Oh and since the people here have constantly backed up their assertions with "common sense" why don't we discuss it.

Common sense is basically certain judgement calls that we make based on what common (note: most people) agree upon is good. Now what do we call it when your argue from what the majority, or shall we say common people in this case, agree on something and assert it in an argument? That's right, the argument from popularity fallacy. Hmm.

Read this article on 5 ways common sense screws us up for a really great explanation on why common sense is basically a mixture of varying logical fallacies that lead us to make terrible judgement calls. Your common sense is shit, it has no place when dealing with the fact of rape crimes and what the statistics show.

You know, let's pretend for a second I agreed with you. Woman should not walk home at night alone. Let's say everyone agrees with this premise. Will they? Will every single woman everywhere who has a job, has a life, needs to support her kids, get to work, go to a party, go food shopping, always be able to drive, get a ride, take a cab home after 9pm? You all know that is absolutely not true. I've been denied ride homes, sometimes I can't get them. People are poor, working a shitty McDonald's job, they can barely make ends meet how can they possibly afford a taxi? Or god forbid, they want the fucking freedom a man has to walk home alone late at night without worrying about being raped.

Now take this scenario to where woman are constantly trying to get their rides, take a taxi, but inevitably some woman just can't. They get raped. Well since "everyone" knows you're a woman so you should get a ride home, you obviously should have known better. It's the woman's fault. She didn't follow the procedure that everyone knows would have saved her. You've just victim blamed. It doesn't matter that the someone decided to rape her, she didn't take measures to avoid that situation.

Now, look at Saudi Arabia, a real world example where woman are not allowed to walk alone, they have to cover themselves in Burkas to protect them from rape. Women are still raped, and when they are raped, they are blamed for it. There is no justice for them over there. The men constantly get away with it and women are stoned to death for it because they didn't cover themselves or stay with their man. These people take drastic measures to "protect" their women from rape, so drastic they completely stifle and oppress those same woman. And you know what, they still get raped, because rapists still exist and if a man has made a decision to rape, they will find someone.

I know none of you here agree with the scenario in Saudi Arabia, but what you argue for with your common sense is what happens when it's put to practice, and it even happens here in our "civilized" culture with every rape that goes unreported due to victim shaming and blaming.

Everyone here knows that things which seem impractical and feel impractical can still be true. How many times have we laughed at argued with a theist who says, "I believe in God because it's common sense that a creation must have a creator". How many times have we talked about how wrong the big bang can seem, but science really shows it's right? And yet here you are, arguing for common sense, when the atheists who argue here constantly should know damn well common sense does not equal logic or fact.

Eilonnwy -

We could argue about what constitutes common sense (ie what would actually reduce the chances of getting raped) and what wouldn't. I don't think anyone has a problem, I certainly don't, with discussing the details. But there are two issues. One is what I've just mentioned, and the other is about the victim mentality. All we're trying to say (the guys here) is be careful, that's all. Surely one thing we can agree on is this : If you think that you're taking a risk, and you do nothing about it on the grounds that no one ought to rape you, then you're a fool, whether you get raped or not. And if someone does get raped and later it can be seen that she could have avoided it somehow or at least reduced the chances of it happening, then a lesson can be learned. Obviously that last phrase of mine can be misunderstood, but only by people who are already determined to see everything from a victim mentality point of view.

(July 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm)Godhead Wrote: Obviously that last phrase of mine can be misunderstood, but only by people who are already determined to see everything from a victim mentality point of view.

And you claim you aren't blaming the victim.

Sorry, but you are like the Tea Party claiming that if you have a problem with signs that say 'Go back to Kenya, Obama' it's because you are the racist one.

You call women who get raped because you think you know some way they could have avoided it 'fools', and then claim you aren't blaming the victim.

Have you read the articles I cited yet?

I am agreeing so hard with everything In His Mind just said, and adding this. You are essentially claiming that people who have been victimized cannot have a clear and logical understanding of victim blaming. So obviously, you know, black people can't argue against racism since they are already determined to see it through a minority's point of view. Shame on you.

Eilonnwy -

I'm not claiming that people who have been victims can't have a clear and logical understanding of victim blaming. I'm saying that In This Mind doesn't. You don't have to be a victim to lose touch with reality about victim blaming, and being a victim doesn't automatically mean that you lose touch. If you think that what I'm saying is victim = lost touch with reality, then that's not correct. Thankfully, many victims pick themselves up and assess what happened realistically. There's a distinction between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. It's all too easy to jump to conclusions and read into people's words.

(July 16, 2010 at 6:20 pm)Godhead Wrote: Thankfully, many victims pick themselves up and assess what happened realistically.

Which I did. And that pisses you off. I assessed what happened, both during the attack and afterward, and looked at the reality of the situation. And you know what the reality is? There is nothing a woman does to provoke rape. And because there is nothing she does to provoke the rape, there is nothing she can do to prevent a man from sexually assaulting her. At best, she can fight him off, and realistically, she can't even do that on many occasions.

Unless you actually believe that wearing sexy clothing is provocation for rape, you cannot state that not wearing sexy clothing will prevent rape. And if you think wearing sexy clothing is provocation for rape, the problem isn't with the clothing, it is with you.

Did you read the articles I cited yet? Because I have backed up everything I have said.

Now it is your turn. Cite something that disproves my stance. Don't just say 'it's common sense', because that's wrong, as we've proven. Cite something that actually demonstrates that not wearing sexy clothing and not going out alone at night can prevent rape. Make sure your citation accounts for the fact that being grabbed randomly off the street at night while wearing sexy clothing is the rarest form of rape by a considerable margin.

