Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[dirtywick]

Hmmm..so the guy who prides himself on his aggressiveness finds little worthwhile content in an article about boundaries. Interesting although not wholly unexpected.

Still, it is what it is: shallow dating advice with an inflammatory hook.

 

[Furcifer]

There is the odd phenomena of men who go to sites that are geared toward women and haunt the comments sections of rape articles. They usually talk about how a woman deserved it, how all women are prostitutes because you have to buy them dinner, how sex is a commodity that women withhold for power so of course men have to rape because the world runs on power-plays, etc, etc. For this very reason, some of these sites have heavily moderated comments.

Anonymity brings out some ugly stuff in people.

You know, I was thinking about this. This is a skeptical forum, you are allegedly a skeptic I assume so I'll ask you:

How do you know it's men? I mean how do you know it's not women? Is there some sort of verification system in place? Is there some sort of screening? Are there male only IP addresses?

How can you say unequivocally it's men that create this phenomenon? I guess the internet isn't very anonymous is it? I mean you can apparently tell sex simply by reading what someone types.

How does it work? Is it like hand writing analysis? Do men use capitals where women use lower case letter? Do they paragraph or phrase differently?

Just curious

 

[mediocrity511]

The "don't rape" thing actually has a history among feminists. It because nearly all anti-rape campaigns focus on making potential victims modify their behaviour and thus imply partially blaming the women who have been raped if they were out after dark or wore a short skirt or have a few drinks. Whereas the most effective way of reducing rapes would be to get rapists to stop raping women. I don't see why it's offensive, we have plenty of adverts telling us "don't drink and drive", "don't commit benefit fraud" ,and various other criminal acts, why does it only become unpalatable when used in regards to rape?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The article provided useful information to rapists on how to fool women into thinking that they are not rapists.

Not that they need any - the vast majority of rapists obviously don't behave in the ways the women in the article described or they would not have been so successful.

 

[Dipayan]

The word 'rape' seems to be extremely polarizing. Just the existence of that word in the article seems to have blinded a lot of people to the fact that it is badly thought out and poorly written.

Like UncaYimmy, 3BodyProblem and SatanicSheep, I too understand where the authoress is coming from, but the execution is definitely poor.

 

[Uncayimmy]

... how else is this woman supposed to judge how any of these strangers she meets are likely to act in a sexual setting?

My inability (or hers) to answer that question doesn't mean that what she's suggesting is a valid technique. It also presumes that there is a way to tell. Do you have any evidence for markers that indicate the likelihood of a man being a rapist? If so, please present them.

Most men don't go from stranger to intimate partner without some sort of interaction in-between. I find the notion that a man willing to interrupt a woman "otherwise occupied" having a higher rapist potential to be absurd, but I'm willing to hear evidence to the contrary.

Since by far the riskiest group for a woman is the intimate partner group, presumably the markers are difficult to identify or they are simply being ignored. Remember, about 20% of adult rapes were committed by spouses.

Part of the issue in my opinion revolves around what types of events we think of when we think of rape. In the NVAWS data we see that the majority of rapes do not involve a threat of harm, perceived threat of harm or actual physical harm beyond the act itself. A small minority involve weapons and/or serious physical harm (more than bruises, welts, etc). What the study did not tell us is the association between threats and actual violence and the relationship of the perpetrator. It seems reasonable to assume that the stranger rapes would be the most likely candidates since it seems a woman is less likely to be in an intimate situation with a stranger that then gets "out of hand" for lack of a better term. Likewise, it seems that an intimate partner is less likely to use a weapon for sex. I have no data to back this up.

The vast majority of intimate partner rapes occur during the relationship. We don't know at what point (first sexual encounter, 10th, 100th) it happens or even if there's a pattern. We do know that a significant number are by spouses, so presumably there's an existing comfort level with the person.

Rape is obviously a continuum. It goes from violent attacks by strangers to some undefined point involving intimate partners where no physical violence or threat of physical violence is involved. It would seem to me that the different situations would require different methods of risk assessment and techniques for avoidance.

At the violent stranger end of the continuum the NVAWS doesn't provide any real data for how those events go down. Obviously some will involve break-ins. Some will involve abductions, and those can range from being grabbed without ever seeing the person first to the Ted Bundy style where a polite, clean-cut gentleman approaches an obviously unoccupied woman. From what I've read those men tend to be serial offenders.

