User 100115
Banned
You should keep saying this, constantly. You are officially my favorite junior ever.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is this the best anti-rape campaign ever?
- Thread starter MemoryHumanity
- Start date
- Status
You should keep saying this, constantly. You are officially my favorite junior ever.
Snapshot King
Member
Maybe I'm naive, but would I be crazy to think that people willing to commit rape are inconsiderate dirtbags who can't think outside themselves? A commercial isn't going to stop them. Hell, telling them it was wrong after the fact tends to surface a kind of supremely self centered narrative where they didn't do anything wrong. No ad is going to get rid of shitty people. Better to use dollars advising women on how to protect themselves from the dirtbags who are out there.
And before any of you fucking start, no, I'm not saying we should put an ad out there implying that rape is the victims fault. I'm saying there are dirtbags out there and we should focus on empowering people to avoid disaster if at all possible. Keeping a close eye on your drink, that sort of thing. You can hem and haww all you want about how it's shame and embarassing that this approach may be needed, and you'd be right, but whatever the fuck gets the amount of assaults down is what we should focus on.
And before any of you fucking start, no, I'm not saying we should put an ad out there implying that rape is the victims fault. I'm saying there are dirtbags out there and we should focus on empowering people to avoid disaster if at all possible. Keeping a close eye on your drink, that sort of thing. You can hem and haww all you want about how it's shame and embarassing that this approach may be needed, and you'd be right, but whatever the fuck gets the amount of assaults down is what we should focus on.
Link
The Autumn Wind
User 100115
Banned
Well considering the amount of people (even in this thread) who say things like 'rape is bad, but if she's not saying no a bunch or fighting enough it's not rape'
Apparently we need to educate people on what rape actually is. The second commercial linked does that.
The point about the second bolded, is that it doesn't work. The only thing that would prevent women from being raped is to be completely alone forever. And in a world where covering your drink is seen as a total insult and a 'bitch' thing to do, what are we supposed to do? Most of the time, women are raped by people they know. Most of the time, they are in situations where they otherwise should be safe. It's not the guy jumping out of a dark alley.
I think a commercial describing what does and doesn't constitute consent would go further than a guy talking about a girl who's asking to get raped. A real-life guy in the former case would be acting maliciously, and wouldn't be convinced by a commercial....whereas making sure both parties are aware of the level of consent might be effective.
Well society is kind of weird where women are expected to remain pure and "not want it too much" in a sexual exchange lest they be viewed as sluts. So women kind of protest in order to take the responsibility off them. On the other end, when women say no there seems to be this weird cultural idea that they just need some convincing. That they really want it and are just playing coy.
Just take this really really popular song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
The chorus itself, "You're a good girl. I know you want it. I know you want it." It kind of encapsulates what I'm trying to say.
Snapshot King
Member
I want to just scream at you because you paint a picture of a world I refuse to live in, but I suppose that's part of the problem.
User 100115
Banned
Snapshot King
Member
I am sorry, it's the world I live in as a woman
Dude this is lame.
User 100115
Banned
Did you read the thread I linked? I agree. It is lame. We can't win for losing.
Edit: By that I mean we get this: "You should be smarter when you go out, watch your drink, be wary of strangers, don't dress too provocatively." and then "She palmed her drink when I went up to her!" "What a bitch, I would have palmed her face!"
Vermillion
Banned
There was a story some time back about a young man in Africa who raped a woman, and felt terrible about it after the fact. He was teased about being a virgin and eventually, some guys took him with them to rape the woman. He was never tried. Having felt bad enough during the act and afterwards even worse, he now takes it upon himself to educate others about rape, and generally do some good.
The point is that not everyone - and Mumei's post has some statistics - understands what rape is. So a 30-second commercial could indeed stop a young man from assaulting a young woman later that night because of a better understanding. Though I imagine that the commercials with the person watching themselves through the glass are better than the one in the OP for that, because they bring up the emotional component.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I've lived in Scotland for 5 years and the only context I've ever heard a guy say "She's asking for it" is when they mean "She's out to get laid tonight."
