Support NeoGAF

[Northeastmonk]

Ted Bundy is a mentally deranged psychopath. He is looking for anything to blame but himself. The reality is the vast majority of us watch porn and almost none of us rape and kill. The logic isn't sound. He sought out violent porn because he was already a headcase, not the other way around. And if he didn't have it he would blame his actions on something else.

We may know right and wrong, but there's always that person out there in the world right now who may view it in the wrong way or be using it as an escape from other problems.

 

[Seth C]

We may know right and wrong, but there's always that person out there in the world right now who may view it in the wrong way or be using it as an escape from other problems.

And he will find the escape he is looking for in anything. Get rid of it all and he will create it in his mind. People did a lot of raping and killing before porn existed. Before print existed. Before art existed. Probably before writing and spoken language existed. You know what I'm saying?

 

[Gustav]

Because religion has tought us for thousands of years that men are eternally tempted to sin and constantly fight their urges. Hence women should wear burkas and penises should be circumcised.

 

[Jarate]

This makes me think of the affects of pornography. Ted Bundy, the serial killer, said that his desires for violent fantasy came from pornography. He even said most men he knew in jail started with pornography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6VAN7ELkk0

Now, it's hard to do such a study to see if the effects of porn alters a person's judgment because you can't very well sit people down and watch pornography for long periods of time and send them out into the real world. Now I've also heard people say porn makes women look like pieces of meat and it makes men fantasize about women who they may never see in their lives.

My thought is that "the way she dressed" argument would be because the accuser fantasized just like Bundy did until the desire was too much and he acted on what he wanted. I blame the person taking the action. But I'd also like to point out how conservative we were about the topic 30 years ago. We had television shows where couples couldn't be shown in the same bed, women could not wear pants on television, and they also could not show cleavage.

In today's society we have see through tops, women sometimes have their underwear showing, and cleavage is very popular. My thought is that we are raising people to hold in their sexual expression when the images and views of sex are widely viewed/scene in today's media or on the public streets.

Considering Sexual Violence has existed long before mass production of porn has ever existed, I doubt there's a link.

It's just like murderers stating they were influenced by the devil, or the Beatles, or many other forms of media.

Rape has existed since we were a species, Ive seen arguments that the male penis is shaped to scoop out other males sperm, and there's special sperm we produce that are meant to destroy other mens sperm. While this might be an indication that our ancestors liked gang bangs, I could theoretically push it to gang rapes of females.

Sexual violence is incredibly complicated study, that really has no current answers. Blaming rape on media that never existed is silly and wrong, and helps nobody.

Nobody in these situations should ever blame the victim either. The clothes argument is silly because people will rape women dressed in hijabs in the middle east and blame eye lashes and shit like that.

 

[.GqueB.]

No one is saying its her fault. But it just blows my mind that people don't realize that there are ways to minimize risk. Who would voluntarily walk in a bad neighborhood blindfolded, with no pants at 2am? That's a very bad idea. You could walk right into traffic for one thing, considering you're blindfolded.

Is this just a guy thing? My dad doesn't even sit with his back towards a door or window in a restaurant ever, because in the case of some movie-style robbery he wants to get advance notice. I think most guys literally envision imagined attacks on themselves all the time, and mentally think about how to prepare for it. Lots of guys study martial arts, boxing, MMA, firearms training, etc. Lots of guys lift weights and try to get stronger, partially in preparation for imagined fights that may never happen, but occupy their mind.

I honestly thought everyone thought about how best to protect themselves. If women don't, maybe we should change cultural norms so that they do? That's not saying its blame, its about empowering yourself and trying to do what little you can to defend yourself. I hope everyone does that, regardless of gender.

Really great post. Quoted for a new page.

And I do the same in restaurants after I saw the first Bourne movie.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

No one is saying that it's the women's fault or that they should expect to be raped in certain situations.

Not sure he's arguing "fault". .

No one is saying its her fault.

Really?

They can't be getting piss drunk, especially looking like that and not think some random creeper from a back alley isn't going to jump out at them

Dress provocatively + be drunk = expect rape

Just saying "but gosh, you can minimize risk!" isn't relevant and misses the point and the real problem. I can minimize getting hit by a drunk drive by not driving at night, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of the problem of drunk driving.

 

[Eidan]

The first thing we should ask is why do women dress so provocatively in the first place?

I'd say the first thing we should ask is, "Why does a rapist rape?" Then I'd ask, "How do we prevent people from becoming rapists?" Women's attire would honestly never enter my mind, because the problem lies in the behavior of the rapist, not the victim.

The moment you start entertaining the idea that the victim's attire, or how much they drank, or if they flirted, was a reason for their rape, you are saying they are at fault.

 

[.GqueB.]