At the other end of the spectrum we have spouse rapes that don't involve violence or threats of violence, and some of the rapes reported to NVAWS were considered a "minor incident, not a crime." What does that tell us? Obviously the man has made it past many levels of screening. What we don't know is much about how these situations go down. Is every man a potential rapist in the bedroom? It's possible. Perhaps there's something about the relationship and/or the situation itself that leads up to that one event.

I don't think this theory is unsound. We recognize that otherwise non-violent people can sometimes snap under pressure or because of a combination of circumstances. The majority of the rapes involve drugs and/or alcohol on the part of the man, and I'm pretty sure physical violence is similar. This doesn't justify it, and I'm making no attempt to do so. What I'm pointing out is the difficulty in identifying those people in advance because they are all around us. They could be us.

Of course, there are countless other situations along the continuum. There are people who put on a good show for a while before revealing their nastier side. Some start with small episodes of relatively minor violence, which I believe the evidence shows is a good indicator of future major violence.

Truth is, I don't know what reliable indicators there are. I can speculate in a more sound way than this woman. For example, for some people the elements of control in a sexual encounter are more prominent. Some men like being physically aggressive and some women enjoy it (same with roles reversed). Some don't. I would say that those couples who are into that are more likely to have an event that gets out of hand. This is not excusing the man or blaming the woman. It's about risk assessment.

As I pointed out earlier, most of the rapes involve drugs/alcohol on the part of the perpetrator. It's well known that alcohol impairs judgment. The study Hans referenced indicated that the vast majority of college men admitting to rape described situations involving an intoxicated women and presumably at least some were intoxicated as well. Studies have also shown that when a man is aroused, he will make different judgments about what's appropriate. Men evaluating date rape stories while aroused are more likely to view certain conduct as acceptable compared to men who are not aroused.

Putting it altogether when it comes to rapes in the intimate partner category, I would offer that those men who enjoy the physical control are more likely exert physical control in a sexual encounter than those who don't. If the couple in the past has engaged in physically aggressive behavior in the bedroom, the more likely it is that at least an attempt will be made again. The more they've done it, the more likely the element will be seen again. I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, physically aggressive sexual behavior itself is a continuum. Decorum prevents me from getting into details, but magazines like Cosmo discuss things like this as perfectly normal. There's nothing wrong with that so long as both parties are into it, and once again, this is about risk assessment, not blame.

Assuming these elements are present at some level, it's not unreasonable to consider them going to another level. That's not to say they cannot be introduced out of the blue - it's just risk assessment. If the man is intoxicated, he's less likely to make sound judgments. If he's aroused already, he's even less likely to recognize what's acceptable. Add in stressors like money, job, and relationships, he's more likely to be violent as well.

It would seem to me, then, that the evaluation of one's intimate partner is an ongoing process. I would think that each sexual encounter with him is an indicator of what may happen in a future sexual encounter, no matter what he says or does outside of the bedroom (remember the study about men evaluating date rape stories).

And while a woman may "trust" her man not to step over the line, I'm going to say that in any given sexual situation, if the man enjoys physical control, is intoxicated, has demonstrated in the past a lack of sound judgment while aroused, and is currently stressed out, the risk of rape is much higher than with a guy who is none of those things.

Again, none of what I describe is blaming the woman or excusing the man. You asked about risk assessment, and I am giving my theory and supporting it with evidence. And since the a woman is many times more at risk with the 25 men she dates than the thousands of strangers and acquaintances she meets, this type of risk assessment provides the most protection.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Because you can put "Schrodinger" in front of anything and you can call people whatever you want. "I don't know but I think it's possible you're a...." I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying I'm going to treat you like one.

Jesus Haploid Christ, repeating the same strawman again won't magically make it true, you know? She's not saying she'll treat you like a rapist, she's saying she won't date you if you give the wrong signals.

Funny, I was just thinking a rapist on the internet would try to drill home the point he wasn't a rapist. Only a predator would feel the need to claim he wasn't a predator. The fact that you do is very telling.

