NationStates Jolt Archive

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

I blame the rapist for rape, as simple as that. It's not as if being raped or being a rapist is class dependant.

Ruffy.

Rapists.

Well, although it's mostly the fault of the rapist, where and how they grew up and many other factors of society could affect their thinking. There are a lot of 'sick demented criminal fucks' out there but not all of them are rapists, so the urban environment that the person lives in can affect that to some extent. But it's mostly the rapist him/herself.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.

Just look at people's reactions when they hear about a rape. The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing. Was she (and it's virtually always a she) out after dark? Was she drinking? What was she wearing? It's all about trying to figure out how she was responsible for getting herself raped, so that we can then turn around and tell other girls and women all the freedoms they must give up in order to avoid being raped.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?

Well, here's a piece that's been passed around all over the interwebs, but which bears reposting:

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape...
Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Fuck, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
If a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.

If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
If your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.

If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and It's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.

Don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
Don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.

Just look at people's reactions when they hear about a rape. The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing. Was she (and it's virtually always a she) out after dark? Was she drinking? What was she wearing? It's all about trying to figure out how she was responsible for getting herself raped, so that we can then turn around and tell other girls and women all the freedoms they must give up in order to avoid being raped.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?

Well, here's a piece that's been passed around all over the interwebs, but which bears reposting:

No argument with "don't rape her". It's good advice. One shouldn't expect to be raped, just as one shouldn't expect to be carjacked, but it happens. Isn't it ok to teach some precautions and strategies that minimize your risk?

I don't see why it is so difficult to blame the rapist for his own actions. Now you can argue that a woman takes a higher degree of risk by wearing clothing or acting in a way that attracts the attentions of men but in the end a guy should be able to control himself.

It is the rapests first and foremost.

However, I live in a real world where unfotunatly sick people like rapists live. That means I shudder when I hear time and time again a girl was walking down a canal tow path at 3 in the morning drunk as hell.

I don't blame the victim, but come on use a little sense.

I don't see why it is so difficult to blame the rapist for his or her own actions.

Fixed.

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

so in what way does heirarchy or inequality supposedly cause rape? im not seeing a connection even when i take off my "the responsibility for rape lies with the rapist" thinking cap.

If she was in a coma, how would she know?

*runs*

No argument with "don't rape her". It's good advice. One shouldn't expect to be raped, just as one shouldn't expect to be carjacked, but it happens. Isn't it ok to teach some precautions and strategies that minimize your risk?

No because looking out for peoples safety is sexist.

No argument with "don't rape her". It's good advice. One shouldn't expect to be raped, just as one shouldn't expect to be carjacked, but it happens. Isn't it ok to teach some precautions and strategies that minimize your risk?
Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?

How many times have you seen it suggested that people simply shouldn't drive after dark, lest they be carjacked? How many times have you seen a legit news story spend more time discussing the driving history of the victim than discussing the actual crime or the perp's behavior?

And given that the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by men who are known to the victim (family members, boyfriends, or friends) isn't most of the "advice" given to rape victims completely bunk? A woman is more likely to be raped in her own home than she is to be raped in a dark alley by some evil stranger, so why are we telling women that it's safer to stay at home than to go out at night? If we are actually concerned with stopping rape, why give women advice that doesn't do a single damn thing to protect them against the most common and most likely forms of rape?

so in what way does heirarchy or inequality supposedly cause rape? im not seeing a connection even when i take off my "the responsibility for rape lies with the rapist" thinking cap.

I don't know. To be honest I'm offended by that other thread (on that other forum) and don't want to revisit it, because I know there'll be some self-righteous accusations against me about it and I don't want to deal.

I'll let you know if I see any actual reasoning about why these things supposedly cause rape. But I doubt it will have merit.

No because looking out for peoples safety is sexist.
If "looking out for people's safety" means "telling crime victims to surrender their freedoms or else it's all their fault," then that's not sexist...it's just stupid and assholish.

I don't know. To be honest I'm offended by that other thread (on that other forum) and don't want to revisit it, because I know there'll be some self-righteous accusations against me about it and I don't want to deal.

I'll let you know if I see any actual reasoning about why these things supposedly cause rape. But I doubt it will have merit.

cant say i blame you for not wanting to go back. it sounds a bit creepy.

If "looking out for people's safety" means "telling crime victims to surrender their freedoms or else it's all their fault," then that's not sexist...it's just stupid and assholish.

I have to say, I think you're wrong.

so in what way does heirarchy or inequality supposedly cause rape? im not seeing a connection even when i take off my "the responsibility for rape lies with the rapist" thinking cap.

I'm going to go with "Hand waving excuse for why 'society' is the problem, as opposed to rapists being the problem," for 100, Alex.

Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?


On the other hand when (in my own personal experience) someone's had something stolen that they've left unattended on a table or if they've left their car unlocked most people will call them stupid to take the risk.

I'm not in any way saying women should be blamed for being raped, but I don't see the problem with giving them advice on how to avoid it, after all they can always choose not to take said advice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashmoria
so in what way does heirarchy or inequality supposedly cause rape? im not seeing a connection even when i take off my "the responsibility for rape lies with the rapist" thinking cap.

I'm going to go with "Hand waving excuse for why 'society' is the problem, as opposed to rapists being the problem," for 100, Alex.
There is some logic to it I think. If a society generally portrays/views women as inferior and solely sexual objects then that attitude is likely to cause more rapes than a society where they're viewed as equal etc.

Compare to Germany. The Nazis and those who helped commit the holocaust are responsible for their actions, but their actions were contributed to by the way Jews were portrayed/viewed in the society before the holocaust.

I have to say, I think you're wrong.
Meh, you're not alone. Most of my society thinks it is perfectly reasonable to demand that all female human beings restrict their fundamental freedoms in order to prevent rape. Never mind that we don't apply this rule to male behavior, even though men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of stranger-perpetrated violence and homicide.

On the other hand when (in my own personal experience) someone's had something stolen that they've left unattended on a table or if they've left their car unlocked most people will call them stupid to take the risk.

I'm not in any way saying women should be blamed for being raped, but I don't see the problem with giving them advice on how to avoid it, after all they can always choose not to take said advice.

It really depends on how effective that advise is. If your advice consists of "Don't dress slutty, don't go out after dark, and bring along a can of mace" it's not going to be very effective in my opinion, given that the large number of rapes are committed by people the victim knows and trusts.

No because looking out for peoples safety is sexist.

What is sexist about learning how to be prepared in case of an attack?

Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?


Never, but i've never seen a story in the news about a raping talking about what the woman was wearing either. I have seen many many many times on tv people suggesting where to and where not to park your posh sports car.


How many times have you seen it suggested that people simply shouldn't drive after dark, lest they be carjacked?
How many times have you seen a legit news story spend more time discussing the driving history of the victim than discussing the actual crime or the perp's behavior?


Carjacking is a terrible example anyway because it is no way near as serious as rape. Murder would be a better example, and yes there are often articles and descriptions of the history of the victim with murder.


And given that the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by men who are known to the victim (family members, boyfriends, or friends) isn't most of the "advice" given to rape victims completely bunk?


Of course not. There is still a risk.


A woman is more likely to be raped in her own home than she is to be raped in a dark alley by some evil stranger, so why are we telling women that it's safer to stay at home than to go out at night?


Maybe because they think it's safer. My mum used to not let me go out at night when I was younger, and i'm male. It's all to do with vulnerability and not deliberately to do with gender.


If we are actually concerned with stopping rape, why give women advice that doesn't do a single damn thing to protect them against the most common and most likely forms of rape?

Are you saying that we should have big adverts saying "Men, don't rape woman"? It's not like 99.999% of people don't already and instinctively no rape is wrong.

If "looking out for people's safety" means "telling crime victims to surrender their freedoms or else it's all their fault," then that's not sexist...it's just stupid and assholish.

If someone said to anyone not to go down a dark alley at night alone, nobody would go "zomgs your takin away my freedoomss!".

What is sexist about learning how to be prepared in case of an attack?

I was being sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic.

Hard to tell in threads like these.

Meh, you're not alone. Most of my society thinks it is perfectly reasonable to demand that all female human beings restrict their fundamental freedoms in order to prevent rape.

Say there's a spate of robberies in your area, because some individual can't keep his hands to himself. The police advise that you keep all windows and doors locked at night, even if you're in the house. They warn you about keeping things visible in your car.

Is that not reasonable? Or is that a horrible 'demand' that you restrict your freedoms in order to prevent robbery?

I say it's perfectly reasonable. The guy shouldn't be robbing anybody, but to ignore the problem and repeat over and over that he shouldn't be doing it and refuse to take any precautions to protect your belongings is just stupid.

Say there's a serial killer on the loose. The police advise all people to keep indoors at night, if possible, and if they have to walk anywhere go in a group.

Is that not reasonable? Or is it a horrible 'demand' that you restrict your freedoms in order to prevent your murder?

I say it's perfectly reasonable. The murderer shouldn't be killing anybody, but to ignore the problem and repeat over and over that he shouldn't be doing it and refuse to take any precautions to protect your life is just stupid.

Sat there's a spate of rapes. The police advise women to take extra precautions to protect themselves; going in groups, looking after their drinks in bars etc.

See above.

Never mind that we don't apply this rule to male behavior, even though men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of stranger-perpetrated violence and homicide.