Dress provocatively + be drunk = expect rape

Just saying "but gosh, you can minimize risk!" isn't relevant and misses the point and the real problem. I can minimize getting hit by a drunk drive by not driving at night, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of the problem of drunk driving.

I don't know man.

Growing up in Brooklyn, I was robbed thrice because I looked like a victim. Looked at the ground, wasn't aware of my surroundings. I would never blame myself and neither did my parents but they certainly said I need to be more careful and more aware which I agreed with. But there was never any blame thrown around and I certainly never blamed myself. This "fault" word is just bothering me.

I really like Shinta's post. He's saying it far better than anyone else in this thread is.

 

[Shinta]

Really?

Yes really. Do you think I'm sympathetic to rapists? That's extremely insulting.

 

[The Technomancer]

Really?



Dress provocatively + be drunk = expect rape

Just saying "but gosh, you can minimize risk!" isn't relevant and misses the point and the real problem. I can minimize getting hit by a drunk drive by not driving at night, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of the problem of drunk driving.

This is the core problem. Advice on an individual level doesn't translate into societal solutions. To paraphrase something I read, while telling someone not to go into a "bad part of town" might be good advice it doesn't stop the bad part of town from existing or do anything for the people who need to be there.

 

[Zornack]

Dress provocatively + be drunk = expect rape

How does that in any way imply fault? If I'm out for a walk at night I'm afraid of being jumped. That doesn't mean I expect to be jumped or that if I do get jumped it's my fault.

Just saying "but gosh, you can minimize risk!" isn't relevant and misses the point and the real problem. I can minimize getting hit by a drunk drive by not driving at night, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of the problem of drunk driving.

I don't believe anyone in this thread thinks that the way to get rid of rape is by changing the actions of would-be victims. Rape happens because of rapists, not because of victims, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't avoid situations in which they are more likely to be raped.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Fox News Radio?

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Yes really. Do you think I'm sympathetic to rapists? That's extremely insulting.

Huh? You said no one was saying it was a victim's fault and I posted the example that I had initially replied to where someone basically did just that. You can temper your outrage, bro.

How does that in any way imply fault? If I'm out for a walk at night I'm afraid of being jumped. That doesn't mean I expect to be jumped or that if I do get jumped it's my fault.



I don't believe anyone in this thread thinks that the way to get rid of rape is by changing the actions of would-be victims. Rape happens because of rapists, not because of victims, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't avoid situations in which they are more likely to be raped.

The guy said that if a woman is out and dressed a certain way and drunk she should expect to be raped. How isn't that suggesting some of it is the victim's fault?

 

[Mudkips]

It's not about fault, it's about responsibility and minimizing risk to yourself and your property.

It's why doors have locks, cars have seat belts, and houses have smoke detectors.
It's not about the burglar, the idiot who ran the red light, or the fire.

Other people shouldn't steal, run red lights, or smoke in bed.
But we know they do, and ultimately it's your responsibility to take steps to protect yourself. This responsibility has nothing to do with fault.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Rape has existed since we were a species, Ive seen arguments that the male penis is shaped to scoop out other males sperm, and there's special sperm we produce that are meant to destroy other mens sperm. While this might be an indication that our ancestors liked gang bangs, I could theoretically push it to gang rapes of females.

Off-topic, but in light of other evidence like female copulatory noises, it is more likely that it's voluntary non-monagamy in our past

Spoiler

present

. Lots of mammal species have barbed penises, for instance, which would be an adaptation in favour of what you suggest.

 

[APF]

If we're worried about the "realities" of preventing rape, women should not have male friends/boyfriends/husbands or relatives. Minimize your risk, ladies.

 

[TheGamer]

Well, a good defense attorney always has to ask this question although it seems socially unacceptable. For example, there was a case where this woman claimed to have been sexually assaulted in a bar during closing hours. She stated that she was sitting on the pool table facing the defendant and the defendant had sexually assaulted her at that moment. There were no cameras or witnesses in the back room where the pool table was located.

When the incident occurred, she walked out of the bar and called the police. The defendant was arrested and charged with sexual assault. When his attorney came to investigate he found out that the employees at the bar had scene the alleged victim leave the bar. They noted she was wearing jeans and knee high boots where the jeans are tucked in. They also noted that she was walking in a fast pace to leave the bar and couldn't really see if she was distressed or not. Well, defense counsel read the police report where it stated that the alleged victim had no time to react, scream or yell for help, that it happened in matter of seconds and that she could not escape. Defense counsel then talked to the DA to question the alleged victim regarding the type of clothing she wore. The alleged victim stated that she was wearing a skirt, thus had no time to react to the defendant sexually assaulting her. The DA then investigated the front door surveillance tapes of the bar, which showed a female matching the description that the bar employees gave leaving the bar at around the same time the alleged victim did.