VanquishUK
Member
I imagine 99.9% of people would do the same thing, not unusual whatsoever.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Then you're an ass with a complete lack of empathy. Being drunk does not excuse rape, nor should it make you feel any less terrible for the victim. What kind of bullshit is that?
freenudemacusers
Member
lol well I aim for the minimum standard
it was actually kinda chilling the next day when I thought about it; how it could have gone from a 'aw we shouldn't have done that' to something really, sincerely, bad, assuming I was that kind of scummy dude.
edit: lots of grays in here heh.
When we say the victim isn't to blame, we don't intend to discourage safe practices. We still need those safe practices! I can understand what you're getting at, but (hopefully) we're not sending the message that people have no control over the situations they're in.
I'm sure he was just being sarcastic.
Oh lord, the posts on the first page.... For shame. That said I'd argue that in my experience more women good views that if a girl is out wearing a short skirt and a low cut top she's easy easy and looking to get laid. Little ol' apparently woman-hating MRA had to be the one to tell a few of these girls just cos a girl walks around in next to nothing, it doesn't mean she wants to get laid.
Oh Christ don't get me started on this shit again. Feminists distorting my words to fit their narrative.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
How do you ask someone to have sex with you against your will?
Messypandas
Member
i like this one better:
Interestingly, there used to be a PSA on TV here in England that warned people about using their mobiles outside pubs. It mentioned the fact that the phone 'lit up like a christmas tree' and attracted thieves. I can't find it on Youtube sadly.
H.M.M Arsenlol
Member
I think the advert's address the notion that rape is an easy to commit crime. Alcohol can be a social lubricant where you lose anxiety and awareness of the consequences of your actions.
That to do more than say no might provoke a violent reaction, or that maybe he might just leave and say to your group of share friends (male & female) that your not up for having a laugh. A disgusting as that sounds.
I was reading a article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/24/oscar-pistorius-end-of-rainbow) and it struck me how different it is to be a woman. That when your body develops and hits puberty you become aware of threats.
"I was big for my age," she writes, "and while my classmates were still sitting with their legs apart, I couldn't afford to be so childlike and carefree. With breasts and hips budding by the age of 10, I often attracted the attention of much older boys and young men. When I ignored them, the word rape fell from their lips with ease while their friends and onlookers just laughed."
shanshan310
Member
We're already taking the latter half of the approach. Maybe people don't realise how much this shit is drilled into girls from an early age, we certainly get reminded enough. I'm tired of hearing about how I need to simultaneously be less prudish and rude to men, but also be cautious all the time, not be friendly to men if I'm not going to sleep with them, don't dress up nice because it's obviously to attract men, aim for the nuts, aim for the eyes, use keys etc etc etc. Every piece of advice you could possibly give most women have heard before. It's about time we start educating men as well as women.
I think the whole thread aptly summed up her point, it wasn't just what you said. Good work complaining about "feminists" though.
What are you referring to? A thread where I asked about how common girls getting their drinks spiked was in real life because a girl I was talking to might have by reflex palmed her drink became "I tried to mack on this fucking female and this bitch had the nerve to palm her drink whilst talking to me". It also lead to off the top of my head the feminists on GAF, claiming I called or implied the girl I talked to was a bitch, when I asked them to quote me they ignored my post, they claimed me being a wingman and talking to the friend whilst my mate hit on a girl was the equivalent of me dragging the two apart. I directly gave a rebuttal to everything thrown at me something the feminists on GAF can't say the same.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Yep.
It's one thing for your long time SO to say "not tonight, I'm tired", and you maybe persisting a little to try and get her in the mood, but it's a safe, comfortable enviroment, and you are comfortable with each other. You can read her body language and tone of voice. You know when to let it go.
But if it's a firm "NO", particularly with someone you aren't very familiar with, that should always be the end of it. If there is even the slightest hint that the other party is uncomfortable in any way, that should be the end of it.
I mean I can't imagine anything worse than forcing yourself on somebody. That can't be arousing surely, that would stay with you, never mind the poor victim.