Yeah we do. Well, maybe your society doesn't, but mine does. Men are always warned against walking home alone from a night out in case they are attacked, and to make sure their friends know where they're going if they head off somewhere. Even when we have a low-ish violent crime rate.

It's just common sense.

On the other hand when (in my own personal experience) someone's had something stolen that they've left unattended on a table or if they've left their car unlocked most people will call them stupid to take the risk.

Think about the comparison, here. Leaving one's purse unattended is to be compared to...what? Going out while female? Walking through a public area while female? These are the things women are told not to do, in order to prevent rape.

A more appropriate comparison, in my opinion, would be if you laughed at somebody who had their car stolen and told them that they should have kept it locked safely in their garage if they didn't want it to be stolen.


I'm not in any way saying women should be blamed for being raped, but I don't see the problem with giving them advice on how to avoid it, after all they can always choose not to take said advice.
The key is in noticing when the "advice" is flat-out stupid.

Would you tell your friend to never take their purse out of the house because it might be stolen? No, that would be silly.

Would you tell your friend that they should never drink in public, ever, because they are more likely to have their wallet stolen?

Would you tell your friend to never go to a pub alone, ever, because they might get caught in a bar fight?

And, again, please remember that the majority of rapes are committed by men who are family members or friends or dates of the victim. So how does the "advice" being given to women actually protect them from the most likely sources of rape in their lives?

A woman is statistically more likely to be raped by her boyfriend or husband than by a random guy at a pub, so why don't we hear women being advised to never date or marry in order to prevent rape?

A woman is statistically more likely to be raped by a family member than by a drunken dude at a party, so why don't we advise women to never associate with family?

Perhaps because we recognize that SOME advice is just plain stupid, and there is a point where it's just too much to ask that people sacrifice their lives to protect themselves from possible crime.

I simply feel that our standards of stupidity aren't quite right yet.

Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?

How many times have you seen it suggested that people simply shouldn't drive after dark, lest they be carjacked? How many times have you seen a legit news story spend more time discussing the driving history of the victim than discussing the actual crime or the perp's behavior?

And given that the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by men who are known to the victim (family members, boyfriends, or friends) isn't most of the "advice" given to rape victims completely bunk? A woman is more likely to be raped in her own home than she is to be raped in a dark alley by some evil stranger, so why are we telling women that it's safer to stay at home than to go out at night? If we are actually concerned with stopping rape, why give women advice that doesn't do a single damn thing to protect them against the most common and most likely forms of rape?

How many times are we told to steer clear of a certain neighborhood because of the high crime rate? Isn't that similar to telling your college bound daughter not to get too trashed at a frat party? It's just good advice meant to keep people safe. In a perfect world we could expect to be able to do anything in perfect safety, but we don't live in a perfect world.

If most women are raped in their own homes, self defense training and weapons training might be better advice. Still, why approach the issue from only one side? Why just teach "don't rape" and ignore giving training and advice that may boost awareness and protect a potential rape victim?

It just seems like abandoning the teaching of rape prevention because it implies that women share the blame actually ends up placing women at risk. Is the principle that women should be able to do whatever they want more importan than actually preventing rape?

Hard to tell in threads like these.

Yeah I probably should have used the :rolleyes: emotion.

Think about the comparison, here. Leaving one's purse unattended is to be compared to...what? Going out while female? Walking through a public area while female? These are the things women are told not to do, in order to prevent rape.

I think you live in crazy town. I've never heard of a woman told not to go out alone just because they were female.

Would you tell your friend that they should never drink in public, ever, because they are more likely to have their wallet stolen?

Would you tell your friend to never go to a pub alone, ever, because they might get caught in a bar fight?

Nope, and nobody ever tells women the same thing with rape, either.

The key is in noticing when the "advice" is flat-out stupid.

Would you tell your friend to never take their purse out of the house because it might be stolen? No, that would be silly.

Would you tell your friend that they should never drink in public, ever, because they are more likely to have their wallet stolen?

Would you tell your friend to never go to a pub alone, ever, because they might get caught in a bar fight?

And, again, please remember that the majority of rapes are committed by men who are family members or friends or dates of the victim. So how does the "advice" being given to women actually protect them from the most likely sources of rape in their lives?

A woman is statistically more likely to be raped by her boyfriend or husband than by a random guy at a pub, so why don't we hear women being advised to never date or marry in order to prevent rape?

A woman is statistically more likely to be raped by a family member than by a drunken dude at a party, so why don't we advise women to never associate with family?

Perhaps because we recognize that SOME advice is just plain stupid, and there is a point where it's just too much to ask that people sacrifice their lives to protect themselves from possible crime.

I simply feel that our standards of stupidity aren't quite right yet.

Then you're moaning about the quality of the advice, not the giving of the advice itself. Most women are raped by people they trust, but some aren't. If we say advised women to carry mace spray and stay in groups where possible (good advice for anyone going out, drinking etc) and that reduces the number of rapes by strangers then surely that's a good thing.

Obviously you want the advice to be good, but it should be at least available for those who want it.

Two folks blame "society" and one blames "hiearchical structures." Can I get an actual argument about that, or is that just cuz some people like messing up polls?

If someone said to anyone not to go down a dark alley at night alone, nobody would go "zomgs your takin away my freedoomss!".
If somebody told you that you could never leave your home without an escort, I think that would qualify. That's pretty much the message that we were given at my college: girls should never go out except with an escort, preferably a large male escort.

I have nothing against people learning how to protect themselves. I'm a city kid. I've always known about locking my doors and windows, making sure my answering machine message doesn't reveal that I'm a female living alone, carrying my bag with the strap across my chest to make it impossible to snatch, and so forth. I have no problem with teaching anybody, male or female, some of the tricks to personal safety.

My problem is that, when it comes to rape, people are just way too eager to sacrifice women's freedoms. People seem to set pretty much no limits on what women should be expected to give up in order to prevent rape. That's bullshit, in my opinion.

I don't think I should be denied the right to walk down my street alone simply because I'm female. I don't think anybody has the right to tell me I was being stupid for thinking that I should get to go out in public by myself. I don't think anybody should suggest that I was foolish for thinking that I, a grown adult, should be able to have a drink on my own at the pub. Or for thinking that I could ride the subway by myself after dark. Or thinking I should be able to jog through the park by myself. Or for driving my car down a quiet street.

But these are the things I hear women told not to do. It's not "don't go down dark alleys alone at night in bad parts of town." It's, "Don't go out alone. Period." "Don't go out at night." "Don't go into quiet areas of the park alone, day or night."

I think that's bullshit.

To the OP: The rapist.

I suspect that society's sometimes (depending not least on where you are) rather fucked up attitudes to sex don't do anything to help matters.

That doesn't mean that walking alone through the dodgy bits of town shouldn't be discouraged; it may well reduce the chance of you getting raped. Same as it may well reduce the chance of you getting mugged. Obviously, that doesn't mean it's anyone other than the rapist's or mugger's fault should a crime happen, but putting yourself at needless risk is stupid. (According to statistics I've just found, 17% of rapes in the UK were carried out by strangers; not insignificant. Added to that the reduced chance of being the victim of mugging, etcetera, I'd think this advice is far from "bunk", and it isn't even advice purely targeted at women.)

As for rapes that happen by people known to the victim... Well, see paragraph 2. And that does, at least, mean it is easy for the victim to identify the attacker to the police. Here we have the big problem, though; fewer than 6% of rape cases (dans la UK, again) result in a conviction. Obviously not all cases reported will be true, but I very much doubt 94% are bollocks.
So how do you increase the number of convictions of the guilty, without convicting the innocent? Now I don't know, to be honest, and I'd have to do way more research than I care to to even pretend to find out.

(linky to my stats (http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/index2.html))

Then you're moaning about the quality of the advice, not the giving of the advice itself.

Um...duh. I have nothing against the giving of advice, in principle.


Most women are raped by people they trust, but some aren't. If we say advised women to carry mace spray and stay in groups where possible (good advice for anyone going out, drinking etc) and that reduces the number of rapes by strangers then surely that's a good thing.

Sure. But if we are really primarily concerned with preventing rape (and I hope we are), then shouldn't the bulk of our advice be concerned with preventing most rapes?

Since most rapes are committed by men who are known by the victim, what type of advice do you think would be the most useful?

If somebody told you that you could never leave your home without an escort, I think that would qualify. That's pretty much the message that we were given at my college: girls should never go out except with an escort, preferably a large male escort.

I have nothing against people learning how to protect themselves. I'm a city kid. I've always known about locking my doors and windows, making sure my answering machine message doesn't reveal that I'm a female living alone, carrying my bag with the strap across my chest to make it impossible to snatch, and so forth. I have no problem with teaching anybody, male or female, some of the tricks to personal safety.

My problem is that, when it comes to rape, people are just way too eager to sacrifice women's freedoms. People seem to set pretty much no limits on what women should be expected to give up in order to prevent rape. That's bullshit, in my opinion.

I don't think I should be denied the right to walk down my street alone simply because I'm female. I don't think anybody has the right to tell me I was being stupid for thinking that I should get to go out in public by myself. I don't think anybody should suggest that I was foolish for thinking that I, a grown adult, should be able to have a drink on my own at the pub. Or for thinking that I could ride the subway by myself after dark. Or thinking I should be able to jog through the park by myself. Or for driving my car down a quiet street.