Well, long story short, the DA dropped the charges because the video surveillance didn't match the victim's story and also Defense counsel was willing to go to trial and impeach the alleged victim by demonstrating that by her wearing knee high boots with jeans, she would have to remove one or both her boots and her jeans for the defendant to sexually assault her. The jury can make a reasonable determination that removing these articles of clothing would have taken a long time and she would have had time to yell for help or struggle.

TL;DR: It is not socially acceptable to ask what a woman wears in a rape case because it is not an invitation for sex or an implied consent to be sexually assaulted, but what a woman wears does matter in certain criminal defenses for sexual assault, like determining if she is lying.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You know how you see places in the Middle East where women have no rights and are completely controlled by men, and you wonder how it ever got so bad?

Check out this thread and the people who are totally serious about telling women how to dress, who to hang out with, how they should never be seen alone, what they should be doing, where they should be going, etc.

 

[PG2G]

What kind of fairy tale land do you guys believe in where it is possible to prevent stuff like rape and murder.

We keep talking about societal solutions, any suggestions? I would love to hear them.

 

[Mumei]

How does that in any way imply fault? If I'm out for a walk at night I'm afraid of being jumped. That doesn't mean I expect to be jumped or that if I do get jumped it's my fault.

Because the emphasis is entirely on her behavior and her actions, while the rapist is erased. If her being dressed provocatively and being drunk was the reason she got raped, it stands to reason that if she hadn't gotten drunk or dressed provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped. Meanwhile the rapist is treated as some sort of act of nature - she didn't bring an umbrella, so she got rained on.

The implication that she's at fault - even somewhat - isn't explicit (or even necessarily intentional), but it's still there.

And there is a difference between proactively discussing what might increase one's risk (being drunk; being around drunk men (more rapists are drunk than victims)) versus what might lower one's risk (friends who look out for you; remaining sober; not getting alone with men), and bringing those things up after the fact . While those are hardly foolproof, and discussing them in the absence of talking to men is problematic at best (and symptomatic of that same issue of focusing entirely on women's behavior), I don't think it's axiomatically bad to talk about them.

But once someone has been raped, it's beyond shitty to bring up how they were dressed, how they were acting, the way they were talking to somebody, whether they were flirting, and so on and so forth. And that's what this topic is about - people who point to the way a woman was dressed after she was raped.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It's not about fault, it's about responsibility and minimizing risk to yourself and your property.

It's why doors have locks, cars have seat belts, and houses have smoke detectors.
It's not about the burglar, the idiot who ran the red light, or the fire.

Other people shouldn't steal, run red lights, or smoke in bed.
But we know they do, and ultimately it's your responsibility to take steps to protect yourself. This responsibility has nothing to do with fault.

We should start protecting ourselves from the real problem and put everyone's dick in chastity devices. Luckily, Amazon has a lot of good ones for cheap. I like the CB6000.

 

[PG2G]

You know how you see places in the Middle East where women have no rights and are completely controlled by men, and you wonder how it ever got so bad?

Check out this thread and the people who are totally serious about telling women how to dress, who to hang out with, how they should never be seen alone, what they should be doing, where they should be going, etc.

I wouldn't turn it into a sexist thing. Surely the same sorts of recommendations exist for men.

 

[theJohann]

Is this just a guy thing? My dad doesn't even sit with his back towards a door or window in a restaurant ever, because in the case of some movie-style robbery he wants to get advance notice. I think most guys literally envision imagined attacks on themselves all the time, and mentally think about how to prepare for it. Lots of guys study martial arts, boxing, MMA, firearms training, etc. Lots of guys lift weights and try to get stronger, partially in preparation for imagined fights that may never happen, but occupy their mind.

I honestly thought everyone thought about how best to protect themselves. If women don't, maybe we should change cultural norms so that they do? That's not saying its blame, its about empowering yourself and trying to do what little you can to defend yourself. I hope everyone does that, regardless of gender.

Yes, let's empower women by telling them not to get drunk or dress in the way they want to.

As someone earlier in this thread has mentioned, preventative action is fine until it gets to the point of being unreasonable. I think when you start dictating what people should wear, especially things as innocuous as how high your skirt is, it has crossed the boundaries of rationality.

We have two extremes here; those saying that people should not take the responsibility to lock their doors at night, and those saying that it's the responsibility of women to dress modestly to prevent rape. I disagree with both.

 

[Zornack]

The guy said that if a woman is out and dressed a certain way and drunk she should expect to be raped. How isn't that suggesting some of it is the victim's fault?

At this point I'm just arguing semantics:

They said "think." I think think and expect are wildly different. If I think something will happen then I am assuming there is a chance that the actions I took will lead to a result. If I expect something will happen then I am assuming that the actions I took will lead to that result.