Urgh, awful stuff to have to think about.
shanshan310
Member
I have absolutely nothing against you, I was referring to people in the thread implying she was in the wrong for palming her drink. It's a hard line to walk when people are simultaneously saying "Do X to protect yourself" and "Don't do X, you'll look like a bitch". Saying "fucking feminists" isn't really helping you look good mate. I have no idea why you even felt the need to bring "feminism" into this at all.
Many in this very thread have painted the encouragement of safe practices as some sort of assault on women's rights. "Who are you to tell me what to do?" That sort of a thing. But your approach is more defensible, I think.
As to the topic as a whole, I support and promote receiving clear consent before engaging in sexual intercourse. Heck, I believe in waiting till marriage, so that's kind of the ultimate form of clear consent (besides marital rape, of course). However, I must address some of the logical fallacies and baseless arguments I'm seeing. The minority opinion's baseless arguments have been dismantled quite well by the majority, so I'll just focus on the majority's faulty arguments.
The people arguing on either side are basically arguing over two things:
1. Whether a woman should take precautions to help prevent being raped, and
2. How clear the rape standard is.
I'll discuss my thoughts on each in kind.
-----------------------------------
1. Whether a woman should take precautions to lower the risk of being raped
Fallacies
a) Strawman: "I guess all women should lock themselves in their houses!"
Faulty because: The argument is that women should take reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk of getting raped. So saying, "Yes, but look at all these unreasonable things you could do that would lower her risk!" is a strawman, because no one is encouraging those. Furthermore, the argument contains a faulty premise: if unreasonable precautions exist, then either all precautions are unreasonable or reasonable precautions should also not be encouraged.
b) Strawman: "Stop blaming the victim! Rapists bear the sole responsibility!"
Faulty because: The argument is NOT that women are morally or legally culpable for the rape; no one is arguing that the rapist is any less at fault for raping a provocatively-dressed woman. Rather, the argument is, "Wow, that sucks she got raped. As a side note [that has nothing to do with the culpability of the rape], as a matter of safety, she probably shouldn't be getting piss-drunk at a party with a bunch of drunk dudes." The logic breaks down like this:
- Premise I: Undertaking reasonable actions to reduce the risk of personal harm is wise.
- Premise II: People should do wise things.
- Premise III: A woman avoiding getting piss-drunk at a party with a bunch of drunk dudes is a reasonable action that reduces the risk of personal harm.
- Conclusion: Women should avoid getting piss-drunk at a party with a bunch of drunk dudes.
- Side note: The argument "most rapes are by someone you know" does not conclusively speak to the reasonableness of prevention measures. While a man is more likely to die in a car crash than by lightning, that does not mean it is unreasonable to seek insulated shelter during a lightning storm. By the same token, it is not conclusively shown by that statistic that it is an unreasonable preventative measure for a woman to avoid walking alone at night in sketchy neighborhoods. The argument can, however, be somewhat relevant; it's just not conclusive, or even very enlightening.
c) Strawman: "Stop infringing women's rights for the sake of their safety!"
Faulty because: No one (on this forum) is infringing (or even has the ability to infringe) upon anyone's rights. Encouraging women to undertake safety precautions removes exactly zero of their autonomy. It is merely sharing with them what you think is wise, and therefore what you think they should do. They will receive no negative repercussions as punishment for ignoring your advice. They will not go to jail or lose their job. They've merely been informed of your opinion on what you believe is wise. The opinion can be disagreed with, but the claim that it's infringing on rights is completely false.
2. How clear the rape standard is
Logical fallacies
Begging the question: "Rape is rape." Alternatively: "67% of men said they thought a raped woman who didn't give a clear enough 'no' was partially to blame for the rape."
Faulty because:
These fallacies assume that (criminal) rape is defined as rape by calling it rape, and generally from the woman's perspective. Calling it rape in a catchphrase or survey does not make it rape, and how clearly the consent or lack thereof was communicated is a huge part of determining whether or not it was rape at all. In the old days, the question of rape DID focus on the woman, but rape reform correctly redirected it to the man's perspective. It seems at first glance to be unfair, but the old way was actually far worse in practice.
