't accilpible in the vast m,ajority of cases in other words victim blaming.

It is clear that the perpetrator is the only person responsible for an act of sexual violence, but that does not mean that we should dismiss all preventative measures. There is nothing wrong with women recognizing the survival skills that they have.

no one is saying it isn't. but doing what your doing and essentially going up to rape surviovers and being like this is what you could have done to prevent it. is amoral, disgusting, and counter productive.

Combination is best. A combination of female empowerment, social pressure, and punishment may be the most effective way to modify behavior. We do not live in a Utopian world. We may never live in a Utopian world. There are precautionary measures that we can take to minimize potential dangers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ght-self-defense-can-prevent-sexual-assaults/

good words to bad your actions belie the intent behind them.

 

[Trooper]

no one is saying it isn't. but doing what your doing and essentially going up to rape surviovers and being like this is what you could have done to prevent it. is amoral, disgusting, and counter productive.

They're not telling victims what they could have done to prevent it. They are providing safety information for potential victims.

https://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legislative-agenda/campus-safety

Does misery love company?

 

[Tiassa]

Try a Little Human Decency

What makes sense to *me* is irrelevant. This is solely about the welfare and autonomy of the woman, and what makes sense to her. It's not about me, and it's certainly not about you and your paternalistic dogma. Let's give women the facts, and then let each individual decide what suits her best.

That sort of apathy toward human rights is part of how we make these societal messes.

But, you know, we're not surprised that yet another Infinite Prevention Advocate is afraid to be honest. This is how it always goes.

Sorry, but cowardice does not a strong argument make.

 

[Kittamaru]

Except, Trooper, as we saw, people do exactly that - they tell victims they FAILED... Capracus was an excellent example of that:

As I remember your rapist was able to enter your home as you slept because your security system failed to alert you. If this man had stolen property or kidnapped one of your children, would you still be satisfied with your admitted inadequate security measures? Which are ultimately whose responsibility?

According to Capracus, it was Bells responsibility to make sure her home security was up to the task of catching/preventing the rape... and because it wasn't, or somehow failed to do so, it is her fault that she was raped.

THAT is the kind of verbiage that is so deplorable; the best of intentions can be incredibly painful and damming to someone who has just experienced this kind of trauma if your words lack compassion and understanding... and that INCLUDES understanding what happened.

Could Bells have done more? Perhaps - Metal Storm does have a self-contained turret system that is able to acquire, track, and eliminate targets entirely autonomously. That certainly would have prevented it.

I also HIGHLY doubt it's legal.

Did Bells take reasonable precautions? Yes, she did. Is it her fault the scumbag that did this to her was able to circumvent them? No.

 

[pjdude1219]

They're not telling victims what they could have done to prevent it. They are providing safety information for potential victims.

https://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legislative-agenda/campus-safety

Does misery love company?

are you a pathological liar or just stupid? you've repeatedly in this thread thrown your "prevention" ideology in the faces of 2 victims of sexual assualt. so no your completely full of it. quit trying to hide behind rainn and own up to your disgusting attacks against victims. rainn isn't going up to rape victims and berating them for not following prevention tactics you are. they I don't have a problem with. your bullshit i do. so quit hiding behind a group that actual gives a damn about rape victims and quit fucking pretending you do.

 

[Tiassa]

A Brief Note on Irrelevancy

According to Capracus, it was Bells responsibility to make sure her home security was up to the task of catching/preventing the rape... and because it wasn't, or somehow failed to do so, it is her fault that she was raped.

It's nothing more than the demand that a woman's proper place is to live in fear. You know, like we've been hearing from others such as Trooper and Tali89, and anyone else who dodges the human rights question.

Think of it this way: If what one thinks is "irrelevant" to his or her posts addressing the issue, then those posts are themselves irrelevant, which means some of our neighbors needs to sit down, shut up, and stop trolling the thread with irrelevancies.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Exactly - there is a point where good home security should be considered... but rape prevention is NOT one of the primary reasons to consider it... burglary/break ins should be...

Do you have possessions you value above all else???... in any case... personal safety of my wife an i is my primary reasons for good home security.!!!

...you've completely missed my point... that point being that there comes a time where we pass the realm of "good common sense" (such as locking your door, not leaving ground-floor windows open when nobody is home, etc) and into the realm of the impractical/insane (laser defense networks, moats of acid, et al)

Ok... an most people woud consider it in the realm of "insane"... but in my case... i thank a loaded gun is good common sense for the protection of my wife an i in our home... but as far as possessions go... i dont have any i vlaue so highly that id shoot sombody over.!!!