When I get on a plane I think it will crash but I do not expect it to crash.

But, yeah, now I'm just arguing semantics about someone else's post. I do not believe a person should ever expect to be raped, no matter what they do.

Check out this thread and the people who are totally serious about telling women how to dress, who to hang out with, how they should never be seen alone, what they should be doing, where they should be going, etc.

It's pretty insulting for you to equate my suggestion of reasonably avoiding risk where you can to backwards, misogynistic cultures where women have no rights.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I wouldn't turn it into a sexist thing. Surely the same sorts of recommendations exist for men.

I have never seen a person tell a man not to drink or to get involved with a woman because it increases his chance of losing control and raping her.

 

[Damaniel]

I mean I fucking hate clowns, but I don't go and punch them or anything.

How could it ever come to blaming/giving blame to a women if she gets raped? 'Men are so horny, don't give false hope'.

I was listening this morning on the radio where they discussed this and it is so bizarre, I can't find anywhere else where you blame the victim in this sort of way in anything.

If you were 'listening to the radio' and the people on there were discussing rape in the context of 'she was asking for it' -- and any other answer was given than 'the rapist is to blame', then I assume you were listening to right wing talk radio. In right wing land, it's always the slut's fault for coming on to the rapist, and date rape isn't a thing to them, since the act of being in a relationship, by their definition, entitles them to unlimited sex from their partner at any time.

If this is the case, try changing the station next time.

 

[Ephidel]

What I am saying is that girls who dress provocatively can't be ignorant to their surroundings and need to put in place measures to safely get home late at night. They can't be getting piss drunk, especially looking like that and not think some random creeper from a back alley isn't going to jump out at them(look at the college rape statistics, note a lot of these aren't forced either, girl is just piss drink and some random dude (sometimes also equally as drunk) takes advantage of the situation). In a perfect world they wouldn't have to worry about that, but the reality is that this happens.

The way the rape victim dresses shouldn't be used to blame, but IMO if a girls goes on a night out dressed skimpily and gets drunk, they should understand the potential risks before hand.

Non-slutty (or whatever you want to call it) cloth are a very easy way of reducing the chance to get raped, even if it's just a little bit. But of course other things like heavy drinking, drugs, provoking behavior (happens often under the influence of one of the first two) and general carelessness are far more important things you need to be aware of.

No one is saying that it's the women's fault or that they should expect to be raped in certain situations. What is being said is that there are certain actions which, when taken, increase the likelihood of terrible things happening. T

Two hypothetical people, A and B, are out clubbing (at the same time, but not necessarily together).
They are both wearing tight, form fitting clothing because they want to. They think they look great like that, and they want to feel great tonight. They dance and party. They are drinking, because hey, people who go out clubbing drink. Maybe they drink a bit too much, because let's be honest, people often do. Maybe they both flirt a bit with other clubbers.

What differentiates these two people?
Why is it that nobody would blink twice at one of them for having a good time, and yet assumes the other wants attention and/or sex and is frankly kind of asking for it because otherwise they'd dress more modestly and drink less?
They're dressed alike, drinking alike, and acting alike, so why are they being looked at differently, and why are they being judged differently? Should these two not have an equal right to dress up, go out, get a bit drunk, and have a good time?
And yet they don't. Because one is male and one is female.

But it just blows my mind that people don't realize that there are ways to minimize risk. Who would voluntarily walk in a bad neighborhood blindfolded, with no pants at 2am? That's a very bad idea. You could walk right into traffic for one thing, considering you're blindfolded.

And when it comes to "precautions against rape" nobody expects guys to take the same precautions against looking sexy or drinking too much, and nobody would look down on a guy for not taking those precautions, but if a woman fails to then she is judged as reckless and that just isn't right.
Nobody should have to be cautious all the time. They have the right to relax once and a while, without being judged for it, and they should be free to do so.

Instead, people end up making excuses for those who commit vile and repugnant acts by attempting to make it the victim's fault for not taking 'proper precautions'.
It's things like this that lead to people not wanting to report crimes at all, and this goes for guys too -- they're reluctant to report crimes like rape because it's kind of assumed that they could have stopped it. If they didn't, they wanted it, right? The same way a woman is asking for it if she's flaunted her sexuality or dared to wear a miniskirt.

It's not about fault, it's about responsibility and minimizing risk to yourself and your property.
[...]
ultimately it's your responsibility to take steps to protect yourself. This responsibility has nothing to do with fault.

But it does, because whether it's intentional or not if 'full responsibility' has not been taken by the victim, then it is automatically assumed that they are at fault to some degree.

And here's the thing. This isn't even about taking precautions against theft or accidents. It's about taking precautions against a violent crime being perpetrated against a person without any given reason other than that the criminal wants to perpetrate a violent crime.
There is nothing a potential victim can do about that, and if a given victim did manage to avoid being in that situation then frankly, someone else will end up being in that situation in their place, because while people can take precautions, everyone cannot take every precaution all the time. Even if that's what's expected.