But these are the things I hear women told not to do. It's not "don't go down dark alleys alone at night in bad parts of town." It's, "Don't go out alone. Period." "Don't go out at night." "Don't go into quiet areas of the park alone, day or night."

I think that's bullshit.

Of course, you're right; nobody should need to give that advice. But in the messed up world we live in, it is necessary advice to offer to try and protect women. Whether they take the advice is, always, up to the individual woman.

snip

If it's setting limits etc then that's not advice. Advice (for me at least) is strictly optional. I'm in favour of advice, not restrictions.

Since most rapes are committed by men who are known by the victim, what type of advice do you think would be the most useful?
I'm not sure, you could go for the trust nobody approach but that brings with it a lot of problems. But in lieu of good advice for the majority we should at least give advice to the minority.

I said "society", not as, "the concept of society" but of "the current forms of society". I would have chosen "capitalism", but it's much more generic, other forms of society based on domination (feodalism, any form of totalitarism, ..) has the same effects.

Sure, rapists are the primary culprits, but it's pointless to say "they are evil" without trying to see why they became so and how to prevent it.

The structure of most (if not all) current and past societies is based on domination, which most of the time include domination of women by men, and if they don't, make it "normal" to use others for your own pleasure.

Only a society based on equality, sharing, mutual respect, cooperation of everyone with everyone can hope to erradicate, or at least nearly eradicate, rape.

Are you saying that we should have big adverts saying "Men, don't rape woman"? It's not like 99.999% of people don't already and instinctively no rape is wrong.Not quite. There has been at least one study done with 12 and 13-year-old boys where the majority of the boys have said that there are certain situations where rape is acceptable.

If somebody told you that you could never leave your home without an escort, I think that would qualify. That's pretty much the message that we were given at my college: girls should never go out except with an escort, preferably a large male escort.


Should =\= taking away freedoms. No one is forcing you to follow that advice, it's just a suggestion. Like I shouldn't go down to the K**** estate just down the road without someone I know who lives there, lest I have the shit beaten out of me because I'm in their turf, yet I can still go there alone if I want. But most people don't advise people like that.


My problem is that, when it comes to rape, people are just way too eager to sacrifice women's freedoms. People seem to set pretty much no limits on what women should be expected to give up in order to prevent rape. That's bullshit, in my opinion.


I havn't really noticed anything that bad, but even if they are being a bit over-precautious, that doesn't mean their intentions are bad.


I don't think I should be denied the right to walk down my street alone simply because I'm female.

No one is denying you that right. If your boyfriend or whoever forces you to stay at home get a new one.


I don't think anybody has the right to tell me I was being stupid for thinking that I should get to go out in public by myself. I don't think anybody should suggest that I was foolish for thinking that I, a grown adult, should be able to have a drink on my own at the pub. Or for thinking that I could ride the subway by myself after dark. Or thinking I should be able to jog through the park by myself. Or for driving my car down a quiet street.


I never really hear people saying things like that, I don't believe that society is telling you that you should not do these things. But I guess it depends where you live.


But these are the things I hear women told not to do. It's not "don't go down dark alleys alone at night in bad parts of town." It's, "Don't go out alone. Period." "Don't go out at night." "Don't go into quiet areas of the park alone, day or night."

I think that's bullshit.

But the incentive behind that advice is looking out for your safety, which overall is a good incentive.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.

Just look at people's reactions when they hear about a rape. The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing. Was she (and it's virtually always a she) out after dark? Was she drinking? What was she wearing? It's all about trying to figure out how she was responsible for getting herself raped, so that we can then turn around and tell other girls and women all the freedoms they must give up in order to avoid being raped.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?

Well, here's a piece that's been passed around all over the interwebs, but which bears reposting:

hmmm, i always thought the reason everyone tells the victim what to do/not do is because the rapist/s won't listen to reason, and are generally "inhumane", so its more productive to tell the victims what to do because they're smarter and trying to force potential rapists to take precautions wont work because they're normally the kinda people who wont listen.

in other words, the rapists are seen as machines who if you place the blame on, won't care, it would be like blaming a dishwasher for breaking

there's obviously sexism involved in rape cases, but a larger prejudice is against the rapists themselves as they are seen as animals instead of people and the advice given to women AND men is given in the same way people are warned how to avoid animal attacks in the wilderness.

just my opinion though

Not quite. There has been at least one study done with 12 and 13-year-old boys where the majority of the boys have said that there are certain situations where rape is acceptable.

Hmmm. But you know what a 12 and 13 year olds imagination is like. They may be thinking something like "it's acceptable if it is the only way to save the world from destruction" or whatever.

Meh, you're not alone. Most of my society thinks it is perfectly reasonable to demand that all female human beings restrict their fundamental freedoms in order to prevent rape. Never mind that we don't apply this rule to male behavior, even though men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of stranger-perpetrated violence and homicide.

Come on now. Most guys don't walk into hardcore biker bars dressed in a suit, won't go into bars in the ghetto if they're suburban white dudes, or won't go into a redneck, hillbilly joint if they're black and dressed "urban". Why? We know it's likely to get us into trouble. Sure we have the right to go in, but we know that if we do we could get stomped. So what's so bad about telling a girl not to go to a party with a bunch of horny young guys and get shitfaced to the point where she can't take care of herself? It's not a double standard. It's just exercising common sense.

I said "society", not as, "the concept of society" but of "the current forms of society". I would have chosen "capitalism", but it's much more generic, other forms of society based on domination (feodalism, any form of totalitarism, ..) has the same effects.


Would it be fair for me to blame Marx for your repugnant views here? I think so. You are clearly not doing anything, just acting as the echo of Marx's vile tripe.


Sure, rapists are the primary culprits, but it's pointless to say "they are evil" without trying to see why they became so and how to prevent it.

Seeing why a rapist becomes a rapist is not the same as saying he is in any way not to blame. You however are. He's not the only "culprit," so who else is? Who would you punish for the actions of a rapist? Me? I work in a business and am decidely pro-capitalist. Would you hold me responsible? I bet you would.

The structure of most (if not all) current and past societies is based on domination, which most of the time include domination of women by men, and if they don't, make it "normal" to use others for your own pleasure.

Right. I can't help myself, it's the evil society that's making it "normal" for me to be abnormal. Let's let all rapists out, clearly they're the victims of dominion-based hiearchical inequality and they shouldn't be punished for actions beyond their control.

Only a society based on equality, sharing, mutual respect, cooperation of everyone with everyone can hope to erradicate, or at least nearly eradicate, rape.

Ah yes... equality. If only those CEO's made less money, then there'd be less rape. Also, if only I get voted into office, there'd be less rape. VOTE ME NOW!

Hmmm. But you know what a 12 and 13 year olds imagination is like. They may be thinking something like "it's acceptable if it is the only way to save the world from destruction" or whatever.

Only 12 and 13 year old boys come up with such a scenario? :p

How many times are we told to steer clear of a certain neighborhood because of the high crime rate? Isn't that similar to telling your college bound daughter not to get too trashed at a frat party? It's just good advice meant to keep people safe. In a perfect world we could expect to be able to do anything in perfect safety, but we don't live in a perfect world.

You should probably tell your college-age kid not to get too trashed at parties, regardless of their gender. What you shouldn't do is give your college-age daughter the impression that if some asshole rapes her it is in any way, shape, or form her fault.


If most women are raped in their own homes, self defense training and weapons training might be better advice. Still, why approach the issue from only one side? Why just teach "don't rape" and ignore giving training and advice that may boost awareness and protect a potential rape victim?

I'm not arguing for a one-sided approach. I'm arguing that the bulk of rape-prevention efforts should be aimed at stopping the rapists instead of "advising" the victims, BECAUSE IT IS MORE LIKELY TO WORK.

Women are most likely to be raped by men they know and think they can trust. There's pretty much no "advice" you can give women to fix this, aside from telling them to simply never associate with men, ever. I think that's a lousy option (for both men and women).

More than 60% of rapes occur in the victim's home or the home of a friend. Rapes in a dark alley are actually very statistically rare. Are we supposed to tell women to never be in their own homes or in the homes of the people they are closest with? That seems lousy.

Instead, I think there will be far more success dealing with MEN and teaching them not to rape.

Here's a few reasons why:

One in three college men surveyed anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. One in 12 admit to committing acts that met the legal definition of rape, and 84% who had committed rape did not label it as rape.

Do you think 84% of guys who describe how they stole a car will insist that they weren't stealing a car?


It just seems like abandoning the teaching of rape prevention because it implies that women share the blame actually ends up placing women at risk. Is the principle that women should be able to do whatever they want more importan than actually preventing rape?
Again, if we are actually interested in preventing rapes, then what we are doing isn't even trying to address the overwhelming majority of rapes.

Never mind that we don't apply this rule to male behavior, even though men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of stranger-perpetrated violence and homicide.

i, as a male, have been advised to "not go there alone" or "never go there during the night".

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

Rapists only. Not their up-bringing. Not women walking down the street naked.

Only the rapist.

I'm not sure, you could go for the trust nobody approach but that brings with it a lot of problems. But in lieu of good advice for the majority we should at least give advice to the minority.
Why on Earth do you rule out addressing THE RAPISTS?

Most men who admit to behavior that meets the legal definition of rape will insist that what they did wasn't rape. At the very, very least, that suggests that a shitload of men don't even know what rape IS. I'd say that would be a good place to start.

Jews

Why on Earth do you rule out addressing THE RAPISTS?

