(July 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm)Cego_Colher Wrote: oh and also Paul, I apologize for assuming that you were done with this thread.

No worries. I had assumed the same thing. Heheh

(July 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: You have already decided what my answers are and dismissed them, but I'll put them into my own words, I suppose.

1- What exactly is the purpose of your 'advice'?: In general, if I gave someone advice that I thought might lower their odds of being raped, the purpose would be to show my concern for their welfare. "

On what basis to you make the claim that following your 'advice' will actually lower their odds of being raped considering that we have demonstrated several times now that the behavior you are advising on has nothing to do with the chances of being raped?

Quote:I have said that men are sexually aroused by visual stimuli and that a woman that intentionally dresses in a sexually attractive manner must be aware of that. It explains the stares and gawking she receives and the overly persistent drunk that's hoping to get into her pants.

So you are blaming her for inciting them. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. You believe it is the woman's responsibility to change her harmless actions rather than the man's responsibility to grow the fuck up and have a little self-control. I appreciate you finally demonstrating your true underlying motives.

Quote:As if giving As if giving well intentioned advice is somehow doing the recipient of said advice a disservice. advice is somehow doing the recipient of said advice a disservice.

The bolded part, right there? That's the part of the statement that is a lie. It's not well-intentioned. Your intentions are not the safety of the woman, for the behavior you are advising her on is irrelevant to her chances of being raped. As I pointed out, it is like advising someone not to stand on a ladder to lower their chances of getting burned.

The intention of the advice is the underlying sexism, and the belief that men can't control themselves so women should hid themselves.

---

(July 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's true or not that a woman can take a precaution, stating that she can is not victim blaming. Stating that she should or that she 'deserves it' or she is partly 'to blame' is victim blaming. Stating that she can take a precaution is merely making a factual statement that is either true or untrue, and you cannot go from facts to values. You are committing a logical fallacy. It is irrelevant to the victim-blaming matter whether it's true or not that a woman can take a precaution, it's only relevant if it is pushed and said that she also should. Clear?

I suggest if you wish to redefine the word, you take it up with the authors of the dictionary.

(July 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's true or not that a woman can take a precaution, stating that she can is not victim blaming. Stating that she should or that she 'deserves it' or she is partly 'to blame' is victim blaming. Stating that she can take a precaution is merely making a factual statement that is either true or untrue, and you cannot go from facts to values. You are committing a logical fallacy. It is irrelevant to the victim-blaming matter whether it's true or not that a woman can take a precaution, it's only relevant if it is pushed and said that she also should. Clear?

EvF

And do you not see the logical fallacy in telling someone how to reduce their risk when the evidence shows that wearing sexy clothing or being alone at night has no impact on rape? Where the statistics show the majority of rape is by people you know and trust, and even happens in the victim's home.

When you've been a victim of rape, it's because he chose to rape you. His reasons are his own and they vary wildly. There is no way you can anticipate all the reasons a rapist would have and safeguard against them. There's no evidence that any of your common sense advice (And I've pointed out why common sense is a logical fallacy) actually reduces the risk. The only thing proven to reduce risk is educating the people who would rape on consent issues, etc..

By clinging to the long refuted idea that a woman can reduce risk by wearing modest clothes and staying off the streets at night, you not only stifle woman's freedoms, but contribute to the long standing rape culture which victim blames and slut shames its victims. By claiming that women have risks to reduce, you support the natural conclusion that when they are raped and have not complied with your mistaken advice, that they are responsible. That's how you are victim blaming.

As we have said repeatedly, show us the evidence it works. If you can't, why the hell would then advise people to follow your advice if you cannot sufficiently shows it does a damn thing? Do you not claim yourself to be someone who accepts things on evidence versus faith? Are you not taking things on faith when you assume your advice reduces risk?

(July 18, 2010 at 1:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Would you tell a gay man to be careful if he leaves with another man at a bar? Does a man get any censure at all for wearing certain clothing, being out alone, etc... if he is raped? Is a man advised about this ad nauseum for being a man and having crosses to bear?

If you answer no, then that no points to an underlying sexism.

That situation has actually happened to me, so I know the answer. A gay male friend of mine was at the bar with a bunch of us (this was years ago when a I was single and partied a lot) and hooked up with someone he had just met that very evening. I (along with some of the others) tried to convince him not to leave with the guy, because he didn't know him. Eventually, we convinced him to bring the guy along to the after-bar party with the rest of us. He turned out to be a lot of fun.

I understand what you are getting at, though. Do I feel women are at more risk of rape than men and therefore need more advice? Yes and no. Women are more at risk to be raped, because men are generally the ones that commit rape. I'm not sexist at all, but I do understand that there are differences, both physical and emotional, between the sexes. I am not someone that clings to gender-roles in any way.

(July 18, 2010 at 1:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I think, from interactions we have had here, that you're wonderful person, and I think everyone else here is a good person. Pointing out apparent sexism or flaws in thinking that, while good intentioned, cause harm does not mean we think people who have these thoughts are bad people. Being a good person doesn't mean you can't give bad advice, make bad choices, or do a disservice to someone unintentionally. No one's perfect. And calling people on their incorrect views, despite being well intentioned, in no way implies we think you are all bad people.

Thank you, Eilonnwy. I have mucho respect for you, so that means a lot. I understand that you are not literally accusing any of us, except maybe Dotard (Kidding! Sorry! Couldn't resist!) of being bad people and I also know that this is a subject that you take very, very seriously. I even get your concerns about some of the things that have been said in this thread, but I feel that a lot of things have been taken too literally... or had their meanings completely twisted around. But not by you.

Quote:And do you not see the logical fallacy in telling someone how to reduce their risk when the evidence shows that wearing sexy clothing or being alone at night has no impact on rape? Where the statistics show the majority of rape is by people you know and trust, and even happens in the victim's home.

I never made such a claim. What I said is it's irrelevant to the victim blaming matter whether it's true or not that X precaution can actually be taken. It's only victim blaming if the victim is told they should take X precaution. It's only victim blaming if the victim is actually blamed.

Quote:When you've been a victim of rape, it's because he chose to rape you. His reasons are his own and they vary wildly. There is no way you can anticipate all the reasons a rapist would have and safeguard against them.

I quite agree. And I never made such a claim.

Quote:By clinging to the long refuted idea that a woman can reduce risk by wearing modest clothes and staying off the streets at night, you not only stifle woman's freedoms, but contribute to the long standing rape culture which victim blames and slut shames its victims.

See above. Refuted or unrefuted, it's irrelevant. Saying that 'X' is a precaution that could be taken, is not saying that X should be taken. That's going from facts to values, it's a non-sequitur.

Quote: By claiming that women have risks to reduce, you support the natural conclusion that when they are raped and have not complied with your mistaken advice, that they are responsible. That's how you are victim blaming.

If, someone, by sating what they think is true about whether a precaution can be taken (a factual matter) they are accidentally misconstrued into supporting the victim-blaming rape culture and therefore give some from of support to it by accident, they still aren't actually doing any victim blaming at all. And it's their right to talk about facts and not have them completely illogically misconstrued to being a matter of values. Talking about whether or not precautions can be taken is a matter of fact and not values.

If it's true that 'X' precaution can be taken but it somehow (for sake of argument) actually made it worse to acknowledge that fact, would you say that it's victim blaming to acknowledge precaution 'X'? It doesn't matter whether a precaution can be taken or not, that has no relevance to victim blaming unless women are actually being told to take them.

Quote:Are you not taking things on faith when you assume your advice reduces risk?

What advice? I've already accepted long ago on this thread that assuming there is no evidence for any precaution then there's no reason to believe in it, indeed. Assuming there is indeed no evidence that clothing makes any difference (that no one's found any) then yes I'm perfectly happy to disbelieve what I may have thought before.

But my point is that it is utterly irrelevant whether there's evidence for that precaution when it comes to victim blaming because that's a factual matter and not a value matter. Blaming, like rewarding, is a matter of values, not facts. Precautions can only turn to 'blame' when people are told they 'should' take them (as if it's their responsibility). If precautions are merely stated as true, whether true or untrue, it's got nothing to do with blaming. Has it?

EvF

(July 18, 2010 at 7:34 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I love it when you talk about burkas, Scented Nectar. It's getting all hot over here.

Yeah, they are hot alright! Itchy, sweaty hot though, not the fun type I suspect.

(July 18, 2010 at 2:30 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:

(July 18, 2010 at 7:34 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I love it when you talk about burkas, Scented Nectar. It's getting all hot over here.

Yeah, they are hot alright! Itchy, sweaty hot though, not the fun type I suspect.

Burka porn, that's got to be a pretty niche market...

(July 18, 2010 at 1:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Would you tell a gay man to be careful if he leaves with another man at a bar? Does a man get any censure at all for wearing certain clothing, being out alone, etc... if he is raped? Is a man advised about this ad nauseum for being a man and having crosses to bear?

If you answer no, then that no points to an underlying sexism.

No it doesn't. It is a known fact that men are generally stronger than women, and the real reason for rape is power (i.e. the stronger rapist subduing the weaker woman). There isn't anything sexist about this; it is just how things are in our species (the strength thing I mean).

So whilst I probably wouldn't warn my male friends if they walked home with a random guy, I would definitely warn my female friends. It isn't sexist, it's just that I know that the risks for women are much higher, and my male friends could probably handle themselves, whilst it would be only too easy for a rapist to subdue my female friends.

Every time two of my closest friends (both girls) come over to watch movies, I always walk them home, even when they are together. They don't have to ask; I just do it. Why? Because I'd never forgive myself if I let them walk home alone and something did happen to them.

Now when I'm over their house, I often walk back alone, since based on simple risk analysis, I am not much of a target. However, that isn't to say that I don't have my own ways of lowering the remaining risks. For instance, I'll always stay in the light of streetlamps, and if I see people walking towards me, I cross to the other side of the road. My point is, the fact that I walk home alone but don't let my (girl) friends do it isn't anything to do with sexism; it's because of the statistics, and because I care about them.

(July 18, 2010 at 6:37 am)Synackaon Wrote: Once again I feel obligated to remind our little flamefest that there is no such thing as being perfectly blameless and being perfectly responsible. However one plans to set the distribution, it is up to debate, but this whole victim blaming fiasco reeks of absolute morality.

Please refrain from making absolutist statements - it makes one look like a fool.

Criminality runs in many forms.

But it doesn't run in a vacuum.

Food for thought.

When it comes to certain things, such as rape, yes there is.

---

(July 18, 2010 at 7:41 am)Godhead Wrote: What the PC brigade are doing, and which is astonishingly transparent, is putting the phrase "taking responsibility" and putting inverted commas arond it to imply and insinuate that anyone who uses the phrase actually means something else (ie that the woman is to blame).

Did you not read my message? That is the official definition of victim blaming, that is, holding the victims of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment to be entirely or partially responsible for the unfortunate incident that has occurred in their life.

How about Perpetrator : Victim :
Blame : 100% 0%
Responsibility : c. 100% c.0%

Listen-when it comes to rape, there is nothing you can do to "try to decrease risk" or "look after yourself"...except not exist, or maybe never go near any human being at all. That's how it works. And if you're talking about your safety in terms of rape, it does apply to the rapist, it means it's your fault for not controlling the rapist's actions.

No, you're not a fool. There's nothing you can do to minimize risk of rape. Period.

---

(July 18, 2010 at 7:42 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Clearly there is a spectrum of culpability. On the one end, there is the (admittedly unlikely) scenario where a woman literally asks for it; she goes aound the back streets of the red light district with a big sign round her neck that shows an arrow pointing downwards and the words, 'Insert penis here.' I'd say that a woman who goes back drunk to a man's house and gets in his bed, whilst still having the right to say, 'No', would be more towards this end of the spectrum in terms of culpability. On the other end, there is someone who is dressed modestly, walking through a well populated central area, but still gets raped. All that she's contributed to her rape is the fact that she is outdoors, and nobody in their right mind would blame her for her rape in this situation. What I mean to say is that we can't make absolute judgements about whether a woman is culpable for her rape or not; it depends very much on the situation. We have to decide, then, whether wearing sexy clothing is on one end of the spectrum or the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Wearing sexy clothes is nowhere on the spectrum. Clothes have nothing to do with rape. It's been proven over and over again.

In the case of the drunk woman, it's still entirely the rapist's fault and responsibility. If someone passed out drunk in my house, I wouldn't rape them, I'd kick them out.

Also...being outdoors contributes to rape? Are you serious? Plenty of people get raped indoors, so I guess no one should ever be indoors or outdoors.

---

(July 18, 2010 at 7:59 am)Godhead Wrote: Omnissiunt one -

You jumped from responsibility to blame. You said : "All that she's contributed to her rape is the fact that she is outdoors, and nobody in their right mind would blame her for her rape in this situation". No I wouldn't blame her. But, as you say, she contributed to her own rape n some way. Taking responsibility means ensuring, to the best of your ability and knowledge, that you're minimising risk. It doesn't mean getting it right, it just means acknowleding the fact that it's down to you to try. I know what you meant but I'm illustrating how the word "responsibility" can be taken to meansomething it doesn't.

No, she did not contribute. Being outdoors does not contribute to rape. Being indoors does not contribute to rape. I suggest you read the official definition of victim blaming again-responsibility does, in fact, mean blame.

There's no way to minimise risk.

---

(July 18, 2010 at 9:48 am)Dotard Wrote: A friend of mine fell off a bridge today. Got busted up pretty bad.

He was walking on the handrail. "Well why was he walking on the railing?" people were asking. Some even had the nerve to suggest it was his fault for walking on the handrail. How dare they suggest it was his fault.

It was 100% gravitys fault. For anyone to suggest he shouldn't have been rail walking is blaming him. He has every right to walk where he wanted without fear of gravity pulling him to the ground causing him injury.

How dare they suggest handrail walking is what caused his injuries. Statistics show a majority of falls happen in the home so there is no corrolation that suggests handrail walking increases the risk of falling. To suggest he held any responsibility for his injuries would be bullshit as gravity is 100% responsible. Even if people never rail walked people would still be victimized by gravity as if they avoided falling, gravity would just find another to pull to the ground.

Later that day I saw a woman telling her children to stay off the handrail because they may fall, as if suggesting if they did fall it would be their fault. How could they suggest this?! If they fell, responsibility and blame would be 100% the fault of gravity. What did she expect them to do? Stay off of bridges? They have every right to use bridges and walk on the handrails if they wish to without any responsibility being assigned to them if they should fall.

Gravity will always be 100% reponsible and no blame be placed on the victim of falling under any circumstance.

This is why we should all advocate removal of those signs "Stay off the handrail" posted around bridges. It leads to victim blaming and suggests removing full responsibility from gravity and assigning it to the victim. It's fall culture at it finest to suggest handrail walking may increase the likelihood of falling.

If you disagree then that only means you are a gravity sympathizer and push people off bridges or fantasize about pushing people off bridges. How are they on the handrail when you fantasize about pushing them off the bridge?

You're joking right? That's the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. Gravity is not a human being with a conscience and free will that makes a decision to push someone off. A more accurate analogy would've been a human being who pushes another human being off a balcony or something, in which case everything would've been the "responsibility" of the person who did the pushing.

Also, walking on a handrail obviously does play a factor in falling off, but sexy clothes/being alone/whatever does not play any factor in rape. Studies show this. Statistics show this. Rape is not about sexual attraction. It is about power. If someone's gonna rape you, they're gonna rape you. No matter who you are or what you're doing.