 

[.GqueB.]

We should start protecting ourselves from the real problem and put everyone's dick in chastity devices. Luckily, Amazon has a lot of good ones for cheap. I like the CB6000.

I googled because I thought you made that up... you did not.

 

[The Technomancer]

We have two extremes here; those saying that people should not take the responsibility to lock their doors at night, and those saying that it's the responsibility of women to dress modestly to prevent rape. I disagree with both.

*sigh* I never said that.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone

Check out this thread and the people who are totally serious about telling women how to dress, who to hang out with, how they should never be seen alone, what they should be doing, where they should be going, etc.

It's pretty insulting for you to equate my suggestion of reasonably avoiding risk where you can to backwards, misogynistic cultures where women have no rights.

I think it's pretty insulting that you don't know the difference between Mortal Kombat characters.

 

[PG2G]

I have never seen a person tell a man not to drink or to get involved with a woman because it increases his chance of losing control and raping her.

Then dont focus on rape. "victim blaming" comes down to risk management and is equally applicable in a variety of scenarios that affect different genders.

 

[APF]

Look if you get murdered, don't come crying to me if it turns out you had an acquaintance, close friend, spouse or relative. You have some personal responsibility in this, people.

 

[twobear]

I see what you're getting at, but the existence of rape kinda proves that some men are incapable of controlling themselves, as disgusting a notion as that is.

And it's not just rape. Some people are incapable of not mugging someone, or not killing someone. Most of us manage to keep these urges in check. A very small minority of people people won't/don't/can't.

So since some men are monsters, women should try to protect themselves as best they can with their actions and choices.

I don't think it does prove that, any more than the fact that people take recreational drugs means that they're incapable of not doing so. I suspect that the overwhelming number of rapes committed by men are men who are capable of not raping if they choose not to.

 

[HarryHengst]

I have never seen a person tell a man not to drink or to get involved with a woman because it increases his chance of losing control and raping her.

Perhaps that should be done in high school. A lot more educating around rape and sexual consent can and should be given to people, especially guys.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You know how you see places in the Middle East where women have no rights and are completely controlled by men, and you wonder how it ever got so bad?

Check out this thread and the people who are totally serious about telling women how to dress, who to hang out with, how they should never be seen alone, what they should be doing, where they should be going, etc.

This is a terrible slippery slope fallacy, and bordering on an ad hominem. I really doubt that most posters in this thread who've said anything about precautions are using it as a stealth agenda to resurrect the heights of the patriarchy; they're doing it because they are genuinely concerned about the welfare of women. I would also imagine most posters in this thread who've said anything about precautions don't see it as the ultimate destination, but an unfortunate phase that may have to be endured until society can sort things out. In other words,they aren't suggesting that we have a society where 'women have no rights and are completely controlled by men', and probably all of them would abhor such a situation.

Now, they're mistaken about the specifics of the first, given that the type of clothing worn has no statistical correlation with likelihood to be raped, and they might be mistaken about the usefulness of the second, if giving precautions actually diminishes progress towards a solution: both of those are useful points to make and elaborate upon. But by making equivalences with Middle Eastern misogynists, you've missed the chance to make any of those useful points. Instead, you've insulted the people you're addressing, and made it much less likely they'll actually listen to any useful points you may also have had. It's not effective at persuading anyone you might be right, and reeks of someone who wants to 'win' arguments rather than actually have constructive conversation.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Then dont focus on rape. "victim blaming" comes down to risk management and is equally applicable in a variety of scenarios that affect different genders.

We're trying to manage the wrong risk if we're talking about controlling how women dress or where they're allowed to go.

This is a terrible slippery slope fallacy, and bordering on an ad hominem. I really doubt that most posters in this thread who've said anything about precautions are using it as a stealth agenda to resurrect the heights of the patriarchy; they're doing it because they are genuinely concerned about the welfare of women. I would also imagine most posters in this thread who've said anything about precautions don't see it as the ultimate destination, but an unfortunate phase that may have to be endured until society can sort things out. In other words,they aren't suggesting that we have a society where 'women have no rights and are completely controlled by men', and probably all of them would abhor such a situation.

Now, they're mistaken about the specifics of the first, given that the type of clothing worn has no statistical correlation with likelihood to be raped, and they might be mistaken about the usefulness of the second, if giving precautions actually diminishes progress towards a solution: both of those are useful points to make and elaborate upon. But by making equivalences with Middle Eastern misogynists, you've missed the chance to make any of those useful points. Instead, you've insulted the people you're addressing, and made it much less likely they'll actually listen to any useful points you may also have had. It's not effective at persuading anyone you might be right, and reeks of someone who wants to 'win' arguments rather than actually have constructive conversation.

What is the sincere endgame of controlling women? All I can figure is we end up in a world with women completely covered at all times in oversized pantsuits hanging out at each other's houses, provided they know the password and can jump across a moat. Rape will still exist.

 

[ABC]

Should these two not have an equal right to dress up, go out, get a bit drunk, and have a good time?
And yet they don't. Because one is male and one is female.

Of course they have the same right. Males just don't have such a high chance to get raped, that's all.

 

[faceless007]

Just going to quote the must-read Film Crit Hulk piece, but really the entire 12-page thing should be read by anyone who claims to have an opinion, these excerpts will not do it justice:

In life, there is often a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between the perceived value of individual advice and the actual value of that advice in the national conversation.

Does the difference between those two things make sense? No? Okay.

Say hulk gave you advice for what to do in a very specific situation that might require a bit of caution. Well, also understand that the same bit of advice might not be good practical advice for how we should deal with that problem as a society. To use an example from another popular topic of public dialogue, let's say hulk told you "hey, you might not want to go into that dangerous part of town. It's possibly unsafe!" now. That might be reasonable advice for your immediate well-being, right? But if you take that logic one step further and hulk said "the problem with crime in this nation is that white people are going into dangerous parts of town!" well, uhhhhh, that would not only come across as really problematic, but it wouldn't really be a solution either, right? For starters, it doesn't actually address anything about the individual interaction and just promotes avoidance. And it certainly doesn't fix anything. In fact, it actually serves to pervert the national dialogue on this issue along racial and class lines. It instantly turns "the other" into the bad guy. Heck, it's not even a band-aid solution, it's actually a deeply amoral bid for segregation... See how quickly that escalates? See how reasonable advice for an individual becomes perverted when you look at it in a larger context?

Now. Hulk knows some people will try to tear that same logic apart and say "yeah, what are we supposed to do? Just tell people to go into those bad neighborhoods and not care even if their lives are potentially in danger!?!" well, no. That's not really the point here (even though hulk did go into "bad" areas of hulk's city all the time and only had one tiny incident ever and thus the "don't go there!" is often a misleading idea based on fear, but this is its own topic that hulk doesn't want to get into right now). Hulk's point is that avoidance is not an actual "solution." who is going where and when is not the actual issue. And thus, if we actually want to address the problem we should be focusing on "what is causing the neighborhood to be so bad and how can we fix it?" and if we're not aiming for that, then we're not actually talking about solving anything. We're simply taking an individual solution and falsely applying it to a national problem.

And the problem is that we do this thing all the fucking time. As human beings we guide so much of what we think is right and wrong based on our own immediacy, whether it comes from our personal relationships or protective attitudes. We think that the cautionary and reasonable sounding advice for individuals should just naturally translate to being sound advice for the larger overall population, and it soooooooooo doesn't. Hulk will even cite the rather popular scientific principle to all of this, "correlation does not mean cause." just because you aren't in the bad neighborhood does not mean the violence isn't happening to someone else. And that especially doesn't mean that someone else is more deserving of it. So just because you can avoid a situation does not mean you have solved it. In fact, when it comes a lot of major societal problems, avoidance often makes it worse.

And yet, every time hulk gets in a conversation with someone about whether or not our culture has healthy views of sexuality, everyone thinks they have a good lock on the issue and denies. They think their common sense and the decent way they have lived their lives (read: individual solutions) covers all the problems quite adequately. As a nation, they we think we treat rape quite responsibly.

Well, did you know the world health organization has recognized the qualities that are the highest contributing factors to countries with the highest rape rates?

Ahem:

* beliefs in family honor and sexual purity
* ideologies of male sexual entitlement
* weak legal sanctions for sexual violence

Are we seriously good at these? Compared to some underdeveloped countries, sure, but with everything hulk has talked about in this part of the essay? Can we really deny what is happening here? Really. What do we do as a culture to combat the ideas and paradigms listed above? And if combating these lowers the instances of rape then what are we waiting for? What are we doing to fight rape?

If this is an epidemic then what are we doing in the way of campaigning and cultural awareness to teach people "don't rape"?

Nothing.

Question: if rape is such an obvious problem then why do we consistently side-step the issue in conversation?

Think about it for a second. Think about every single argument you see in real life or on facebook or twitter or some shit. Think about all the popular conversations happening around us in regards to this issue. Isn't it weird how they always, always seem to get derailed? Sometimes it gets stonewalled by someone who disagrees fervently and defensively. Sometimes it's someone who diverts the argument to another seemingly irrelevant part of the situation. But more often than not, the conversation just get brought to this weird place of mitigation. A place where someone discussing it is trying to find the gray area of the situation no matter what. It seems to be a natural inclination with this conversation. To be fair, hulk sees this in kind of argumentation pop up in a lot of places. It's the earlier "devil's advocate" thinking, made devastatingly real. But hulk wants you to think about the effect of this mitigation. By doing nothing but poking holes in the thing that you supposedly agree with, are you really even helping it? You may think you are, but are you actually helping change people's minds on the issue? Are you helping fix the obvious problem at hand? Or you just allowing others to keep thinking it's not as much of a problem?

So that's hulk's most important question for you: if people actually want to do something about rape, then why does this mitigation always seem to happen with the popular conversation?

Let's get real and use the example that instigated this article in the first place and talk about that slate piece. We had a woman arguing that all college women needed to do to lower their risk of rape was drink way less alcohol and stop competing at partying with men. Logical opinion in and of itself? Sure. But let's look at it again in the context of everything we've covered so far.

1) it's a solution that doesn't address the problem itself.

2) that supposedly aids the individual but doesn't help the overall societal dynamics.

3) that puts all the responsibility on the shoulders of the would-be victims.

4) that directly limits the rights to certain behavior of one side of the gender.

5) that not only does that, but puts those limits on the side of the gender that's the victim.

6) that completely increases the troubling gender dynamic of the madonna and the whore, by creating another impossible dichotomy of women to live up to (you gotta drink! You can never drink!).

7) that just ends up completely apologizing and placating a rape culture by not ever directly challenging it.

And 8) to top it all off, it severely hurts the mindset of the girl who becomes a victim despite all this and essentially tells her it was her fault for drinking too much because, psychologically speaking, "the only difference between tips and blaming is timing."

Seriously, in the end what is right about this "reasonable" solution?

Nothing.

So is it really a coincidence that the only people who seem to spout this defense come from the place of privilege on the issue? Because it's all the same shit. It's inherently limiting one gender. Guys can get fall down drunk at a party without fear of rape. And thus it's something you will never understand. Just drink less? That's the solution? What if women like drinking? Why must the solution fundamentally fall to creating another inequality, instead of doing something about the inequality of the situation behind it? Doesn't that say something about our unwillingness to point the finger in the right direction?

The tl;dr -- although the piece is far too complex and good to be summed up that way -- is that if you spend more thought and effort when discussing this issue on the "grey areas" or "just being realistic" or "common sense" or whatever other euphemisms you've come up with to avoid having to think about the root causes of the issue and what can be done about it, you're not helping, you're just deflecting.

 

[.GqueB.]

Two hypothetical people, A and B, are out clubbing (at the same time, but not necessarily together).
They are both wearing tight, form fitting clothing because they want to. They think they look great like that, and they want to feel great tonight. They dance and party. They are drinking, because hey, people who go out clubbing drink. Maybe they drink a bit too much, because let's be honest, people often do. Maybe they both flirt a bit with other clubbers.

What differentiates these two people?
Why is it that nobody would blink twice at one of them for having a good time, and yet assumes the other wants attention and/or sex and is frankly kind of asking for it because otherwise they'd dress more modestly and drink less?
They're dressed alike, drinking alike, and acting alike, so why are they being looked at differently, and why are they being judged differently? Should these two not have an equal right to dress up, go out, get a bit drunk, and have a good time?
And yet they don't. Because one is male and one is female.

Lol, that reminded me of that Michael Scott bit on the office about convicts:

Close your eyes. Picture a convict. What's he wearing? Nothing special, baseball cap on backwards, baggy pants... he says something ordinary like... 'yo, thats shizzle.' Okay. Now slowly open your eyes again. Who are you picturing? A black man? Wrong. That was a white woman. Surprised? Well, shame on you.

 

[OrangeJulius]

Rape should never, ever, be about the victim in any scenario. The aggressor makes the decision to rape. Minimizing risk is all well and good, and makes sense from certain points of view, but ultimately the decision to assault someone is on the aggressor.

These threads should be locked, they always devolve into shit flinging ban traps. There isn't anything left to say that hasn't been said by parties on either side of the argument.

 

[Zornack]

Two hypothetical people, A and B, are out clubbing (at the same time, but not necessarily together).
They are both wearing tight, form fitting clothing because they want to. They think they look great like that, and they want to feel great tonight. They dance and party. They are drinking, because hey, people who go out clubbing drink. Maybe they drink a bit too much, because let's be honest, people often do. Maybe they both flirt a bit with other clubbers.

What differentiates these two people?
Why is it that nobody would blink twice at one of them for having a good time, and yet assumes the other wants attention and/or sex and is frankly kind of asking for it because otherwise they'd dress more modestly and drink less?
They're dressed alike, drinking alike, and acting alike, so why are they being looked at differently, and why are they being judged differently? Should these two not have an equal right to dress up, go out, get a bit drunk, and have a good time?
And yet they don't. Because one is male and one is female.