Most men who admit to behavior that meets the legal definition of rape will insist that what they did wasn't rape. At the very, very least, that suggests that a shitload of men don't even know what rape IS.

...or that they are plying ignorance as an excuse. I think that's more likely.

Come on now. Most guys don't walk into hardcore biker bars dressed in a suit, won't go into bars in the ghetto if they're suburban white dudes, or won't go into a redneck, hillbilly joint if they're black and dressed "urban". Why? We know it's likely to get us into trouble. Sure we have the right to go in, but we know that if we do we could get stomped. So what's so bad about telling a girl not to go to a party with a bunch of horny young guys and get shitfaced to the point where she can't take care of herself? It's not a double standard. It's just exercising common sense.
There are plenty of cases where there's no double standard. We tell GUYS not to go to parties with piles of other guys and get so shitfaced they can't take care of themselves. That's just good general advice...don't get sloshed with people you don't know. This kind of advice is not what I am talking about.

If you are SPECIFICALLY giving advice about how to prevent RAPE, then advising a girl to not get sloshed at a frat party should actually be very low on your list of priorities. You should actually start by warning her to never be in a secluded place with any of her male friends or family members or romantic interests, since they are statistically far, far more likely to rape her than any of the drunken frat boys.

One in three college men surveyed anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. One in 12 admit to committing acts that met the legal definition of rape, and 84% who had committed rape did not label it as rape.

Do you think 84% of guys who describe how they stole a car will insist that they weren't stealing a car?

I would suggest that many carjackers would claim they weren't doing anything wrong, which is not the same. The rapists you mention don't claim they didn't have sex, or whatever. They just claim they didn't commit rape.

It is not what the criminal claims they did that matters; it's what they actually did. They may well have fucked up ideas of right and wrong.

I would agree that "don't rape" is a perfectly good instruction. That doesn't mean that everyone will follow it.

If you are SPECIFICALLY giving advice about how to prevent RAPE, then advising a girl to not get sloshed at a frat party should actually be very low on your list of priorities. You should actually start by warning her to never be in a secluded place with any of her male friends or family members or romantic interests, since they are statistically far, far more likely to rape her than any of the drunken frat boys.

I think telling women that you cant spend some alone time with males who you are very close to is far far worse.

You should probably tell your college-age kid not to get too trashed at parties, regardless of their gender. What you shouldn't do is give your college-age daughter the impression that if some asshole rapes her it is in any way, shape, or form her fault.
Telling her to be careful isn't the same as telling her that if she gets raped it's her fault. If I leave my keys in the ignition of my car overnight and it's not there in the morning I'm not to blame for the theft, but I did something irresponsible that made it more likely. I would expect people to think it was a stupid move.

I'm not arguing for a one-sided approach. I'm arguing that the bulk of rape-prevention efforts should be aimed at stopping the rapists instead of "advising" the victims, BECAUSE IT IS MORE LIKELY TO WORK.

Women are most likely to be raped by men they know and think they can trust. There's pretty much no "advice" you can give women to fix this, aside from telling them to simply never associate with men, ever. I think that's a lousy option (for both men and women). So telling women to be aware of their surroundings, to know how to defend themselves, and to know how to attract attention and make an escape in case of an attempted rape won't do a thing? The only option other than to be completely vulnerable is to simply avoid men? I disagree. I don't think it's all or nothing. There are things a woman can do to minimize her risk and still live a normal life.

More than 60% of rapes occur in the victim's home or the home of a friend. Rapes in a dark alley are actually very statistically rare. Are we supposed to tell women to never be in their own homes or in the homes of the people they are closest with? That seems lousy. see response above

Instead, I think there will be far more success dealing with MEN and teaching them not to rape.

Here's a few reasons why:

One in three college men surveyed anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. One in 12 admit to committing acts that met the legal definition of rape, and 84% who had committed rape did not label it as rape.

Do you think 84% of guys who describe how they stole a car will insist that they weren't stealing a car?


Again, if we are actually interested in preventing rapes, then what we are doing isn't even trying to address the overwhelming majority of rapes.
I have no problem with teaching young men what rape is and that commiting rape makes them less of a man, not more. I just don't think that's the only thing we need to do.

Hmmm. But you know what a 12 and 13 year olds imagination is like. They may be thinking something like "it's acceptable if it is the only way to save the world from destruction" or whatever.I was thinking more specifically of reasons like the boy and the girl had been going out for a long time or if the boy had spent a lot of money on the girl.

...or that they are plying ignorance as an excuse. I think that's more likely.
I think maybe we should try to find out.

Maybe they're lying. Maybe they genuinely don't get it. I encountered plenty of guys in college who had very interesting notions of what does and does not constitute rape.

It's like that idea that it doesn't count as cheating if you're in another time zone; a lot of guys have these special "rules" that mean you aren't really a rapist. If she agreed to make out with you but then says stop, it doesn't count as rape. If she agreed to come back to your place for drinks, it doesn't count as rape. If she was totally flirting with you all night, it doesn't count as rape. And so forth.

I don't know if this is intentional bullshit or just fuckwad ignorance. But, on the off chance it's fuckwad ignorance, I think it's worth trying to educate the lads.

If you are SPECIFICALLY giving advice about how to prevent RAPE, then advising a girl to not get sloshed at a frat party should actually be very low on your list of priorities. You should actually start by warning her to never be in a secluded place with any of her male friends or family members or romantic interests, since they are statistically far, far more likely to rape her than any of the drunken frat boys.

you do realise that it's nearly impossible for any girl to never be in a secluded place with any of her male friends or family members or romantic interests, do you. so it probably helps more to tell them not to get drunk at parties.
compare it with sex education, if you want to be safe never have sex, but because almost nobody does that it's better to teach them how to use condoms etc.

I would have to blame America for rape all over the world. I mean, their meddlesome policies in the middle east have lead to increased rape rates. I also blame women. They tempt men by showing their hair and ankles! How immodest!! I propose all women must wear covering except their eyes. I also blame George W. Bush, Israel, The Great Satan, and Alexander the Great. Allahu Akhbar! I hate Jews and human rights.


- Love, Osama bin Laden

I think telling women that you cant spend some alone time with males who you are very close to is far far worse.
SO DO I!!!!!

That's my whole point.

Yes, telling women to never go have a drink alone at the pub may reduce their chances of being raped.

But, then again, telling women to never spend time alone with any male family member would definitely reduce their chances of being raped by a far greater degree.

I happen to think that BOTH of those are unacceptable.

Well, here's a piece that's been passed around all over the interwebs, but which bears reposting:

If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.

Someone who admits to rape in my presence will never be FOUND by the police.

No argument with "don't rape her". It's good advice. One shouldn't expect to be raped, just as one shouldn't expect to be carjacked, but it happens. Isn't it ok to teach some precautions and strategies that minimize your risk?

Actually that's a good point. When I walk in a bad part of town I take precautions not to be mugged after all.

Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?

The fact that such questions are asked in a rape case is . . . I can't find words so I'll just say that it's :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: to those asking the questions, preferably with something wrapped in barbed wire coated in hot sauce.

That doesn't mean that taking precautions such as making sure no one slips something into your drink is a bad thing

Meh, you're not alone. Most of my society thinks it is perfectly reasonable to demand that all female human beings restrict their fundamental freedoms in order to prevent rape. Never mind that we don't apply this rule to male behavior, even though men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of stranger-perpetrated violence and homicide.

Is it restricting my freedom when I don't flash a big roll of hundred dollar bills to avoid being mugged?

Is it really restricting your freedom to not leave your drink unattended at a bar?

Note I am not saying that if your drink is drugged and you are raped it's your fault. It's the rapists fault all the way. However if you are careful with your drink it won't be you that gets drugged.

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

Rapists.

That doesn't mean that taking precautions such as making sure no one slips something into your drink is a bad thing
Absolutely. There was a terrific story in the news recently, about two bartenders who saw a guy slip something into a woman's drink when she went to the lavatory. They told the woman they needed to ask her something outside, and then took her out and told her what they had seen. While they were outside, another bar employee came out and told them that the asshole did it AGAIN.

So they all went back inside and told the asshole that his date was over.

The bartenders took the contaminated beer into the back room, and police were later able to identify the drugs that the asshole had been slipping into the drinks.

Now that's quality. :D

Think about the comparison, here. Leaving one's purse unattended is to be compared to...what? Going out while female? Walking through a public area while female? These are the things women are told not to do, in order to prevent rape.

These are things they are told by idiots to do to prevent rape. When I say take precautions I mean know how to defend yourself and be careful no one slips you a roofie.

But these are the things I hear women told not to do. It's not "don't go down dark alleys alone at night in bad parts of town." It's, "Don't go out alone. Period." "Don't go out at night." "Don't go into quiet areas of the park alone, day or night."

I think that's bullshit.

And I agree, that advice is bullshit.

Is it restricting my freedom when I don't flash a big roll of hundred dollar bills to avoid being mugged?

Read the post of mine you quoted.

Would you consider it restricting if you were told that you shouldn't be going out in the first place, to avoid being mugged?

A woman's body is not like a big wad of money. She shouldn't have to hide it away or keep it locked up in her house to prevent somebody from stealing it.


Is it really restricting your freedom to not leave your drink unattended at a bar?

Well, yes, frankly, but it's something I consider an acceptable restriction on freedom. My entire point is that there are acceptable restrictions and unacceptable restrictions.

