"Rape Culture" Claims Obscure True Dangers To Young Women

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2014 5:51:58 GMT -5 swamp said:

FYI, the pattern jury instructions for rape trials in NY specifically say that there does not have to be resistance for it to be rape. 

Do you read Paul?  

[Deleted]

Blame the victim, blame the victim... And so it continues...

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 10:57:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This gets into issues of what is reasonable risk mitigation. Even if the man isn't legally at fault for the accident, I'm guessing society wouldn't be too sympathetic if he was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, texting on a phone, is too old to drive, etc. when the accident occurred. In other words, did he acknowledge the risk, and did he take reasonable precautions to mitigate it?

In the case of rape, all of the behaviours I've condemned (see the list in my previous post) are elective. There isn't a shred of necessity in any of them. Locomoting, on the other hand, is quite necessary, and driving is as safe or safer than any of the conceivable alternatives.

actually, locomoting in a single passenger vehicle MIGHT BE NECESSARY, or it might be just a way of getting you to the club.  it also might NOT be necessary.  if you use public transportation, you can safely text, not wear a seatbelt, be intoxicated, be too hold to drive, etc.  i think you will also find that the safety record of these public alternatives is VASTLY better than the private ones.

edit: if you want to stretch the analogy further, we could talk about whether or not people are criticized for not using public transportation. 

When considering the risks of public transportation, you have to consider the indirect risks. There's more walking, more waiting, more exposure to other people. Obviously nothing except the risk of being in a motor vehicle collision would be treated as "risk" in an official assessment of public transit safety.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you whether locomoting is necessary or not. We're off topic and you're grasping at straws.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 30, 2014 11:20:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:54:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here is the problem i have with you stretching the analogy: it pays lip service to the idea that a woman in pumps and a dress is "looking to get laid".  but that is actually the opposite of my point.

i can't speak for why most women here dress up, but i am imagining that it is for the same reason that most men shave and shower.  but i think it is a mistake to assume that anyone that wants to look beautiful, fit in, or be socially accepted wants to get laid. 

i am starting to see strong parallels between conservative Islam and the US.  it is a wonder we don't get along better.

I posted two articles in the last discussion we had about how dress factors into a man's perception on a woman's consent to sex. Not surprisingly, both concluded that dress was a factor in several rapes, and that men take a woman's provocative dress into account when assessing her willingness for sex. I didn't create this reality, I just happen to live in it.

As for your noble attempt to disparage social conservatism, I'll simply point out there might be just a tiny bit of wiggle room between "sexually provocative" and "burqa". If social conservatism is all the same to you, fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you criticize Paul for failing to acknowledge differences in liberal ideologies.

The mention of conservative islam and the US is a deliberate, and I might add transparent, and low brow attempt to disparage traditional American moral values and create an imagery of social conservatives in America as those that would put women in burqas and behead people who refuse to convert to Christianity, is just like attaching the word "denier" to those skeptical of the unproven assertion that man is causing global warming.  Might as well be wearing a sign that reads: I've lost the argument and so I'm just going to sit here and disparage people.

[mmhmm]

Sept 30, 2014 11:16:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 29, 2014 23:21:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Note the edit, paul. It is what you have asserted, not you, GEL is objecting to. She's objecting to what you have posted, as I said. Hell, I object to it, as well! So have any number of others.

You're both wrong.  If you cannot produce the post where I said it's perfectly fine to "force yourself" on a woman and if she doesn't "fight you tooth and nail"...it's not rape.  You don't have to admit you're both wrong- it's prima facia.  It was never posted by me.

By definition, if a man is FORCING himself on a woman, she's resisting- hence the need for force.  If it's done by force, it's not done by consent.  Again post #65 is your reference.

Accept responsibility for going too far, or don't.  I don't give a shit.  You have definitely lost a lot of credibility and good will with me.  And it will get fixed one way or the other.  I have been accused of condoning rape and the charge is utterly without merit.  Don't think this can't bite you.

Take your own advice, paul (first sentence, last paragraph above). You're right, though. It will get fixed, one way or another. Your threats don't intimidate.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 30, 2014 11:29:22 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 30, 2014 11:16:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You're both wrong.  If you cannot produce the post where I said it's perfectly fine to "force yourself" on a woman and if she doesn't "fight you tooth and nail"...it's not rape.  You don't have to admit you're both wrong- it's prima facia.  It was never posted by me.

By definition, if a man is FORCING himself on a woman, she's resisting- hence the need for force.  If it's done by force, it's not done by consent.  Again post #65 is your reference.