 

[billvon]

Exactly - there is a point where good home security should be considered... but rape prevention is NOT one of the primary reasons to consider it... burglary/break ins should be...

Well, break-ins leading to any kind of assault on my family (not just sexual.) Honestly I can replace my material possessions if I had to and not feel too bad about losing them. I would not be so sanguine about someone breaking in and assaulting anyone in my family.

that point being that there comes a time where we pass the realm of "good common sense" (such as locking your door, not leaving ground-floor windows open when nobody is home, etc) and into the realm of the impractical/insane (laser defense networks, moats of acid, et al)

Agreed - and you have to draw the line between practical and impractical. And who should draw that line? In my opinion it should be up to the person whose home it is, based on an informed evaluation of the risks.

 

[Kittamaru]

Do you have possessions you value above all else???... in any case... personal safety of my wife an i is my primary reasons for good home security.!!!

Well, break-ins leading to any kind of assault on my family (not just sexual.) Honestly I can replace my material possessions if I had to and not feel too bad about losing them. I would not be so sanguine about someone breaking in and assaulting anyone in my family.

Yes, I place the utmost priority on protecting my wife... and that is why I know how to properly utilize a firearm and am attentive to what is going on around me. We lock the door and deadbolt at night, the downstairs windows are locked. That is the extent of it (partially because we are in a townhouse and cannot make major modifications). NO home security system (that one can legally own anyway) is going to prevent a rapist/murder from getting in if they want - hell, there is video footage of people using their vehicles to smash their way into shops to rob them (not particularly SMART people, mind you, but still). If someone wanted to get in, they could break in a window with a large brick and do so... and they would be met with a very pissed off me and my grandfathers 1911 Colt .45

Ok... an most people woud consider it in the realm of "insane"... but in my case... i thank a loaded gun is good common sense for the protection of my wife an i in our home... but as far as possessions go... i dont have any i vlaue so highly that id shoot sombody over.!!!

Exactly, but as I said above - static defenses only go so far.

Agreed - and you have to draw the line between practical and impractical. And who should draw that line? In my opinion it should be up to the person whose home it is, based on an informed evaluation of the risks.

Part of the issue with this, as I said, is there are these crazy things called homeowners associations that can actually dictate what you can and cannot do to your own home, down to the vehicle(s) you can park in the driveway, the color of your fence, and yes, even foreclose on your home for not following their rules and paying their dues/fines. (that last bit is a hyperlink). I doubt many of them would take kindly to building a twelve foot tall, two foot thick, reinforced concrete wall with electrified, barbed wire running across the top.

 

[billvon]

Part of the issue with this, as I said, is there are these crazy things called homeowners associations that can actually dictate what you can and cannot do to your own home, down to the vehicle(s) you can park in the driveway, the color of your fence, and yes, even foreclose on your home for not following their rules and paying their dues/fines. (that last bit is a hyperlink). I doubt many of them would take kindly to building a twelve foot tall, two foot thick, reinforced concrete wall with electrified, barbed wire running across the top.

Agreed. And all of that is something that an informed person will take into consideration - both when they decide what kind of security they want (if any) and in where to purchase a home.

(BTW I pretty much ignore our HOA which is fairly easy since we're at the end of a long driveway and you can barely see our house to begin with. Easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. But not everyone has that freedom.)

 

[Kittamaru]

Indeed - I had a friend that was looking at a very nice house in a very beautiful neighborhood... they ended up passing over it simply because of the rules and regulations for their HOA - not only did you have to pay $100 a month in "association fees", but you also paid into a community "keeping" fund, that paid to have professional lawn care services, snow removal, et al... even if you did all that yourself. You couldn't so much as plant a flowerbed without getting approval from the HoA board, and if your vehicle had visible rust, damage, or peeling paint, you had to get it repaired within 3 days of notification or else the HoA would have it towed and impounded as "an eye sore".

The rulebook was, I kid you not, something like sixty pages long, each one more ridiculous than the last...

 

[Trooper]

A Brief Note on Irrelevancy


It's nothing more than the demand that a woman's proper place is to live in fear. You know, like we've been hearing from others such as Trooper and Tali89, and anyone else who dodges the human rights question.

Think of it this way: If what one thinks is "irrelevant" to his or her posts addressing the issue, then those posts are themselves irrelevant, which means some of our neighbors needs to sit down, shut up, and stop trolling the thread with irrelevancies.