Remember that what you cite has to address the fact that in the middle east, a place many women are not allowed to wear anything resembling sexy clothing or to go out alone at all, rape is still commonplace.

Your obsession with the clothing and the woman being alone are part of the same mindset that leads rape to be commonplace. It's all about putting the woman in her place and having power over her. A rapist puts her in her place by raping her. You try to do it by calling her an irresponsible fool.

Should I automatically assume all men are rapists? Because if I was actually to 'take responsibility' and 'safeguard' myself, that is the only option available. I must assume all men are going to sexually assault me and act accordingly. And that is fucking ridiculous.

(July 16, 2010 at 6:20 pm)Godhead Wrote: Eilonnwy -

I'm not claiming that people who have been victims can't have a clear and logical understanding of victim blaming. I'm saying that In This Mind doesn't. You don't have to be a victim to lose touch with reality about victim blaming, and being a victim doesn't automatically mean that you lose touch. If you think that what I'm saying is victim = lost touch with reality, then that's not correct. Thankfully, many victims pick themselves up and assess what happened realistically. There's a distinction between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. It's all too easy to jump to conclusions and read into people's words.

You're wrong. In His Mind has a very clear understanding of victim blaming and has expressed it better than I could in areas, regardless of her status as a victim.

And what about me? I'm arguing the same thing she has, yet I've never been a victim of sexual assault or rape. It's funny how you all seem to jump on her, claim she's arguing irrationally, but she hasn't. She's been very clear and you all refuse to see it, clinging to "common sense", throwing her victim status back in her face, refuse to see the victim blaming when it's right in front of your nose it couldn't be any closer. The cognitive dissonance in this thread is so vast, no one could swim it.

Do I get a free pass because I'm an admin? Are my arguments more valid because I've never been raped? You know I was asked privately when this first started if I had been raped, because I got a bit emotional. I didn't realize at the time how offensive that question was. It doesn't matter, my status as a non victim, and In His Mind's status of a victim do not negate or support the argument we both agree on 100%

And you know what, maybe you all just don't get, and really don't understand. Or maybe you're so uncomfortable with the possibility that you could really be victim blaming, that you refuse to see it? How do you like me suggesting your mental or emotional state in this discussion? Not fun, right?

Now emotions have run hot in this thread on both sides, but back in the beginning of this thread I probably got as bad as In His Mind did with the insults. Now I did apologize for the name flinging, but I didn't back down from my arguments. Emotions have run high on both ends, and you all have given as good as it you got. And now look at you all. We're all so butthurt were getting right back to it. In His Mind has a slew of negative reps, all for disagreeing with you guys on an emotionally charged issue. One of them just calls her a bitch. I'm going to delete that one, and the corresponding one she gave in return, because negative repping because you don't like someone is not allowed. We allow negative reps to stand if there's a reason based on the arguments they've presented to do so, not because you have a grudge.

Furthermore, if I was a rape victim being told my argument was not valid because it was from the perspective of a victim, I probably couldn't be able to form a coherent thought over the rage. I don't know how she does it. Not only do I agree with In His Mind, I admire her. (And NO, I am not excusing the insults she has made)

Now I'm going to say this now before the argument continues. The name flinging on both sides, is unacceptable. If it kicks up again, I will lock this thread. If anyone tries to argue, "Well she did it first, he did it first" I will lock this thread. This thread has gone too long without someone putting their foot down on the name calling, and since this is getting heated again, I'm making this clear. I'm not claiming innocence, I'm claiming it has to stop.

Now, let's have a rational discussion here. I've provided many arguments, and In His Mind has posted very informative articles. None of you have given a clear refutation beyond "Common Sense" and "In His Mind is arguing from a victims perspective, so her opinion is skewed". Granted, it's been recently posted, so many of you will not have had a chance to reply. So not claiming everyone here has done so.

But if you're going to reply: debate the points made. Read the damn articles.

(July 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: (And NO, I am not excusing the insults she has made)

Ironically, one of the insults some folks are up in arms over me making, I never did. I am amused that I was accused of it though, I found it rather Freudian.

I stated someone's true colors were revealed. Folks took that to mean I was calling him a rapist. Actually, I was calling him a misogynist. But it was interesting to me that the folks who got upset immediately had their minds go to that meaning I was calling him a rapist.

Oh, and as for it being 'recently posted', I actually initially posted it all several pages back, including citing from it directly.

Eilonnwy -

Yes I think people need to calm down and not get so emotional. Ok Eilonnwy, how am I, for example, blaming the victim? How are you getting that from what I'm saying? To recap, what I'm saying is :

- A rape involves a rapist and a victim

- The rapist is in the wrong by default, and that's unconditional

- The victim isn't in the wrong (being a bad person), but there is such a thing as foolishness

- There is a difference between being in the wrong (being a bad person), and being foolish

- When it comes to any kind of potential danger, people should, to the best of their ability and knowledge, be careful and try and minimise risk, otherwise they're foolish

- If you take care to the best of your knowledge and ability, you are not a fool, even if you do get raped, since you tried your best to minimise risk. End result : Rapist who is in the wrong & wise but unfortunate victim

- If you are aware of risk, yet you don't do anything about it, you're a fool. End result : Rapist who is in the wrong, and foolish victim

- If you don't try to minimise risk and you don't get raped, end result : Foolish and lucky potential victim


I just tried to see how I'm blaming the victim. I couldn't see it. How am I doing it?

(July 16, 2010 at 7:20 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Ironically, one of the insults some folks are up in arms over me making, I never did. I am amused that I was accused of it though, I found it rather Freudian.

Yeah, I was confused about that myself, since I saw no such insult made.