Accept responsibility for going too far, or don't.  I don't give a shit.  You have definitely lost a lot of credibility and good will with me.  And it will get fixed one way or the other.  I have been accused of condoning rape and the charge is utterly without merit.  Don't think this can't bite you.

Take your own advice, paul (first sentence, last paragraph above). You're right, though. It will get fixed, one way or another. Your threats don't intimidate.

Do you keep in touch with Joe "I live in my parent's basement" Banker from MSN?  I don't threaten people.  I act to defend my good name.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 30, 2014 11:24:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Blame the victim, blame the victim... And so it continues...

I'm not blaming the victim.  I'm pointing out that there are a lot of things we can learn from them, though.  And instead of, as the author of the article in the OP points out, a lot of "you go girl", how about a little more, "take the hemline down below your bush before you go out girl- and put on some underwear, girl"?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 11:24:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:57:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, locomoting in a single passenger vehicle MIGHT BE NECESSARY, or it might be just a way of getting you to the club.  it also might NOT be necessary.  if you use public transportation, you can safely text, not wear a seatbelt, be intoxicated, be too hold to drive, etc.  i think you will also find that the safety record of these public alternatives is VASTLY better than the private ones.

edit: if you want to stretch the analogy further, we could talk about whether or not people are criticized for not using public transportation. 

When considering the risks of public transportation, you have to consider the indirect risks. There's more walking,

yeah, because we all know how terrible walking is for you. 

more waiting, more exposure to other people. Obviously nothing except the risk of being in a motor vehicle collision would be treated as "risk" in an official assessment of public transit safety.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you whether locomoting is necessary or not.

dude.  can you READ?  i said it MIGHT be necessary.  it really depends.  if you are getting in your car to go to a club, i don't see how that is ANY different than how you dress.  much private transportation is superflous, not necessary.  i have a friend that lives in the hills.  he comes down once a week to go shopping.  that is NECESSARY.  getting in a car 5x a day because you are too lazy to organize yourself to minimize excursions is not NECESSARY: it is just lazy.  period. 

so, yeah, you shouldn't argue with me about this if you are going to ignore the logic of the argument in favor of some red herring.

We're off topic and you're grasping at straws.

i am grasping at YOUR straws maybe.  and no, we are not off topic.  we are making a comparison between the risks associated with transportation (and the choices one makes) and the risks associated socially (and the choices one makes).  i think it is perfectly within the subject, and you are just trying to dismiss the argument- but whatever.  have it your way.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 11:24:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Blame the victim, blame the victim... And so it continues...

What would your advice to another woman be? "Dress sexy, party hard, and drink like a fish, because if you're raped, it's not your fault."?

Seriously. Suppose you had a friend who had been raped. She was out at a wild party, hooked up with a man, blacked out, and was raped. She feels that her actions contributed to the rape and she should perhaps give up on the party life. She comes to you for advice.

You have two choices: Tell her that the rape was completely unpreventable, completely beyond her control, and she ought to head back out there and party hardy just like she did before (because partying hardy is obviously something that she can control)? Or do you tell her that rapes happen under such circumstances--it's the sad state of the world--and that giving up partying, etc. is best even if you know she'll construe your advice as implicitly blaming her for the rape?

Which do you do? Which is more important to you?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We got off on this awhile ago when I said I would advise my daughter that perhaps wearing a miniskirt and tube top to a house party, drinking herself silly, and then following a guy up the stairs to a bedroom might just be sending the wrong signals if it is not her intention to have sex.

It doesn't make it not rape, or right for a guy to take advantage, or continue past "NO" or "STOP" but it makes her vulnerable to sexual assault. Is it her fault per se? Of course not. Crime is always the responsibility of the person who commits the crime. There are no "mitigating factors" from the point of view of morality, and there shouldn't be from the point of view of the law-- though women should be aware there are practical limits to what a jury will find credible before they have some guy locked up-- even if he is a creep.

My mom just raised us a little smarter I guess. One thing she used to say a lot is that you can be dead right and still be dead. It doesn't do you a lot of good to reflect on the right you have to do foolish things post rape. It's good to be in the right, and do whatever you feel like doing, but it's great to not be raped.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 11:21:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 30, 2014 11:12:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to get back to the OP, it posits that women are somehow unaware of the risks in society, and i think that after reading through 8 pages of posts, it is pretty clear that women are not only aware of it, many have experienced it.  but what does she suggest women should do to protect against it?

First and foremost- just be aware; and as you have pointed out- develop relationships first. 

huh?  how does this have anything to do with a typical rape victim?  they don't WANT to develop relationships.

no, this is good advice for men: develop relationships first.  then you will know if you have consent or not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 11:35:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 11:24:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

When considering the risks of public transportation, you have to consider the indirect risks. There's more walking,

yeah, because we all know how terrible walking is for you. 

more waiting, more exposure to other people. Obviously nothing except the risk of being in a motor vehicle collision would be treated as "risk" in an official assessment of public transit safety.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you whether locomoting is necessary or not.

dude.  can you READ?  i said it MIGHT be necessary.  it really depends.  if you are getting in your car to go to a club, i don't see how that is ANY different than how you dress.  much private transportation is superflous, not necessary.  i have a friend that lives in the hills.  he comes down once a week to go shopping.  that is NECESSARY.  getting in a car 5x a day because you are too lazy to organize yourself to minimize excursions is not NECESSARY: it is just lazy.  period. 

so, yeah, you shouldn't argue with me about this if you are going to ignore the logic of the argument in favor of some red herring.

We're off topic and you're grasping at straws.

i am grasping at YOUR straws maybe.  and no, we are not off topic.  we are making a comparison between the risks associated with transportation (and the choices one makes) and the risks associated socially (and the choices one makes).  i think it is perfectly within the subject, and you are just trying to dismiss the argument- but whatever.  have it your way.

Are we back to allowing inline comments again?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 30, 2014 11:39:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 11:21:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

First and foremost- just be aware; and as you have pointed out- develop relationships first. 

huh?  how does this have anything to do with a typical rape victim?  they don't WANT to develop relationships.

no, this is good advice for men: develop relationships first.  then you will know if you have consent or not.

I agree.  I think what I'm pointing out is that a lot of "date rape" is really assault by a stranger, and dating is just that particular predator's trap.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2014 10:38:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're completely missing the point that a woman who does not want to be raped should not wear that, drink that, party there, walk in that part of town, fornicate, imply "no" rather than state it, or resist sexual advances passively rather than assertively. We live in a reality where these behaviours lead to rape. Abstaining from such behaviours also mitigates public skepticism about rape. A chaste woman who minds her company and circumstances is more sympathetic than one who sleeps around, dresses provocatively, and gets drunk off her can, in particular because the first woman has clearly acknowledged reality and forsaken behaviours with significant risk.

Good grief Virgil, people complaining about the rape culture are the first to tell you that there are very real risks. And no, abstaining from these behaviours does not mitigate public skepticism about rape. Public skepticism about rape is prevalent every time rape is reported. You get "endless polemics about how the world ought to be" because you keep spouting idiocy about accepting how it is and taking responsibility for being the victim of a crime.

[mmhmm]

Locking. Multiple Reports aren't something we want to deal with.

mmhmm, Administrator

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 11:20:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:54:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here is the problem i have with you stretching the analogy: it pays lip service to the idea that a woman in pumps and a dress is "looking to get laid".  but that is actually the opposite of my point.

i can't speak for why most women here dress up, but i am imagining that it is for the same reason that most men shave and shower.  but i think it is a mistake to assume that anyone that wants to look beautiful, fit in, or be socially accepted wants to get laid. 

i am starting to see strong parallels between conservative Islam and the US.  it is a wonder we don't get along better.

I posted two articles in the last discussion we had about how dress factors into a man's perception on a woman's consent to sex. Not surprisingly, both concluded that dress was a factor in several rapes, and that men take a woman's provocative dress into account when assessing her willingness for sex. I didn't create this reality, I just happen to live in it.

of course it is a factor.  that is because men misinterpret those signals.  whose fault is that?

As for your noble attempt to disparage social conservatism, I'll simply point out there might be just a tiny bit of wiggle room between "sexually provocative" and "burqa".

i wasn't attempting to disparage.  that comment was actually half sympathetic to Islamic culture.  at least they can make a clear cut argument in that culture.  this goes back to what i said about hammers and nails earlier.  you are a man with a hammer, Virgil.  but i can't really blame you.  i am indeed pretty hard on AMERICAN conservatives.

If social conservatism is all the same to you, fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you criticize Paul for failing to acknowledge differences in liberal ideologies.

it is not.  i think our conservatism should be more evolved.  but i see little or no evidence of it on this thread, despite your impassioned protestations.

oh, and for the record, i would not be 1/10th as strident about conservatives if you guys would cut liberals some slack, like....EVER?  if you are going to use that against me then stop throwing stones, ye of glass house.