(July 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm)In This Mind Wrote:

Quote:You go into hysterics and accuse her of blaming you? I'd bet not.

Depends entirely on how she says it. There are some versions of Cindy who would indeed stated it as 'well gee, if only you hadn't been foolish (note use of the word foolish) and used common sense (note wording used by members of this thread) you wouldn't have been raped'.

The fact it depends on 'how she says it' shows that you are making the appeal to emotion fallacy. Your 'argument' is emotional... not a real argument.

EvF

Wrong.

In scenario A - She is blaming herself. Wrongheaded (because the only person who is to blame and who holds any responsibility is the rapist), but understandable, it's part of the grieving process at times, and thus no, I could not be angry at her, she is angry enough at herself and needs to work through it and understand she is not to blame at all in her own time.

In scenario B - She is blaming me, which is stupid and cruel of her.

The fact that you are so focused on how she says it shows how focused you are on interpreting advice as blame regardless of how it is phrased.

Someone could phrase something as a blaming way but you could still take it as common sense advice... which are different things...

What you seem to be doing is the opposite... someone gives common sense advice in a non-blaming way and you are treating it in a 'blaming' way and taking it badly.

The ideal of course would be for you to not take it as blaming when that isn't being done (as it isn't here) - when all is being said is the obvious fact that taking precautions reduces risk even though in either case it is obviously the rapist to blame!!

(July 11, 2010 at 4:32 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Wrong.

As if you (or anybody else) can really know anything for sure(!!) If you're going to make such a bold statement you'd not only require evidence but absolute proof IMO - since such bold assertion seems neither polite or full of any clarity whatsoever that would help in debate IMO


EvF

(July 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The fact that you are so focused on how she says it shows how focused you are on interpreting advice as blame regardless of how it is phrased.

A woman in sexy clothes walks down the street at night. She is raped.

Are you stating that if she had not been wearing those clothes, she would not have been raped? It's a yes or no question.

If you answer yes (which, based on your 'advice' you would) then you are stating that because of a decision SHE made, she was raped. Thus, you are blaming her. Moreover, you and others on this thread are also calling her foolish and lacking sense. You are blaming her.

blame
   /bleɪm/ Show Spelled [bleym] Show IPA verb, blamed, blam·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.
2.to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually fol. by on ): I blame the accident on her.
3.Informal . blast; damn (used as a mild curse): Blame the rotten luck.
–noun
4.an act of attributing fault; censure; reproof: The judge said he found nothing to justify blame in the accident.
5.responsibility for anything deserving of censure: We must all share the blame for this deplorable condition.
—Idiom
6.to blame, at fault; censurable: I am to blame for his lateness.

That is the definition of blame.

You are holding her partially responsible. You are attributing fault to her. And you are censuring her.

She made an error, thus she was raped. You are placing that responsibility on her.

You are blaming her.

Quote:ould still take it as common sense advice

Except, as I have repeatedly pointed out and backed up with facts from people who study rapists, it is not 'common sense'.

Judging the woman's actions in the sexual assault serves no purpose other than to apportion blame to the victim. It doesn't prevent or even lessen the likelihood of rape.

The only thing that HAS been demonstrated to lessen instances of rape is educating men on the fact that if you continue without gaining your partner's consent it is rape.


I have provided evidence for my stance. Where is yours?

Women are still regularly raped in the Middle East where they take your advice and take it to extremes. They are still raped because rapists view women as objects.

1. Are you ignoring the fact that the common sense advices do apply? I'm talking about really obvious stuff.... such as, for example, what Adrian suggested - walking home with a group of friends or taking a taxi instead of walking home alone.

2. Are you ignoring the fact that blame has a negative connotation but that doesn't mean that it can't still apply? You are focusing too much on the connotation and not viewing the meaning objectively because you are so emotionally charged. It's not that the victim should take a precaution it's merely that they could take a precaution. Whereas a rapist obviously shouldn't rape. It's obviously the rapists fault.