I have no problem with telling people, male or female, to keep an eye on their drinks at a party. I have a problem with telling female people that they really shouldn't be going to parties because there are drunk guys there who might rape them. Can you see the difference?

I think maybe we should try to find out.

Maybe they're lying. Maybe they genuinely don't get it. I encountered plenty of guys in college who had very interesting notions of what does and does not constitute rape.

No doubt, but that could well be little more than psychological justifications for actions they know to be wrong; as opposed to a genuine lack of knowledge.

It's like that idea that it doesn't count as cheating if you're in another time zone; a lot of guys have these special "rules" that mean you aren't really a rapist. If she agreed to make out with you but then says stop, it doesn't count as rape. If she agreed to come back to your place for drinks, it doesn't count as rape. If she was totally flirting with you all night, it doesn't count as rape. And so forth.

I don't know if this is intentional bullshit or just fuckwad ignorance. But, on the off chance it's fuckwad ignorance, I think it's worth trying to educate the lads.

There are also people who don't think it's torture if the US does it... or it's not killing innocent civilians because Palestinians are always guilty terrorists (if killed by war)... it's a double standard, but not a real ignorance that needs education. I just think it needs strong argument and force of law (same with the other examples) more than an attempt to fill guilty-thinking people's heads just with knowledge.

Though I guess "argument" can mean "education.." depending on how you look at it.

Absolutely. There was a terrific story in the news recently, about two bartenders who saw a guy slip something into a woman's drink when she went to the lavatory. They told the woman they needed to ask her something outside, and then took her out and told her what they had seen. While they were outside, another bar employee came out and told them that the asshole did it AGAIN.

So they all went back inside and told the asshole that his date was over.

The bartenders took the contaminated beer into the back room, and police were later able to identify the drugs that the asshole had been slipping into the drinks.

Now that's quality. :D

its nice to hear when a piece of shit like this gets caught in the act.

You should hear more of this to make the rest of the scum that may be considering it think twice. Although-if you are considering doing this, you're half a fucking defect to begin with.


Also-anyone who is out drinking should be made aware never to leave their drink unattended. Take it with you, have a friend hold it, or get a fresh one when you return.
Its worth the peace of mind

Read the post of mine you quoted.

Would you consider it restricting if you were told that you shouldn't be going out in the first place, to avoid being mugged?

The problem is that you seem to be lumping advice along the lines of "don't dress like that or you deserve it you skanky whore" into the same group as "be careful you don't get slipped a roofie" and "if someone tries to force themselves on you heres how to fight them off".

No doubt, but that could well be little more than psychological justifications for actions they know to be wrong; as opposed to a genuine lack of knowledge.



There are also people who don't think it's torture if the US does it... or it's not killing innocent civilians because Palestinians are always guilty terrorists (if killed by war)... it's a double standard, but not a real ignorance that needs education. I just think it needs strong argument and force of law (same with the other examples) more than an attempt to fill guilty-thinking people's heads just with knowledge.

Though I guess "argument" can mean "education.." depending on how you look at it.
I'm a bit of an idealist, I admit.

I happen to believe that most guys (like most girls) are good people. However, statistics tell me that a pretty scary percentage of guys will end up committing rape at least once in their lifetime. So how do I reconcile these elements?

I believe there are lots of guys (and girls!) who just don't get it when it comes to rape. In my high school health class, most kids simply couldn't wrap their heads around the notion that a woman can be raped by her husband. It took WEEKS before you started to see light bulbs going off over people's heads, as they began to figure out why agreeing to marry somebody doesn't give them automatic rights to your genitals whenever they want it.

Kids had almost as much trouble with the idea that a girl could consent to make out, but it would still be rape if the guy forced her to then have sex against her wishes.

I honestly and truly believe that there are a lot of guys out there who commit rape without understanding that what they did was rape.

Does that in any way excuse them? Not as far as I'm concerned.

But it does mean that (in my opinion) it is probably possible to prevent at least some guys from committing rape, if you can just get through to them that what THEY ARE DOING constitutes rape.

The problem is that you seem to be lumping advice along the lines of "don't dress like that or you deserve it you skanky whore" into the same group as "be careful you don't get slipped a roofie" and "if someone tries to force themselves on you heres how to fight them off".
I'm sorry if it is coming across that way. I have tried to repeatedly state that I don't have a problem with teaching basic City Kid Survival Skillz(tm) to anybody and everybody.

What I have a problem with is giving women and girls bullshit "advice" about preventing rape that actually does nothing more than restrict their freedoms while not protecting them at all from the most likely sources of rape.

The problem is that you seem to be lumping advice along the lines of "don't dress like that or you deserve it you skanky whore" into the same group as "be careful you don't get slipped a roofie" and "if someone tries to force themselves on you heres how to fight them off".

using common sense and being aware of the potential dangers in life is a good thing.

but it does seem that way too often giving rape advice ends up in an excuse to suggest that women dont really belong out of their houses after dark. that they have no business trying to be attractive and to associate with men that they dont already know.

it is as if you asked about avoiding contracting HIV and the advice was "dont date haitian men". (you might not remember the time when haitian immigrants in the US had a disproportionate level of infection) for the vast majority of women contracting HIV that advice would be useless.

so it is for the vast majority of women who get raped. what we need is perhaps a bit more education on trusting our gut feelings about the intentions of men we know. maybe some "smack upside the headedness" about not trusting men who have shown they shouldnt be trusted. maybe a license to make a huge scene when a man we know is crossing the line. i dont know, maybe there is no good advice on how to avoid being raped by someone we know.

maybe our time, effort and money would be better spent following bottle's suggestion that we educate men in what it is to rape a woman he knows so that he can better identify the situation and stop before he commits a crime.

I would have to blame America for rape all over the world. I mean, their meddlesome policies in the middle east have lead to increased rape rates. I also blame women. They tempt men by showing their hair and ankles! How immodest!! I propose all women must wear covering except their eyes. I also blame George W. Bush, Israel, The Great Satan, and Alexander the Great. Allahu Akhbar! I hate Jews and human rights.what the...??

Alexander would never rape a woman.
and neither would the 300 greeks.

it is as if you asked about avoiding contracting HIV and the advice was "dont date haitian men". (you might not remember the time when haitian immigrants in the US had a disproportionate level of infection) for the vast majority of women contracting HIV that advice would be useless.

Even today, lots of people assume that somebody who got AIDS must be a promiscuous homosexual.

It's good advice to tell people not to have tons of unprotected sex. It's shitty advice to tell people that they simply shouldn't be gay because they'll get AIDS. Just like it's good to tell people not to leave their beer unattended in a public bar, but it's shitty advice to tell people that they simply shouldn't be at the pub in the first place because they'll get raped. Not only is it bullshit, but it pretty much amounts to telling people that they can't be who they are.

Even today, lots of people assume that somebody who got AIDS must be a promiscuous homosexual.

It's good advice to tell people not to have tons of unprotected sex. It's shitty advice to tell people that they simply shouldn't be gay because they'll get AIDS. Just like it's good to tell people not to leave their beer unattended in a public bar, but it's shitty advice to tell people that they simply shouldn't be at the pub in the first place because they'll get raped. Not only is it bullshit, but it pretty much amounts to telling people that they can't be who they are.

its easy to see that when someone focuses their aids avoidance advice on "dont be gay" that they are really using it as an excuse to bash homosexuality. there is so much more to the problem than "god hates fags".

it is (perhaps) not as easy to see that when rape avoidance advice focuses on the victim, where she was and what she was wearing that they are really using it as a way to control women.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.

Just look at people's reactions when they hear about a rape. The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing. Was she (and it's virtually always a she) out after dark? Was she drinking? What was she wearing? It's all about trying to figure out how she was responsible for getting herself raped, so that we can then turn around and tell other girls and women all the freedoms they must give up in order to avoid being raped.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?
:

I belive your point maybe a trifle misleading here. I think few people would dare aruge in the face of a blatent rape that "she had it comming". Rather, those questions you outlined are asked to establish IF a rape actually occured. Asking "what was she wearing" isn't set to question if she was giving up her right to not be raped, but rather helping to establish intent Just because she/he said it happend, doesn't actually mean it happend (as is at times the sad truth). The argument you make is the argument some groups present simply to pass judgment without actually trying to establish if the crime was actually commited.

Remember, the burden is on the accuser, not the accused.

Ruffy.

Hey, that's supposed to be my line! :p

Oh, and I blame this thing (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/crawllikeinsects/NOID.jpg).

We should put all the rapists on a gaint floating island, with a couple of months worth food and water, and then sees what happens.

I blame girls who don't put out.

They're the reason why some guys become rapists. It's just too damn hard to get laid.

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

I think that there is plenty of blame to spread around here. You can't just blame one person or one group. A large number of individuals and institutions share culpability.

The reason why many people (like myself) point a finger at hierarchal institutions is because they create the preconditions in people's minds where rape might become acceptable to them. Religious dogma, hierarchal social structures like the corporation and the State institutionalize systems of dominance and submission into people's minds. It's completely unconscious, and its done in most cases without even realizing it's happening.

Now, can you think of any better way for an alienated, insecure person to assert his dominance over someone? I can't. The fact that the preconditions made a person prone to be a rapist doesn't excuse his crime. By all means, he should be punished for the act. But it is meaningless to punish 1 individual when the entire system that made his act possible in the first place remains in place.