Says the guy who's been arguing she shouldn't even call a rapist or rapist but something as vague and undefined as "jerk", or that if she even takes the precautions that actually work she's some kind of irrational fear monger, or trying to substitute lifetime for anual prevalence numbers because they're (obviously) smaller, etc. What would your argument above make _you_?

Actually, you may even have a point there. Let's see:

- you accused people of lying, yet it's you who repeatedly make up lies about the article, even if it's pointed out that the article doesn't say that

- you accuse people of not understanding maths, yet you repeatedly flunk a 4'th grade level arithmetic problem. And it's already generous to rate it even 4'th grade.

- you accuse people of being illogical, yet you don't even seem to comprehend how one can't simultaneously believe "1/6 of X are Y" and "1/60 of X are Y", much less one needing the other.

Seems like projecting lots to me. So

- now you accuse someone of being a rapist who tries to sound like nobody should fear him, when you're the one who's been arguing all along that one shouldn't even think of rape or rapists, but call it something as vague as "jerk."

Are you trying to tell us something? I mean, it's not even my argument that that would make one a probable rapist, you just made the argument yourself above in the quoted part.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The "don't rape" thing actually has a history among feminists. It because nearly all anti-rape campaigns focus on making potential victims modify their behaviour and thus imply partially blaming the women who have been raped if they were out after dark or wore a short skirt or have a few drinks. Whereas the most effective way of reducing rapes would be to get rapists to stop raping women. I don't see why it's offensive, we have plenty of adverts telling us "don't drink and drive", "don't commit benefit fraud" ,and various other criminal acts, why does it only become unpalatable when used in regards to rape?

Giving advice for reducing risk is not blaming the victim, and people would do well to reinforce that notion at every turn. We give all sorts of advice to people about how to reduce their chances of being victims of crime. Entire industries are built around it (alarms for example). Travel guides give all sorts of advice on how to avoid crime in areas people visit. This woman's article is implicit advice to woman on how to avoid being raped (stay away from stinky strangers with objectionable tattoos). Why does it only became "blaming the victim" when it comes to rape? Why wasn't this woman accused of blaming the victim?

The reason I find it unpalatable to be told, "Don't rape" is the very strong implication that I'm in need of being told not to do something because I am considering it. Lots of people consider walking down dark alleys, carrying their valuables in a visible and easily accessible manner, or getting a screaming deal on bodywork from somebody who shows up at the door. These things happen all the time, so it's not unreasonable to remind them of the risk. And, of course, they are not doing anything "wrong" by considering these things.

Most men don't consider rape. If we assume that every rape is committed by a unique individual, then that 1 in 6 number means that 1 man in 6 may do it just once in his entire life, so it's not like it's even a remotely common event for that 1 in 6.

Beyond that, what good does it do? Do you think those serial rapists and men who feel entitled to woman's body or figure "she wants it" are going to listen? I don't. They probably laugh. Meanwhile, many kind and gentle men are put off by the admonition. Minor girls are raped more than adult women. How would you feel about somebody saying to your father, "Don't diddle your daughter" or something equally repulsive?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Jesus Haploid Christ, repeating the same strawman again won't magically make it true, you know? She's not saying she'll treat you like a rapist, she's saying she won't date you if you give the wrong signals.

<snip>

And obviously most of the men who are rapists (i.e. those who are not jumping out of bushes) are *not* giving these signals, or they wouldn't have had the opportunity to rape. I.e. the signals are useless for detecting rapists from non-rapists, and merely represent the author's and other women's irrational biases and paranoia.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My inability (or hers) to answer that question doesn't mean that what she's suggesting is a valid technique. It also presumes that there is a way to tell. Do you have any evidence for markers that indicate the likelihood of a man being a rapist? If so, please present them.

I would say that you can judge a person's personality by their behaviour all right. To quote Dave Barry, "A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person". Someone who is overriding a stranger's choices on the bus, it's actually a very good indication that it's the kind of person who'd keep overriding her choices. And rape is a kind of overriding the partner's choice.

It's not only logically sound, but basically you could even apply Bayes' Theorem to it if you were actually calculating probabilities. Watch:

A = "a guy is a rapist"
B = "a guy overrides the woman's personal choices"

P(A) = is the probability of a guy being a rapist in the general population, i.e., that 1 / 60 in her estimation, but actually higher in actual studies

P(B) is the percentage of guys in the total population who override a woman's personal choices. Obviously this is less than 1

P(B|A), i.e., the conditional probability of B given A is 1, since you can't possibly be a rapist without overriding a partner's personal choice at least once. You know, the choice to not have sex at that time.