---

Quote:Nothing but sheer emotion behind this. Address my actual points or I'm done here.

There was an accurate analogy there you ignored.

Quote:but that example alone shows what nonsense that statement is.

How so?

Quote:And, do you claim that a group of friends walking together are just as likely to be raped as a single person?

Yes. Once again, one-the-street attacks from strangers are extremely rare, from what I hear it doesn't even make up 1% of rapes. There's a little thing called gang rape. Also, what if you don't have any friends to walk with you? You can't have groups of friends to walk with you on stand-by everytime you need to go somewhere.

And never going outside doesn't decreased rape risk either since so many people are raped indoors.

Quote:It has been proven over and over that all actions rape victims take have absolutely zero influence on the probability of their assault?

Have you read anything anyone said? Look at how often rape occurs in countries where women wear burkas and are never alone and-oh never mind. I guess I was doing something for my friend to rape me huh? Oh, it's my "responsibility" because I was a lesbian, if I wasn't a lesbian he wouldn't have felt the need to try to correct me.

Quote:Whether the victim's actions have any influence over the probability of being raped or not and whether it's the victim's 'fault' are two completely different things,

They are the same thing. Replace the word "fault" in "It's your fault" with "responsibility" and it means the exact same thing. The official definition of victim blaming is to place "responsibility" on the victim.[/quote]

---

(July 18, 2010 at 10:40 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: I really wonder why no one is warning women that they should consider living, working and travelling with women only, in order to prevent any possible future danger. It would be kind of unreasonable, wouldn't it?

That wouldn't decrease anything either since plenty of women get raped by other women. And men by women.

So I guess no one should ever go near a woman either, huh? It's your "responsibility" for getting raped by a woman, everyone knows not to go near them!

---

Quote: Nevertheless, when we say "responsibility", that's what we mean.

If you sit here and say "oh, I'm not racist! I'm just saying black people are stupid and should stay away from us, that's not the same as being racist!" Um, yes it is.

"Its your fault!" and "It's your responsibility!" mean the same damn thing.

Quote:They see things in black and white.

Because some things ARE black and white.

As far as motorists go, reckless driving actually does play a part it causing accidents, whereas sexy clothes/whatever have no part is causing rape, so that's a useless analogy.

Quote: Be careless = accident.

Rape is not an accident. There's no comparison.

Read the definition of victim blaming again.

---

Quote:I also believe that a woman (or man, whatever) can, in certain circumstances, take conscious steps to lower their own odds of becoming a victim of rape.

There aren't. Unless you're gonna kill yourself...but then people do have sex with corpses (necrophiles), so that wouldn't decrease risk either, and lol, it'd be your "responsibility" for being dead and you knew dead people attract necrophiles.

Quote:If your answer is yes, then you and I will never agree on this topic. I know that I do not blame rape victims for being raped.

No, you shoulder "responsibility" onto them which is soooo different, right?

---

(July 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm)Godhead Wrote: Again, In this mind has chosen to be very selective, and bolded the bits where it says the word "responsibility" or "responsible", whilst completely missing the point that those words do not mean blame, rather they are used within a context, in order to describe what the word "blame" means. Classic strawman. The word which should have been bolded was "fault", which is precisely what blame is all about. Responsibility isn't about fault or blame, it is about something quite different, which has been covered by quite a few posters already. Perhaps we should see a definition of the word "responsibility", and see what that says.

You're joking right? The wikipedia page for "responsibility" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility) says "See also: blame". They mean basically the same thing.

That was a dictionary definition put in front of you. If you can actually ignore that, then I don't know what else to tell you.

---

Quote:I mean, I have said that the majority (yes, other people get raped too) of rapes happen to women in there teens and twenties, which is, in general, as I understand it, is when women are considered the most attractive.

Source? Where are you getting this information from?

Give it up, Gameslover.

They are engaging in apologetics that would make any fundie proud.