Anthropologists know for a fact that organic societies (societies before the rise of hierarchy and what we lovingly think of as "civilization") did not experience mental disorders or crimes like murder and rape in anywhere near the proportion that occur now. The question is now what we do with that knowledge.

Think about the last time you read a story about a carjacking. Exactly how much time was spent asking what the victim was wearing? Or speculating about whether or not they were intentionally taunting the perp by having such a nice car?

How many times have you seen it suggested that people simply shouldn't drive after dark, lest they be carjacked? How many times have you seen a legit news story spend more time discussing the driving history of the victim than discussing the actual crime or the perp's behavior?

And given that the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by men who are known to the victim (family members, boyfriends, or friends) isn't most of the "advice" given to rape victims completely bunk? A woman is more likely to be raped in her own home than she is to be raped in a dark alley by some evil stranger, so why are we telling women that it's safer to stay at home than to go out at night? If we are actually concerned with stopping rape, why give women advice that doesn't do a single damn thing to protect them against the most common and most likely forms of rape?

Frankly, rape needs to be treated more liek carjacking in that regard. However, it's not a perfect system - some people will ruthlessly blame the victim for being robbed, carjacked, murdered, etc. "You were driving through that bad neighborhood at night? And a street gang decided they liked your Cadillac, so they opened your door and dragged you out? You deserved to have that car stolen." Granted, carjacking can often be easier to prove than rape, assuming the car is still intact, but the attitude of "blame the victim" is not and never has been exclusinve to rape.

They tell women (and men, in some cases) to watch their drinks and to order new drinks if they leave theirs unattended. That's preventative advice, not an attempt to blame the victim for rape...well, it sort of is, the same way that preventative advice about car stereos with detachable face plates and staying away from bad neighborhoods is setting victims of car break-ins and theft up to be blamed. However, in terms of whether it's right to take advantage of people like that? Hell fucking no it's not right, and from a legal standpoint, it's just as illegal to rape someone who was wearing a short skirt, flirting heavily, completely wasted, and left her vodka and tonic unattended as it is to rape someone who was wearing chain mail and drinking Coke. Just as it's every bit as illegal to steal a car parked in Compton as it is to steal a car parked in Beverly Hills. The chances of the crime occuring go up if precautions are not taken, but victims still have the same protection...in theory, anyway. Mitigating circumstances may prevent an actual prosecution from going through. Blaming the victim for anything tends to be out as far as legalese goes. All a defense team can do is try to put some reasonable doubt in the jurors' heads, and that's kind of their job anyway.

Are you saying that we should have big adverts saying "Men, don't rape woman"? It's not like 99.999% of people don't already and instinctively no rape is wrong.

I've seen this type of thing in my home town - a series of posters on buildings with the caption "Doing <selection of activities> is not an invitation to rape me". The posters were mocked in the local student rag as the statement "..is not an invitation to rape" is an oxymoron.

I blame the democratic welfare-warfare state.

I'm curious, Bottle. How exactly do you propose that we "prevent" or "stop" rape?

I'm dying to hear what you have to say, 'cause frankly, you're the first person I've heard talk about how it's the victim's fault for doing X, Y, or Z. I have literally NEVER heard someone sincerely suggest that women deserve to be raped for doing out at night, dressing slutty, etc, etc... I've seen it debated, I've seen it ridiculed, and yet I have not met anyone who actually held that belief. You say, "The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing," yet I can't recall that ever happening. Who the hell is "they", anyway?

This whole thread seems to be you arguing with some phantom idea that no one here actually supports. First you exaggerate advise to the ridiculous extreme of women giving up their freedoms so they won't be raped, then you condemn the opinion that you yourself brought into this discussion as sexist, and then you assert that telling men not to rape women will actually help. What gives?

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but if a man is about to rape you, asking him in a stern manner not to rape you isn't exactly going to make a world of difference. Stop telling us what other people say or what other people believe. What do YOU suggest?

I'm curious, Bottle. How exactly do you propose that we "prevent" or "stop" rape?

Legalize prostitution.

Also, require women to carry concealed handguns at all times.

Legalize prostitution.

Also, require women to carry concealed handguns at all times.

Please. If rape was simply about getting your rocks off, the world would be a better, simpler place. There is more to it then just sexual deprivation that can be remedied by putting a price on it.

Handguns would be an amusing, if someone misguided solution - one that would at best be half effective.

Handguns would be an amusing, if someone misguided solution - one that would at best be half effective.

It would result in a lot of dead rapists. That sounds like a pretty effective solution to me.

It would result in a lot of dead rapists. That sounds like a pretty effective solution to me.

And women. Escalation is a bitch in this sort of case.

Also, as Bottle has truthfully pointed out, a solid majority of rapes are committed by people the victim knows and trusts. The likelihood of a gun being useful in this sort of situation is slim.

Rapists of course.

And women. Escalation is a bitch in this sort of case.

If the victim fires first, there's nothing to escalate.

If the victim fires first, there's nothing to escalate.

:rolleyes: IF the victim fires first. and as people mentioned before, most rapists are family members and friends etc. who's going to shoot them first? also how will you prove it was self-defence?

who's going to shoot them first?

The would-be victim, of course. If someone tried to rape ME, I'd bust a cap in his ass, friend or not. Unless it was one of my female friends, in which case it wouldn't really be rape...

also how will you prove it was self-defence?

You don't have to in the United States. We have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty"; I suggest that you try it sometime.

The blame always lies with the rapist.

But I would like to add to the debate that one should be able to give advice to women (advice that could fall under the heading "common sense") without being accused of shifting the blame for the rape to the victim. Women should do what they can to minimize the risks - like don't drink yourself unconscious in an unknown place together with people you don't know - but it needs to be presented before the rape happens and in a way that don't imply that they take any part of the blame should something happen. (Saying "You should have / shouldn't have" post facto implies a shifting of the blame.)

And most - if not all - of the advice is advice men should heed as well...

And it is indeed a good idea to have a kind of "Don't rape!" campaign directed primarily at men, seeing as how your average rapist tend to be the average boy next door...

You don't have to in the United States. We have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty"; I suggest that you try it sometime.

so if you kill somebody, you don't have to prove it was out of self-defence? how does that work? i thought that "innocent until proven guilty" meant that if you're prosecuted you're considered until someone prove you're guilty. if they hear a gun being shot and see you standing there with a smoking gun in your hand, 1 bullet missing, guess what they'll think?

so if you kill somebody, you don't have to prove it was out of self-defence?

Nope. Rather, the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

obviously the woman who dressed like a slut. She obviously had it coming..

and to be serious, isn't it obvious? Its the bastard that rapes.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?


I always thought it was taken as a given that the rapist should not have done wha he did.

I think you are taking the policy of telling women how they can avoid being victims in the wrong way - or at least you seem to be assuming only women get this treatment. When teaching people how to avoid being a victim is a large part of many anti-crime measures:

Other such 'victim' advice for crimes unrelated to rape:

Don't leave valueables on display in your car.
Don't leave your child unattended.
There is a huge poster campaign in London near certain tube stops and in some areas warning people not to talk on their mobile phones, or to be cautious as there is a mugging problem for phones in the area.
Don't put your wallet in your back pocket to avoid being pickpocketed.
Fit a car alarm and steering lock.
Don't give out personal information - beware of identity theft/fraud.
A decent front door and windows will severely discourage burgulars.
Don't leave valueables unattended.
Fix your handbag to the clip under the table in Starbucks to discourage people from nicking it.
Avoid or be vigilant when in areas you suspect are dangerous.

For pretty much any crime a person can suffer the advice to people who wish to reduce the chances of it happening to them revolves about them being vigilant and taking measures to defend their person/property/identity/etc. This is exactly the same for rape.

It is a given that the rapist should not be raping. Society tells him (or her in the 1/10000ish incidence) this by making sure he knows he wil go to jail if convicted. The situation is the same for all crime -it is given that the criminal knows they should not be doing what they are doing and still do it - your flip-advice for the men buddy system and avoiding bars - this implies rapists accidenty slip Rohypnol into her drink and as such the flip-advice is non-sensicial. He knows he should not be doing it already and is actively seeking to. This is the same for all crime.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?
I am pretty sure I have never heard any of these 'defenses' or mitigations put forward in defense of the rapist.

The only defenses I have ever heard put forward are:
1. People believe he did not actually do anything at all - that it was another guy or he is falsely accused and neve had sex with her.
2. He admits they had intercourse but claims it was consensual and people feel the womans evidence (or more often the lack of it due to the nature of the crime) that she did not consent is not convincing.



Edit: Re the OP - It is oviously the rapists fault.

The would-be victim, of course. If someone tried to rape ME, I'd bust a cap in his ass, friend or not. Unless it was one of my female friends, in which case it wouldn't really be rape...

You don't have to in the United States. We have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty"; I suggest that you try it sometime.

Would-be victim? What about would-be rapist? If you shoot someone before he has raped anyone, then that person is not a rapist! All that remains is you, a corpse, and a gun. It's up to YOU to prove that the dead person was going to rape you. "He was scary looking" is not a defense. There has to be a clear and present threat to your wellbeing.

In other words, you have to prove that you aren't a murderer, because that's what they'll call you.

Would-be victim? What about would-be rapist? If you shoot someone before he has raped anyone, then that person is not a rapist! All that remains is you, a corpse, and a gun. It's up to YOU to prove that the dead person was going to rape you. "He was scary looking" is not a defense. There has to be a clear and present threat to your wellbeing.

In other words, you have to prove that you aren't a murderer, because that's what they'll call you.

Maybe that's how things work in the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of England, but not over here.

Nope. Rather, the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

Actually you're wrong. In any trial where the defendant is advocating self-defense, the defense has to prove that the defendant was in a position where she was under attack and forced to defend herself without less lethal recourse. There are also often severe restrictions on self-defense. For instance in the state of New Jersey, one can not plea self defense unless the act occurred within your own home.

You can't just pop a guy on the street and claim he was trying to rape you and walk away from the trial. The prosecution just has to show you were either in no immediate danger, or your act was an excessive use of force.

Actually you're wrong. In any trial where the defendant is advocating self-defense, the defense has to prove that the defendant was in a position where she was under attack and forced to defend herself without less lethal recourse. There are also often severe restrictions on self-defense. For instance in the state of New Jersey, one can not plea self defense unless the act occurred within your own home.

New Jersey can suck my balls.

Maybe that's how things work in the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of England, but not over here.

Bullshit. I'm an American you twit. From Pennsylvania to be precise.

As for the law... LINK (http://ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm)

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

New Jersey can suck my balls.

Your convincing argument sure has persuaded me :rolleyes:

the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of England

Woah a tripple oxy-moron

Bullshit. I'm an American you twit. From Pennsylvania to be precise.

Sorry. I mistook you for Isidoor.

Also, "twit" is a very British word :)

As for the law... LINK (http://ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm)

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.
No, it isn't. If both you and I are to be honest, I'm sure observation leads to the conclusion that the vast majority of people place the responsibility on the rapist, not the victim.

Asking, for instance, where she was when she was raped is not blaming the victim. In conversation it's more often a matter of looking out for places to avoid after dark, and other such concern, than some sort of mysogynist ideological agenda.

If "looking out for people's safety" means "telling crime victims to surrender their freedoms or else it's all their fault," then that's not sexist...it's just stupid and assholish.
Security of all forms is a self-imposed restriction on one's freedom.

Sorry. I mistook you for Isidoor.

Also, "twit" is a very British word :)

I know, mate. I was being ironic. :)

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said.

You can't shoot someone, tell the court he was trying to rape you, and just expect to walk off. In order for lethal force to be a viable option for self-defense, the other person would have to be as well armed as you are. Thus the 50/50 chance I alluded to with escalation – someone is going to shoot someone. You can only claim self-defense for shooting someone if he also had a gun, and you can prove he threatened you with it... Otherwise, you look very much like a murderer.

New Jersey can suck my balls.

K, now I know you're a witless troll. Have a nice life.

Also, "twit" is a very British word :)

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said.

It says the person using self defense has to have reasonable cause to use it - they have to be able to demonstrate they had reasonable cause.

Here is a story about the Duty to Retreat in the US:

LINK (http://www.claytoncramer.com/DutyToRetreat.html)

If someone attacks you, are you required to retreat before you use deadly force in self-defense? Oddly enough, the answer is more complex than you might assume. A recent decision from the New York courts brought to my attention something that I did not know--in New York State, you have a duty to retreat rather than use deadly force--even if you are standing in the doorway of your home.
In this case, a man named Richard Aiken was convicted of manslaughter. Aiken killed a Theodore Badgett in December of 1999, by hitting Badgett in the head with a lead pipe. Aiken and Badgett lived in the Bronx--in the same apartment building. Contrary to what you might expect, these weren't teenagers or young toughs. They had apparently lived in adjoining apartments for nearly forty years. As the New York high court decision explained:

"Their families were close until 1994 or 1995, when a dispute -- with ultimately tragic consequences -- arose over cable and telephone wiring. The victim and his family believed that defendant was siphoning off their services, even after the service providers found that the suspicion was without basis. In 1997, following a heated verbal exchange, the victim [Badgett] stabbed defendant [Aiken] in the back, hospitalizing him for two days."

The relatiionship, as you might expect, did not improve after Aiken spent two days in the hospital. Badgett apparently continued to make threats to Aiken. "Although the families remained next-door neighbors, separated only by a common wall, from 1997 to 1999 the victim repeatedly threatened to shoot, stab or otherwise injure defendant. He made these threats to defendant's face, to his father and to neighbors -- at one point even brandishing a boxcutter."

So the "victim" didn't learn from his mistake--and Aiken sounds like he had good reason to be scared out of his wits--especially in a city where, remember, it is quite difficult to legally obtain a handgun for self-defense, and even a long gun is strongly discouraged by a somewhat complex licensing procedure.

I wish that I could tell you that Aiken was completely blameless in the confrontation that led to Badgett's death, but Aiken's behavior certainly complicated the matter. Aiken, in the midst of a dispute through the common wall between their apartments, swung a lead pipe into the wall hard enough to make a dent on Badgett's side of the wall. Badgett called the police.

At some point, Badgett went out to the hallway in front of Aiken's door, and made a fatal mistake. According to Aiken--and the courts gave Aiken the benefit of the doubt, and accepted Aiken's version of what happened--Aiken "continued standing in the doorway, never going into the hall, when the victim reached into his pocket, came up to defendant's face 'nose to nose,' and said 'he was going to kill' him. Believing he was about to be stabbed again, defendant struck the victim on his head with the metal pipe, killing him."

I can't say that that Aiken's fears were unreasonable. Badgett had stabbed him in the past. Badgett had repeatedly threatened Aiken with death. Badgett had now approached Aiken, yelling at him, and was close enough to be dangerous with a knife. Under the same circumstances, with Badgett's history of criminal violence, I might have reacted the same way. So why did the police arrest Aiken, and why was Aiken convicted of manslaughter?

Aiken argued that New York law says a person doesn't have to retreat from a threat if he is in his own home, and that standing in his doorway was "in his own home." New York's courts did not agree. The state high court (in this case, the New York Court of Appeals), decided that an apartment doorway is a "hybrid private-public space" in which a person doesn't have the same reasonable expectation of seclusion as in a home
The guy was convicted of manslaughter and was unable to use the arguement of self defense even though his attacker had repeatedly threatened him and had recently carried out a threat and stabbed him putting him in hospital. Even in that circumstance the court (and jury) held that he should have retreated into his own home first.



Now - If you kill someone in self defence you have to be able to show your actions were reasonable, that you had reasonable belief your life was in danger and that you were unable to retreat.

Think what the situation would be if this was not the case - if you wanted to kill someone all you would have to do would be alone with them and then shoot them. You could then claim they had threatened to kill you, and as there would be no conflicting story the jury would have to aquit you. This is obviously not the case.

Rapists.

QFT.

Rape is caused by...we'll go with capitalism.

Woah a tripple oxy-moron

G-max isn't an Ox!

You can't shoot someone, tell the court he was trying to rape you, and just expect to walk off.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

Here is a story about the Duty to Retreat in the US:

LINK (http://www.claytoncramer.com/DutyToRetreat.html)

A single mistake by a court in New York does not represent SOP throughout the entire country.

First of all - Rape is the fault of the rapist. That much is obvious.

However, what constitutes rape to most, need not be what rape means to someone else. For the longest time, the idea of raping your wife was unheard of. If a bunch of guys go to town with a girl who's too drunk to speak, let alone offer consent, it may as well be rape. Society has a key role in preventing rape, by shaping the attitudes that create it, as well as educating people about what rape is in the first place; don't have sex with someone who hasn't given you clear permission to (and it's over the moment they say stop.) So, society is partly to blame, by giving tacit consent to rapists in certain situations.

Bottle is right, society does have a tendency to overstress the limitations of women for their personal safety. Let me rephrase that; it's not that society overstresses the safety issues, it doesn't address the mentality behind rape enough. It does less to prevent the causes of rape, than it does at advising how to avoid it.

Now that being said, if a rapist is at large, or there are problems of any sort of violent attack, it is the duty of the police and the media to inform people how best to be safe. It's common sense.

Anecdotal Time; When I was in college, I studied print journalism and was part of the staff of the school paper. One day, on the way in to school, I saw police cars surrounding the student centre, and I was the first journalist student on site. The story I took from the police at the time, was that a student (female) had been raped just outside the student centre the night before. (The student centre has a pub, central to that building, so it all happened apparently while people were boozing it up inside.)

So I suddenly had a big news story on my hands. (That's the way journalism works folks.) So, digging deeper into the story, when I spoke to the police later on that day, the story had changed. They were charging the girl with Public Mischief, for lieing about being raped, and for providing the name of a possible suspect. So the story that actually hit the front page was totally different than anyone expected, and it created a bit of a buzz around campus.

Regardless of whether or not a rape had actually taken place, general concerns about what to do for safety reasons were obviously raised. From a journalistic point of view, it raised editiorial, commentary and further news angles. It would be journalistically irresponsible NOT to do a piece about campus safety. Mind you, my story didn't focus on not going out alone, rather about parking in well lit areas and keeping your keys in your hand, and scanning the back seat, etc. The point is, that not writing that story, would have been a giant journalistic no-no, as well as missing out an opportunity to relay information provided by the police in regards to campus safety.

Personal safety comes first. Society does have a tendency to 'blame the victim', in the sense that 'they should have known better'. That isn't fair. However, taking precautions only makes sense, even if statistically you are more likely to be raped 'at home' than by a random stranger.

A single mistake by a court in New York does not represent SOP throughout the entire country.