In the traditional common law, rape was: the vaginal penetration of a penis, by force, without the woman's consent, and against her will. The State had to prove "force" (generally, physical force), "without the woman's consent" (generally, physical or verbal cues would suffice, but it was the burden of the State to affirmatively prove the absence of consent), and "against her will" (generally, verbal AND physical resistance needed to be shown). In practice, the focus was pretty much entirely from the woman's perspective: What did she do to resist? What did she do to communicate her lack of consent? This approach not only made rape extremely difficult to prosecute, but it laid the burden upon the woman to perform physical and verbal actions to clearly communicate how very much she did not want to have sex. The State had to prove her actions, rather than his.
To make this history lesson short, rape reform generally changed the definition of rape to: sexual penetration without consent. Furthermore, the focus shifted from what the woman did, to the man's actions (actus reus) and his state of mind (mens rea). Rather than asking, "Did the woman physically fight back?" the question is now, "Did the man believe he had consent?" The State still has the burden to prove his lack of belief of receiving consent, and this still is generally done by looking at some of the woman's actions (e.g. "she said, 'I don't think I'm ready' and began to walk away, which no reasonable man could mistake for consent"), but it is still a much easier burden to meet, and the focus is more fairly upon the man's understanding.
My point in bringing this up is this: the over-simplification of "rape is rape" does a disservice for understanding what rape is. Rape is sexual penetration without consent, with the need for both the man's actus reus AND the mens rea. In other words, if a man has sex with a woman, and all the cues he's been given reasonably lead him to believe he has consent, and at no point does he receive signals that should lead him to believe he's lost his consent, then he is not guilty of rape, even if the woman herself believed she had not given consent. It seems unfair when I write it out this way, but it actually works in women's favor MUCH better, and also results in more fair outcomes for the man.
Now, like I said above, I don't think anyone should be having intercourse unless they have a clear go-ahead. That's not always verbal, but it should be clear. But when judging men accused of rape, we should at the very least be mindful that "reasonableness" and "belief" allow for a whole lot of ambiguity and gray areas. I admire the "rape is rape" message for promoting the acceptance of clear consent before intercourse, but that does not make it any less of a logical fallacy.
Conclusion
Don't have intercourse with ambiguous consent, people. Get clear consent. The legal line for intercourse and rape is never clear when applied on a case-by-case basis, so avoid the risk. Get clear consent. At the same time, when judging other people, don't assume that because the girl didn't actually want to have sex that the man is a dirtbag rapist. Maybe he is, but it shouldn't be a snap-judgment without consideration for whether or not he believed he had consent. If he did believe, and it was a reasonable belief considering the circumstances, then he did not criminally rape. Remember, there are two human beings involved. Never forget the woman's point of view, but also never forget the man's point of view.
With regards to women dressing a certain way or avoiding drinking at parties, remember that nothing justifies rape. Don't victim blame. It's a real thing, for some people. But also remember, for the majority of people, they are giving safety tips in "should" form, and nothing more. Most people do not relieve the rapist of any culpability regardless of the unsafe decisions of the victim, and most people do not shift blame from the rapist to the victim. So do not use strawmen, and let's discuss this reasonably so that we can both promote affirmative, clear consent before intercourse, and also proliferate appropriate and reasonable safety tips for women.
She wasn't talking about you specifically, but nice @ 'Feminists distorting my words to fit their narrative', real classy.
and btw, while you were asking a question and understanding the reasons behind her actions you still said of people taking cirtain precautions 'as a guy that shit pisses me off', which runs counter to being sympathetic to someone feeling the need to take those precautions in any situation.
Are you suggesting that this isn't a train of thought that actually happens?
Vermillion
Banned
Well to start, who determines what is reasonable?
While you may see, "drink less, always keep your eye on your drink, wear this, don't wear that" as reasonable, the people actually being affected might not. Saying that not interacting with men in a friendly capacity may seem to be a ridiculous extreme, or distrusting all men may be a ridiculous extreme, but where's the line there? We're ultimately giving one side certain things they should or shouldn't do because the other side might attack them.