EvF

I think by suggesting things that may help or aid in keeping one safe from rape or even muggings is in no way placing partial blame on the victims of said crime. In This Mind I think you are misinterpreting the intent of the advice being given. In the case of rape the entire blame in my opinion is on the rapist and not the one being raped, and saying that if the women followed this advice it would be demonstrable by a reduction in rapes is utterly ridiculous. As someone else stated it would not, a rapist would just find another victim who is easier prey to him/her and poses a lesser threat.

(July 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Except this isn't true. It is not true that 'not taking risks' will lead to less instances of rape.

I never argued such a thing. What I argued (and what you have consistently ignored) is that the instances of rape *within the subset of women who don't take risks* will be lower. This should be quite obvious, since rapists don't tend to attack girls who are in large groups, or who are in cabs. Will the number of rapes be lower? Probably not, since the rapist will attack other girls, but the girls who didn't take the risks have a lower chance of being raped.

Quote:A serial rapist in my hometown was a cab driver. Another was a cop.

...and you realize that those are specific cases and do not apply generally? That is to say, the majority of cab drivers and cops are *not* rapists. The risk of getting raped by a cab driver is much lower than the risk of walking home alone, for the obvious reasons.

Quote:Most women are raped by someone they know, either a friend or an acquaintance.

And had you been reading this thread properly, you'd realize that our arguments were only addressing the people who get raped by someone they don't know, in the situations where girls are walking home, or in a dangerous situation. What we are saying, is that in those cases, had a girl acted differently (i.e. cab home, walking with friends) she would have a lower chance of getting raped.

(July 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 1. Are you ignoring the fact that the common sense advices do apply? I'm talking about really obvious stuff.... such as, for example, what Adrian suggested - walking home with a group of friends or taking a taxi instead of walking home alone.

Why are going ignoring the fact that this 'really obvious' stuff doesn't apply? As I've pointed out, most women are raped by people they know, and I've also cited an instance where it was a cab driver who was the rapist. This fantasy you have of a woman being grabbed off the streets to be attacked is the rarest form of rape, and even then, it's rarely random, the rapist usually stalks the target.

Why do you persist in claiming this advice is 'common sense', when it has been repeatedly proven to not be? Do you have anything, anything at all, beyond your 'gee I think it should work that way' to demonstrate the validity of your claim?

Here is a fact for you: Most convicted rapists don't even remember what their victims were wearing. That's how little clothing is a factor.

Here is the end result of your brand of thinking - http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/national/...ess/376442

There is absolutely no proof of a causal relationship between what a woman wears and her likelihood of being raped. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Why are you so desperate to place the responsibility on the woman that you are claiming there is?

Why are you perpetuating this lie?

What is your motivation for repeating this falsehood?

Are you like so many misogynists who believe a woman who likes feeling sexy is asking for abuse?

Quote:Are you ignoring the fact that blame has a negative connotation but that doesn't mean that it can't still apply?

So you admit you are blaming the victim, but now you are trying to pretend that's not a bad thing.

You remind me now of teachers who advise the victim (just as uselessly) to change their behavior to avoid bullying because it is too much work to actually do something about the bullies.

Quote:I think by suggesting things that may help or aid in keeping one safe from rape or even muggings is in no way placing partial blame on the victims of said crime. In This Mind I think you are misinterpreting the intent of the advice being given. In the case of rape the entire blame in my opinion is on the rapist and not the one being raped, and saying that if the women followed this advice it would be demonstrable by a reduction in rapes is utterly ridiculous. As someone else stated it would not, a rapist would just find another victim who is easier prey to him/her and poses a lesser threat.

Or, as one rapist already admitted, they'd just rape her anyway, they'd just hurt her worse.

You'll also find people who advise a rape victim to just 'lay there and take it' instead of fighting back. Their advice is just as valid, and just as disgustingly useless, as yours is.