All initiatives to prevent sexual violence should be aimed towards men. Is this what you’re saying?

 

[Kittamaru]

All initiatives to prevent sexual violence should be aimed towards men. Is this what you’re saying?

So, by your logic, only men are capable of sexual violence? That's quite offensive to the men and women who have been raped by women...

 

[iceaura]

By 'whatever means necessary'? I'm curious to know what 'means' you're thinking of, and how long they would take to implement? I can think of only two surefire ways to prevent rape from happening which targets men. One method would involve inventing technology similar to that seen in 'Minority Report', where police could see rapes before they happened. The other way would involve simply herding all men into camps and keeping them separate from women.

Fortunately for you, the large majority of women have somewhat more imagination and basic intelligence than that. So you are not really at that great a risk from women getting together and coming up with ways of curbing and regulating the behavior of the men in your rapist-infested society - since you refuse to even consider the matter.

Ideally, of course, the men would contribute to that discussion and provide valuable insight - but as you can see here, they seem stuck in world where "rape prevention" is the responsibility of individual women dealing with "the world", and doesn't actually involve them at all. They don't even have to pay taxes to provide and maintain the guard dogs, walls, mace, karate instruction, security systems, and so forth, never mind the constant vigilance and behavior restrictions they expect (require even) women to adopt - you know, as "reasonable"

Here's a little clue:
Misogyny is a symptom, not a malady.

So? It's also a political influence, the expressions of which are structural components of your society, supported by your behavior and your influence. And it and they have a great deal to do with individual women, personally, as you have demonstrated here with perfect clarity in your focus on persons - rather than the actual arguments, which by now you cannot afford to address. Groveling in humble and public apology to Bells?

While I might get your drift, it's rather apparent you didn't get mine.

Everybody got your "drift", dude - except possibly you. The shining moment where you speculated, in the context of a discussion among the self-styled rape prevention advocates here of the many flaws in women's security measures, that Bells could have easily afforded guard dogs, was particularly clarifying. Talk about showing your ass in public - - as you say, it's a symptom, not a malady.

All initiatives to prevent sexual violence should be aimed towards men. Is this what you’re saying?

These troll questions you keep posting are offensive, as well as dishonest. But I remind you that you posted the obvious - that crime prevention properly so called should (and normally does) focus on the criminal's behavior as it's first and most important priority.

 

[Trooper]

A Brief Note on Irrelevancy


It's nothing more than the demand that a woman's proper place is to live in fear. You know, like we've been hearing from others such as Trooper and Tali89, and anyone else who dodges the human rights question.

Think of it this way: If what one thinks is "irrelevant" to his or her posts addressing the issue, then those posts are themselves irrelevant, which means some of our neighbors needs to sit down, shut up, and stop trolling the thread with irrelevancies.

Initiatives to prevent sexual violence should be aimed towards men because the majority of rapists are men, right? You have no qualms admitting that sexual violence is a serious problem that merits efforts to prevent it, right? Rape culture reinforces rape, right? We have to focus on changing societal norms, right? Is this what you’re saying, yes or no?

Quit trolling and let Tiassa answer the questions. You can throw 'em a beer when he's done, okay, iceaura?

 

[iceaura]

It’s insulting to see some of the efforts misconstrued as victim blaming.

You have been victim blaming. That is one of the many problems with putting the burden of preventing rape unto individual, isolated, potential victims - as we see here and throughout US society, it almost always leads directly to victim blaming in real life. In your case it happened within a sentence of a single post even (I quoted it for you) - as well as throughout this thread. If you find that observation insulting, that's good - opp0rtunity knocks. Why do you find it insulting?

But you have to quit doing things like this:

You can throw 'em a beer when he's done, okay, iceaura?

right after things like this

These troll questions you keep posting are offensive, as well as dishonest. But I remind you that you posted the obvious - that crime prevention properly so called should (and normally does) focus on the criminal's behavior as it's first and most important priority.

Also, you might want to monitor your use of the words "some" and "all" - you lose track of logic, misconstrue other's posting, and post troll crap yourself, often on that distinction alone.

Instead, try this: write down a rape prevention approach for men who are at risk of being raped - all the men in US society, that is. Include within it explicit recognition of the most common arenas in which men are raped, and the various kinds of rapists of men. You might use, as a start, that RAINN approach you find without obvious or flagrant inadequacies - see how it looks.