And Bayes' Theorem says:

P(A|B) = P(A) x P(B|A) / P(B)

Given that P(B|A) is 1 and P(B) is less than 1, this means that P(A|B) > P(A).

In plain English: "The probability of a guy you observed overriding a woman's choices to be a rapist, is greater than the probability of being a rapist in the total population."

So, yes, her risk estimation is not only it's logically sound, it's provably _mathematically_ sound.

I'll skip the rest of your considerations as, basically, I feel no need to debate vague personal suppositions about something mathematically proven.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And obviously most of the men who are rapists (i.e. those who are not jumping out of bushes) are *not* giving these signals, or they wouldn't have had the opportunity to rape. I.e. the signals are useless for detecting rapists from non-rapists, and merely represent the author's and other women's irrational biases and paranoia.

That's a (probably unintentional, as is almost always the case) Nirvana Fallacy. Just because something doesn't catch _all_ cases, doesn't make it useless. Trivial example: cops occasionally get shot even while having guns and wearing kevlar vests, but nobody would say they're useless, or that the SWAT should stop using guns and bulletproof vests.

As shown in my previous message, it's mathematically provable that her rules for estimating who's a higher risk and who isn't are mathematically sound. Obviously you'll never know exactly who is and who isn't, because we both know that probabilities outside 1 and 0 never give you certainty. But for minimizing your risks by avoiding the higher probability cases, it is as mathematically sound as it gets.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I would say that you can judge a person's personality by their behaviour all right. To quote Dave Barry, "A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person". Someone who is overriding a stranger's choices on the bus, it's actually a very good indication that it's the kind of person who'd keep overriding her choices. And rape is a kind of overriding the partner's choice.

It's not only logically sound, but basically you could even apply Bayes' Theorem to it if you were actually calculating probabilities. Watch:

A = "a guy is a rapist"
B = "a guy overrides the woman's personal choices"

P(A) = is the probability of a guy being a rapist in the general population, i.e., that 1 / 60 in her estimation, but actually higher in actual studies

P(B) is the percentage of guys in the total population who override a woman's personal choices. Obviously this is less than 1
P(B|A), i.e., the probability of B given A is 1, since you can't possibly be a rapist without overriding a partner's personal choice at least once. You know, the choice to not have sex at that time.

And Bayes' Theorem says:

P(A|B) = P(A) x P(B|A) / P(B)

Given that P(B|A) is 1 and P(B) is less than 1, this means that P(A|B) > P(A).

In plain English: "The probability of a guy you observed overriding a woman's choices to be a rapist, is greater than the probability of being a rapist in the total population."

So, yes, her risk estimation is not only it's logically sound, it's provably _mathematically_ sound.

I'll skip the rest of your considerations as, basically, I feel no need to debate vague personal suppositions about something mathematically proven.

The highlighted part is questionable. Have you never overrided a woman's personal choice? I would speculate that every human has at some point overrided another human's personal choice. If so, then P(B) = 1 and you're mathematical proof collapses.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, if that's too debatably worded for your taste, let's try, B = "trying to make a woman do something against her will, when it's a personal choice for herself, about herself, and which generally she has every right to take, and you have no authority to override."

I doubt that you could make every guy ever fit _that_ bill. Heck, if nothing else, some are naturally submissive or meek.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well, if that's too debatably worded for your taste, let's try, B = "trying to make a woman do something against her will, when it's a personal choice for herself, about herself, and which generally she has every right to take, and you have no authority to override."

I doubt that you could make every guy ever fit _that_ bill. Heck, if nothing else, some are naturally submissive or meek.

How does talking to a person when he or she may not want to talk to you fit that description?

Are the people on the forum who respond to the posts of those who are ignoring them more likely to be rapists?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I would say that you can judge a person's personality by their behaviour all right. To quote Dave Barry, "A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person". Someone who is overriding a stranger's choices on the bus, it's actually a very good indication that it's the kind of person who'd keep overriding her choices. And rape is a kind of overriding the partner's choice.

You merely repeated her assertion and are presenting some mathematics that one could use if it were true. But this presumes the statement to be true. It does not prove it to be true.

Essentially you are arguing that the presence of one event at one end of a continuum of events indicates a probability at the other end of the continuum. One way this fails Ivor has already pointed out - we all act in ways contrary to the wishes of others, therefore every person is on the continuum. The other way it fails is that you have not demonstrated any connection between the two events beyond some overly simplistic way of wording the continuum. Bayes depends on conditional probability.

You and she need to establish a connection between behavior on a bus and behavior in the bedroom. I can relate my own personal experiences to demonstrate how this connection is by no means automatic.

As Bookitty so kindly pointed out, I am an "aggressive" person. I prefer to describe myself as someone will not shy away from a confrontation and will intervene in confrontations if I believe one party is at a significant disadvantage and is being treated unfairly or is in danger. I am not afraid of being hit nor am I afraid of hitting someone else, but I do my best to avoid both. It has been many years since either.

That said, here are a couple of stories. I pick up my son from preschool on a street that has a school bus lane and the signs in the street telling people to slow down to 15mph. I pick him up with my car. There have been times where cars didn't slow down even though the children and buses were there, and I was strapping my son into his car seat. Several times I have literally stepped out into the street, stood my ground, and made a speeding car stop. I didn't care if the driver was male or female. By your logic and that of the woman, this makes me much more likely to be a rapist because I exerted physical control (one could argue physical threat based on my actions) to alter the behavior of another person, and that person may have just not been paying attention and was innocently following the normal speed limit of 35mph.

My second story I have shared before. My ex and I rarely argued strongly, but on several occasions where we did, I walked away, sometimes even leaving the house. This pissed her off and upset her greatly. We finally discussed why it made her so upset.

Turns out that her father would ignore her as punishment when she was a child, sometimes not talking to her for days. My actions brought up feelings of being punished. She asked me why I walked away. I explained that I was mad and didn't want to say something mean to her. "Like what?" she asked. "Like calling you a selfish bitch. That's just not something I want to say to my wife, so rather than let my anger get the best of me, I'd rather just cool off so we can talk calmly." She told me she'd rather I call her a selfish bitch than walk away.

Based on the second event, it would seem logical that I am much less likely to be a rapist because I demonstrated control of my emotions and showed respect for her that many men in similar situations would not. In fact, she would sometimes call me names in anger, and my worst response was to walk away.

The first event, based on your logic, would not predict the second event. Both events seem to predict entirely different risks of me being a rapist.

What you and the author have done is taken the incredibly complex nature of human beings and human interaction, both of which are affected by genetics, culture, and the dynamics of the individual situation, and made incredibly simplistic evaluations that produce nothing of any value.

So, yes, her risk estimation is not only it's logically sound, it's provably _mathematically_ sound.

I'll skip the rest of your considerations as, basically, I feel no need to debate vague personal suppositions about something mathematically proven.

Bayes is rolling over in his grave, and all the Ted Bundy wannabes appreciate just how much easier you have made it for them to rape women.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

She's talking about risk assessment, which is probabilities not certainties. So the objection that it's somehow valid because you can't predict with certainty is basically invalid.

And yes, actually bayesian heuristics are exactly about predicting the probability of an event, if you know a different event. That's why there's an event A and an event B in there in the first place. That's the whole idea. That if you have very different events or properties and a conditional probability link from B to A, _you_ can estimate probabilities from A to B too.

The argument that you can't is basically claiming that Bayes' Theorem is false. And I guess you have a mathematical proof for that? I still only see vague personal suppositions boiling down to an implied Nirvana Fallacy: because you can't achieve 100% accuracy, then it's ok to pretend that it's a pure mystery.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

How does talking to a person when he or she may not want to talk to you fit that description?

Are the people on the forum who respond to the posts of those who are ignoring them more likely to be rapists?

You're trying to make her take part in a conversation, after she indicated that she's not interested. Note that she's not even talking about starting a conversation with someone with headphones on and reading a book, but about trying to continue it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You're trying to make her take part in a conversation, after she indicated that she's not interested. Note that she's not even talking about starting a conversation with someone with headphones on and reading a book, but about trying to continue it.

Now all you have to do is link that behaviour with physically forcing a woman to have sex. Any evidence to suggest there is a correlation between the two, or is it so obvious no evidence is required?

 

[Uncayimmy]

She's talking about risk assessment, which is probabilities not certainties. So the objection that it's somehow valid because you can't predict with certainty is basically invalid.

And yes, actually bayesian heuristics are exactly about predicting the probability of an event, if you know a different event. That's why there's an event A and an event B in there in the first place. That's the whole idea. That if you have very different events or properties and a conditional probability link from B to A, _you_ can estimate probabilities from A to B too.

The argument that you can't is basically claiming that Bayes' Theorem is false. And I guess you have a mathematical proof for that? I still only see vague personal suppositions boiling down to an implied Nirvana Fallacy: because you can't achieve 100% accuracy, then it's ok to pretend that it's a pure mystery.

I never said anything about not being able to reach 100% accuracy. That's your straw man. I am saying that you and she have not provided any evidence that rape and something like interrupting a woman on a bus are somehow related and therefore worthy of consideration.

Now, if you want to play your little game with Bayes, go right ahead. By your logic you can use Bayes to "prove" that it's "logical" to consider the risk of men wearing long sleeved red shirts on the third date raping women because not every man wears a long sleeved red shirt on the third date, and thus the probability is less than 1. As a practical matter such a correlation is completely worthless, and applicability of Bayes mathematics doesn't prove that there's any value to a woman breaking off the date and never seeing the guy again because he wore a long sleeved red shirt.

I don't know where you're trying to go with this, but it's silly on its face.

ETA: If we take the author's commentary about whom she dates and doesn't date based on things like interrupting conversations on a bus and assume that a significant portion of women in the USA use the same techniques, we actually have no idea if that works or not. The reality is that the majority of rapes are by intimate partners. If her technique is valid, then the only way to prove it is to look at women who do and women who don't follow her technique and compare their rates of being raped by intimate partners. If the vast majority of women already follow this technique, then presumably the rate of rapes would be higher than they are already. If they don't, then getting women to adopt those techniques should result in a lowering of the incidence of intimate partner rape over time.

However, by telling all men what the warning signals are, she is advising rapists how to increase their chances of becoming an intimate partner and committing a rape.

 

[mediocrity511]

Giving advice for reducing risk is not blaming the victim, and people would do well to reinforce that notion at every turn. We give all sorts of advice to people about how to reduce their chances of being victims of crime. Entire industries are built around it (alarms for example). Travel guides give all sorts of advice on how to avoid crime in areas people visit. This woman's article is implicit advice to woman on how to avoid being raped (stay away from stinky strangers with objectionable tattoos). Why does it only became "blaming the victim" when it comes to rape? Why wasn't this woman accused of blaming the victim?

The reason I find it unpalatable to be told, "Don't rape" is the very strong implication that I'm in need of being told not to do something because I am considering it. Lots of people consider walking down dark alleys, carrying their valuables in a visible and easily accessible manner, or getting a screaming deal on bodywork from somebody who shows up at the door. These things happen all the time, so it's not unreasonable to remind them of the risk. And, of course, they are not doing anything "wrong" by considering these things.

Most men don't consider rape. If we assume that every rape is committed by a unique individual, then that 1 in 6 number means that 1 man in 6 may do it just once in his entire life, so it's not like it's even a remotely common event for that 1 in 6.

Beyond that, what good does it do? Do you think those serial rapists and men who feel entitled to woman's body or figure "she wants it" are going to listen? I don't. They probably laugh. Meanwhile, many kind and gentle men are put off by the admonition. Minor girls are raped more than adult women. How would you feel about somebody saying to your father, "Don't diddle your daughter" or something equally repulsive?

74,000 people were caught drinking driving in the UK in 2006
In 2006 85,000 women were raped in the UK.
So clearly the amount of people who rape someone and those who drink and drive are roughly of the same order of magnitude. We have so many adverts telling people not to drink and drive, we also have campaigns which inform people exactly what is drink and driving.

Oh and about asking me how I'd feel if someone told my Dad not to abuse me, you are again failing to understand just how common rape and sexual abuse is. 1% of people under 16 are sexually abused by their parent and carer. So you had roughly a 1 in 100 chance of asking someone who was abused wether they wish someone had asked their father to not do it.