---

(July 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I never argued such a thing. What I argued (and what you have consistently ignored) is that the instances of rape *within the subset of women who don't take risks* will be lower. This should be quite obvious

If it is so obvious, provide some proof of it.

Do you comprehend how unfeasible it is to suggest all women travel in packs? So, on the many occasions in which it is impossible, a woman should just accept it's partially her fault she was attacked?

River of posts! ^_^

In This Mind Wrote:There is nothing women can do to avoid being raped. The problem isn't that women wear sexy clothes, it's that some men think of women as objects and view the sexy clothes as permission to touch the objects.

Statement observed.

Analyzing statement...

'There is nothing women can do to avoid being raped.'

Comparing to similar statement...

'There is nothing soldiers can do to avoid being killed.'

Error

Clothes matter... to soldiers their apparel can be life and death. To arctic dwellers as well is clothing of utmost importance (when it comes to survival). The effect of clothing upon a situation can vary from being of minimal impact to dwarfing all. As it turns out, there is a very successful market for making people appear sexually appealing to others via clothing... and wearing such clothes can at the least be expected to typically excite more sexual attraction towards the wearer than would be common for them without. As such... it is clear that clothing has some effect upon wether a person appears sexually attractive... and it is not a very large jump from there to suggest that in at least some cases: clothing choice can at times be expected to further excite a person about to rape another (and indeed... perhaps is sometimes among the core causes of why the rape took place at all, if you will note the bold in the above quote).

---

(July 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm)Godhead Wrote: I don't see anything at all wrong with objectifying women, or anyone. We're animals. But because we're human, we're capable of seeing each other as sex objects and as anything else.

Indeed... not to suggest that other animals do not also objectify things, of course

(July 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm)Saerules Wrote: River of posts! ^_^

In This Mind Wrote:There is nothing women can do to avoid being raped. The problem isn't that women wear sexy clothes, it's that some men think of women as objects and view the sexy clothes as permission to touch the objects.

Statement observed.

Analyzing statement...

'There is nothing women can do to avoid being raped.'

Comparing to similar statement...

'There is nothing soldiers can do to avoid being killed.'

Error

Clothes matter... to soldiers their apparel can be life and death. To arctic dwellers as well is clothing of utmost importance (when it comes to survival). The effect of clothing upon a situation can vary from being of minimal impact to dwarfing all. As it turns out, there is a very successful market for making people appear sexually appealing to others via clothing... and wearing such clothes can at the least be expected to typically excite more sexual attraction towards the wearer than would be common for them without. As such... it is clear that clothing has some effect upon wether a person appears sexually attractive... and it is not a very large jump from there to suggest that in at least some cases: clothing choice can at times be expected to further excite a person about to rape another (and indeed... perhaps is sometimes among the core causes of why the rape took place at all, if you will note the bold in the above quote).

Dressing to avoid being cold is something you have direct control over. Since rape involves the actions and motivations of someone who isn't you, how do you have any control over it?

Joe rapes women who wear blue. Jack rapes women who wear red. Jim rapes women who don't wear anything either red or blue. So, what exactly is a woman supposed to wear?

Clothing is never the core cause of why rape took place. Ever. What is the core cause is a man's desire to degrade a woman.

And you are doing the same thing. You are degrading her by telling her she needs to dress like a frump to avoid attack. That's your version of using sex to degrade her. Either she conforms, or she risks attack. It's all about controlling the woman.




Here is the simple truth.

The only factor in whether or not a woman is sexually assaulted is whether or not she crosses paths with a man (or another woman) inclined to sexually assault her.

Period.

All else is deluded and wishful thinking on the parts of misogynists who objectify women and women who desperately want to believe it can't happen to them.

(July 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Or, as one rapist already admitted, they'd just rape her anyway, they'd just hurt her worse.

The only rapists in this thread are the ones in your overactive imagination.