In regards to the car vs. lightning storm - in a car, you always have to distrust the people around you, and assume that they don't know how to drive in order to maximize your safety. So yeah, you go inside during a lightning storm, but that doesn't mean that you don't take precautions in the car. And going down that line of thought, one precaution would indeed be for women to distrust all of the men around them.
Fixed.
The message they're trying to get around is that it shouldn't be socially acceptable to force someone in sex in any situation. By saying "She's asking for it" you're basically saying, even if I wouldn't force her to sex, if someone did it'd be (even somewhat) acceptable in this circumstance.
It's not only about the individuals who commit rape, but the larger social climate where such acts are acceptable even condoned which is rotten. I've heard people even boasting openly how they planned to get girls drunk to the point of almost passing out so they could "persuade" them to have group sex with them, and many were ok with it. It's the climate with no social pressure against rape but rather supporting the rape culture that needs to be addressed as well as individual responsibility of not committing it.
CrashBandicoot
Member
Is that the one with the guy banging on the glass? I don't really want to watch any more of these ads, they just make me feel really uncomfortable.
I think its good that they're there, especially since they're targeting younger people too, but Christ its unsettling to see on your tv. I guess that's the point though.
Yeah or the ultra gory Drink Driving ads.
Not what I want to see while have a cup of tea and chilling out in front of the TV.
It's feminist gaf that frequently brings up that thread as they did earlier to fit their narrative on the issue at hand. Being the starter of the thread when my views were constantly twisted and distorted I feel compelled to defend myself. I don,t hate feminism, I don't' agree with all of it and I think some can be kind of arrogant if honest. Some feminists I have debated have made me look at something in a different way and I did the same. Others have been "I am women hear me fair" and I proceed to quickly walk away.
If you're talking about the consent question for rape, a jury does. If you're talking about a reasonable safety precaution, the woman does. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to convince her that their opinion of what is reasonable is correct. That's what most communication is, is conveying your ideas to others with the hopes they'll be accepted.
Like I said, each individual decides what is reasonable and what is extreme. And there is nothing wrong with sharing your opinion as advice, hoping it will be adopted by other individuals.
You missed my point. My point was that the statistic that most rapes are perpetrated by familiars doesn't conclusively rebut the reasonableness of actions preventing rape by unknown perpetrators. It can be somewhat relevant to some people in their considerations, which is why I put it as a side note instead of as an item in the fallacy list, but the point was that preventative measures for minor risks are not all immediately rendered unreasonable by the existence of a greater risk.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Holy fuck there is a huge swatch of stupidity going on. I have to keep reminding myself that GAF has its' fair share of utter idiots who lack common sense, empathy and critical thinking abilities. It seems I have to remind myself hourly before I enter these threads. I seriously struggle to understand how some of you function in society and how you're this clueless about life.
If the person I quoted in this thread want referring to me in particular then I apologise.
As for feminists distorting my views, I could bringing numerous examples where Devolution and friends distorted what I said. Just read that thread.
As for me saying that shit pisses me off, my point still stands. I can empathise with how women may feel unsafe walking the streets at night and if a girl crosses the road it shouldn't necessarily be taken personally even if it might annoy me somewhat. Hell I occasionally across the street myself and power on ahead.
Shake Appeal
Member
We should have GAF rape threads at least once a week just to out the clueless and crazy among us.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I like to see the victim-blaming as a defense-mechanism for the horrible people who think it's easier to tell the victims to dress better, rather than fixing the rapists.
It makes it so much easier to have hope when you think everyone's who's stupid, is so because they are afraid.
It makes it so much easier to have hope when you think everyone's who's stupid, is so because they are afraid.
The problem here is that you're saying correctly that it's specific people who are doing this, but also stick this label on the whole of 'feminist gaf'. If you believe in gender equality (which I'm assuming) you are a feminist, if you don't think you are then it's probably because you have a view of feminism based its most vocal individuals such that using the word 'feminism' as it applies to all of us as if it's dirty (which you did) does us all a disservice.