I don't think the woman is in any way "asking for it." I think that a rapist might think that but I do not.

I don't even know if there's any proof that the way a woman dresses has any effect on the chance she will be raped. I got into argument with The Technomancer about whether risk management should ever be discussed when it comes to physical and sexual violence, which I think it should, but I am not convinced that sexual attire puts one at risk.

I think it's pretty insulting that you don't know the difference between Mortal Kombat characters.

Oops, messed up that quote. Sorry!

 

[User 100115]

People keep talking about minimizing risk.

What they don't understand is that their surefire, risk minimizing advice doesn't work.

People get raped drunk, sober, alone, with friends, with strangers, with family members, wearing burkas, sweats, sexy dresses, rags, while at home, while out on the town, at night, at day...

It doesn't work.

So when people start throwing around advice, it's only to make themselves feel better. That'll never happen to me/my loved ones! Because they are smart and know better.

But it does. I would wager that every guy here knows a rape victim, even if they haven't said they are.

 

[PG2G]

We're trying to manage the wrong risk if we're talking about controlling how women dress or where they're allowed to go.

Agreed, I don't think we should be telling women how to dress. Where people can go should definitely be considered though, even as a man.

 

[methane47]

Rape should never, ever, be about the victim in any scenario. The aggressor makes the decision to rape. Minimizing risk is all well and good, and makes sense from certain points of view, but ultimately the decision to assault someone is on the aggressor.

These threads should be locked, they always devolve into shit flinging ban traps. There isn't anything left to say that hasn't been said by parties on either side of the argument.

What if the rapist is not aggressive?
What if the rape isn't violent?

Again some people get lost in this thought that Rape is this violent act of forcefully ripping off someone's clothes and aggressively penetrating them. But that isn't always the case.

Rape can be subtle as a lapse of judgment or a lack of information.

 

[User 100115]

What if the rapist is not aggressive?
What if the rape isn't violent?

Again some people get lost in this thought that Rape is this violent act of forcefully ripping off someone's clothes and aggressively penetrating them. But that isn't always the case.

Rape can be subtle as a lapse of judgment or a lack of information.

Wait, how is rape not a conscious decision to violate another person's body? Even if the rapist is gentle, if the other person doesn't want it, it's still rape. That's not a 'lapse of judgement'. That's rape.

 

[OrangeJulius]

What if the rapist is not aggressive?
What if the rape isn't violent?

Again some people get lost in this thought that Rape is this violent act of forcefully ripping off someone's clothes and aggressively penetrating them. But that isn't always the case.

Rape can be subtle as a lapse of judgment or a lack of information.

Fucking what? What is this, I don't even....

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about, the arguments for some of you just make no sort of sense to any rational human being.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What is the sincere endgame of controlling women? All I can figure is we end up in a world with women completely covered at all times in oversized pantsuits hanging out at each other's houses, provided they know the password and can jump across a moat. Rape will still exist.

I don't disagree with your line of figuring, I'm just saying if you want to make progress and actually persuade people, figure it in a way that isn't so acidic.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It's pretty insulting for you to equate my suggestion of reasonably avoiding risk where you can to backwards, misogynistic cultures where women have no rights.

The problem with your suggestions is that they will be applied in all cases even when the relevance is low. A woman can do everything you ask, but because you've put it on her to protect herself, she will still be questioned for her appearance and location, meaning you are actually giving rapists more freedom and benefit of the doubt. There is no viable endgame to your suggestions that has anything to do with preventing rape. It's just controlling women.

 

[methane47]

Wait, how is rape not a conscious decision to violate another person's body? Even if the rapists is gentle, if the other person doesn't want it, it's still rape. That's not a 'lapse of judgement'. That's rape.

Fucking what? What is this, I don't even....

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about, the arguments for some of you just make no sort of sense to any rational human being.

What if the 2 people had sex but one is 17.5 years old. (assuming the age of consent is 18)

 

[Takuan]

Its just a form of non violent rape.
Another form is where the girl gives unseen or unnoticed signals that the sex is not wanted but goes along with it.

Like that one "Rape" scene in the HBO show Girls when the couple was sexing for the first time but the Guy was rough.

But I've heard the excuse most in college where girls go out to clubs super hot, get drunk, then have sex and claim rape. Then the excuse comes out. "But look at what she's wearing!?!"

Not neccessarily from the assailant. but maybe from Church members, neighbors, high and mighty adults.... friends of the girl.... friends of the guy.

Yeah, that's a shitty excuse regardless. I can see someone taking the stance that the involvement of alcohol doesn't always suggest rape, but a style of dress should never be taken as an invitation for sex. Gawking, maybe.