Actually the 'Duty to Retreat' is pretty common across the US. It is only very recently that some states have passed "Stand Your Ground" leglislation.

Further to this - you have not actually addressed the fact that murderers are not able to wait until there are no other witnesses before blowing a guys brains out then claiming self defense. They have to actually provide the jury with evidence that gives reasonable doubt. Saying 'He came at me - I have no witnesses and no evidence but he came at me so I blew his head off' will probably not convince the jury.

*SNIP*

I can agree with this, pretty much. The man speaks sense, which is good enough for me.

who do I blame for rape?

The rapist.

I blame rapists...and people that rape.

I don't remember who said this, but it's troof: A woman should be able to walk down the street naked and only have to worry about sunburn or frostbite.

I don't remember who said this, but it's troof: A woman should be able to walk down the street naked and only have to worry about sunburn or frostbite.

If only we live to see such times.

I don't remember who said this, but it's troof: A woman should be able to walk down the street naked and only have to worry about sunburn or frostbite.

And indecency laws. ;)

I don't remember who said this, but it's troof: A woman should be able to walk down the street naked and only have to worry about sunburn or frostbite.Location Location Location.

Location Location Location.

Hey, move to southwest Michigan! Sunburn in the summer and freezing your gonads off in the winter! Plus really, really high humidity almost year round and mosquitoes like birds with hypodermic needles.

I'm surprised most people here didn't vote for hierarchal (sp?) structures or capitalism.

:confused:

I don't remember who said this, but it's troof: A woman should be able to walk down the street naked and only have to worry about sunburn or frostbite.

What about oglers?

Hey, move to southwest Michigan! is that a friendly invitation to move in with you? :D

First of all - Rape is the fault of the rapist. That much is obvious.

However, what constitutes rape to most, need not be what rape means to someone else. For the longest time, the idea of raping your wife was unheard of. If a bunch of guys go to town with a girl who's too drunk to speak, let alone offer consent, it may as well be rape.

No, it actually IS rape anyone saying otherwise is either deluded or lying.

And indecency laws. ;)

No, because such laws shouldn't exist.

I'm surprised most people here didn't vote for hierarchal (sp?) structures or capitalism.

:confused:

i might have but i couldnt figure out how that could be true.

No, it actually IS rape anyone saying otherwise is either deluded or lying.

True. Poor wording on my part. Perhaps even society's effect on my speech.

*shakes fist at society*

Would it be fair for me to blame Marx for your repugnant views here? I think so. You are clearly not doing anything, just acting as the echo of Marx's vile tripe.

Well, I did read some of Marx, but it only confirmed what I was already thinking before.

Seeing why a rapist becomes a rapist is not the same as saying he is in any way not to blame.

I never said he is "in any way not to blame". And I don't think it.

You however are. He's not the only "culprit," so who else is?

The society as a whole.

Who would you punish for the actions of a rapist? Me? I work in a business and am decidely pro-capitalist. Would you hold me responsible? I bet you would.

I don't care about "punishing". That's also a frame of mind generated by a society based on domination. What I care about is preventing crimes to happen. I do support putting rapists in jail, but mostly to prevent them to commit other crimes, not because I want to "punish" them or to "make them suffer". But that's a dirty solution.

Right. I can't help myself, it's the evil society that's making it "normal" for me to be abnormal. Let's let all rapists out, clearly they're the victims of dominion-based hiearchical inequality and they shouldn't be punished for actions beyond their control.

I never said that. That the society is the primary culprit doesn't mean the rapist is not guilty too.

Ah yes... equality. If only those CEO's made less money, then there'd be less rape.

It is about mindframe, values of the society and culture. And yes, the fact that CEO's, with their money, can "buy" women directly (prostitution) or indirectly (I guess you are well aware how rich people can use their money to "gain" women) contributes to making rape "not that horrible" in the mind of some people. But that's just one very narrow aspect of it. The general mindframe is the most important one. It is not "money" the problem, but "power". In capitalism, power is bought by money, so both are closely linked. In feodal systems, it's nobility which gives you power, not money (even if money helps), but the structure is the same: a structure of power and domination.

is that a friendly invitation to move in with you? :D

My husband might get upset...

Another forum I post on, has a few people going off against "hiearachical structures" and "inequality" as being the cause of rape.

To me this is disgusting. To me this is nothing more than using rape as rhetoric to push some sort of political agenda.

It alleviates the responsibility of the rapist. After all... he's not really the cause. It's "society." Poor guy can't help himself, he participated in "hiearachical structures." Yeah, we need to implement totalitarian communism, that'll fix rape.

Then there are people who just plain blame men in general.

Of course there are the people who blame a certain ethnic group too. Teh black men r rapinz our wimmin!

I don't know, does anyone just sorta... blame the rapist? You know, for being a sick demented criminal fuck? Or is that just me?

*ground starts quaking*
*black clouds form overhead, flashes of lightning*

I agree with you. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and personal choices?

If society was to blame, every man would rape a woman every time he could get an erection.

What about oglers?

Personally, I have no problem with oglers, but then I wouldn't want to wander around nekkid. It's too damn cold and windy here. But since women would be doing an equal amount of staring if men went around in the buff, I'd like to think the point would be moot.

I agree with you. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and personal choices?

If society was to blame, every man would rape a woman every time he could get an erection.

Blaming the society doesn't mean you don't blame the people who commit the crime _too_. It's not a binary thing, where you totally blame one and not at all the other.

What I consider is the constructivness of attitude. What is, or at least should be, our goal ? It should be to reduce, as much as possible, the number of rapes.

Blaming the rapist, in this respect, is useless. Of course, he's to blame, and of course, we need to prevent him from doing crimes again. But that's not a solution to the problem. That's already done nearly everywhere, and (almost) everyone here will agree, so well, it's useless to say it.

On the opposite, looking at causes, reasons, and therefore blaming the society structures which have a responsability in rape, on the other hand, IS useful: we can change them. If we can hope, in the future, to strongly reduce the number of rapes, it's through change the society.

More people blame women than men....?

Well I guess that sums up the ills of our society.

Blaming the rapist is a very radical notion.

Just look at people's reactions when they hear about a rape. The first thing they do is ask what the VICTIM was doing. Was she (and it's virtually always a she) out after dark? Was she drinking? What was she wearing? It's all about trying to figure out how she was responsible for getting herself raped, so that we can then turn around and tell other girls and women all the freedoms they must give up in order to avoid being raped.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.

But can you imagine if the story, instead, suggested that maybe MEN shouldn't be going to pubs, in order to avoid raping women? Or that MEN should always use the buddy system, to make sure they have a friend around who will make sure they don't rape anybody?

Think about all the lessons we learn about how to prevent rape. Pretty much all of them revolve around telling VICTIMS that they should have to give up their freedom and their options.

When it comes to the rapist, the main goal seems to be figuring out what excuse to use to let him off the hook. Was she "leading him on"? Was he a poor, rejected fellow who just snapped and who could really blame him? Was he enraged by Teh Feminism and driven to act out? Did society give him a rough deal?

Well, here's a piece that's been passed around all over the interwebs, but which bears reposting:

I don't think that many people see things like that. I'm pretty sure that if the woman is a prostitute, naked, on all four, in a wood in the middle of the night, and doesn't want to do it, it's still a rape, and the rapist's fault. or else you could tell people "it's your fault you got mugged, you look too much like a weakling"...

Voice of the Lord: - The one in the braces, he done it!
Klaus: - It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
Copper: - Oh, all right, we'll arrest them then.

- Monty Python

I nonetheless maintain that rape would be less common if women were more willing to put out.

Simple its the rapists. Its not like people who rape others are all poor or are a specific minority. Rapists are screwed in the head and by no means are linked to a specific group.

I nonetheless maintain that rape would be less common if women were more willing to put out.

Or there were less stupid guys in the world? I think that would work better...

The rapists. Unless its a trick question?

This poll fails. Rape is Ruffi's fault.

Think of the last time you heard a story about a young woman being raped after a night at the pub. I'll bet my next paycheck that the story somewhere included warnings to other women to be careful about their own pub-going. Maybe it tells women to take self-defense classes, or to only go out in groups.


Let's also apply this logic to other crimes - like terrorism or carjacking or murder. After all, telling people they should take self-defense classes or other precautions is just 'blaming the victim' isn't it?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_allowchoice.jpg

Yay grafical propaganda.

The bloody rapist, sheesh!

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_allowchoice.jpg

Yay grafical propaganda.

She should have a choice between rape and suicide? :confused: [/deliberately obtuse]

More people blame women than men....?

Well I guess that sums up the ills of our society.

Someone who would vote men wisely voted for the better option of the rapists themselves then attacking an entire gender. So you really should compare the votes for blaming the rapist with blaming women. You will find a much more accurate result that way.

Yay grafical propaganda.

Is that a Pro-Gun poster or an Anti-Rape one?

Ah - cheched the link - Pro Gun.

They have a nice and fairly balanced questionaire on there for people who don't like unrestricted access to firearms...

Society could be blamed in the sense that without cultural elevation of everything to do with vaginal/anal penetration, what is called "rape" would simply be assault.

Society could be blamed in the sense that without cultural elevation of everything to do with vaginal/anal penetration, what is called "rape" would simply be assault.

That's non-sense. You're just saying that society *defines* what rape is, that doesn't mean society is *responsible* for the act of rape.