It's not a personal insult and has some very clear reasoning behind it, particually given the wider context of potential victim blaming so I can't really understand why you see it as one. If you don't then I don't understand why it would piss you off though I do get that nobody likes being reminded that they can be seen as a would-be rapist.
shanshan310
Member
So we are in agreement that using "feminist" is completely meaningless. Some gaffers assumed bad things about you in an old thread, why paint broad strokes against every single person who thinks women and men should have equal rights? This says absolutely nothing to me about feminism in that thread or this one. As several people have already mentioned, Fiction wasn't even making this about you, merely using a thread you created (quoting an entirely different poster) to back up her argument. No one is talking about feminists but you dude. Chill out.
Come on man, it was six months ago....
Vermillion
Banned
Okay, so more objectively - isn't the woman being required to do more than a guy has to in taking these precautions?
And since it's the woman who is deciding what is and is not extreme, fallacy a) is rendered moot.
Alright; gotcha.
Hmm fair enough, I can admit when I overreacted and I am somewhat still guess next time I'll name check certain gaffers rather than use broad terms.
In Oslo it it is not uncommon for a girl to walk home on her own. It is her right to do so and both men and women should be able to walk home on their own and be safe. They should wear what they like, and be safe, they can sunbathe or swim naked and be safe.
But there has been a scary increase of rapes in the past 8 years in Oslo. In 2011 there were 4 rapes in the space of 5 hours in one night. Did people/officials advised women what to do, what to wear, remove the gender equality because its hard to fix and deal with the real problem so we will take some current freedoms from the victims instead?
No
Instead the city council started increasing lighting in the city and parks. A police task force was created to help prevent, understand and re-educate rapists and protect and help those who were raped, and a group of individuals started a volunteer group called the 'Night Ravens' who patrol the parks and city to help prevent attacks. And many gathered in the City to let their voice be heard
I had to use goole translate for the link:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2FOslo-folk-tok-natten-tilbake-6683755.html%23.Ub7uQfkwfnG
Has rape stopped in Oslo. No it hasn't, but it is a step in the right direction, and attacks are (very) slowly decreasing. Oslo made a clear statement that the rapists are wrong, and they need to change their behaviour, not women.
But there has been a scary increase of rapes in the past 8 years in Oslo. In 2011 there were 4 rapes in the space of 5 hours in one night. Did people/officials advised women what to do, what to wear, remove the gender equality because its hard to fix and deal with the real problem so we will take some current freedoms from the victims instead?
No
Instead the city council started increasing lighting in the city and parks. A police task force was created to help prevent, understand and re-educate rapists and protect and help those who were raped, and a group of individuals started a volunteer group called the 'Night Ravens' who patrol the parks and city to help prevent attacks. And many gathered in the City to let their voice be heard
I had to use goole translate for the link:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2FOslo-folk-tok-natten-tilbake-6683755.html%23.Ub7uQfkwfnG
Has rape stopped in Oslo. No it hasn't, but it is a step in the right direction, and attacks are (very) slowly decreasing. Oslo made a clear statement that the rapists are wrong, and they need to change their behaviour, not women.
No, because she is not being required to do anything. She can go to all the shady areas she wants, drink all she wants, whatever. People are just giving her advice, which she can either be convinced by and adopt, or reject and ignore. Yes, the advice is directed at women more than men, because they are unfortunately at a much, much higher risk for being raped. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. Rejecting truth because it's not as egalitarian as we would like is unwise.
No, because fallacies undetected as fallacies can convince an audience to adopt an incorrect or unwise view. If a woman was debating whether to dress in more revealing or less revealing clothes, and she were to read a post saying, "Might as well lock them in the house!" and become disturbed by the extreme notion, and therefore disregard the post to which it was replying, without realizing why it was a fallacious argument, she may well be convinced to take different actions than she otherwise would have. That is not to say that the line she chooses for herself is necessarily wrong, but decisions should not be based on a logical fallacies, regardless if someone else reached the same decision by logically sound means.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked