"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[theprestige]

I've also noticed that the analogy of a guy waving around a wallet in a bad neighborhood comes up a lot. As if body and money were comparative values.

Body being incomparably more valuable than money, neglecting to safeguard it must be incomparably more foolish. Is that what you meant?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Body being incomparably more valuable than money, neglecting to safeguard it must be incomparably more foolish. Is that what you meant?

I agree, all women should wear armor made out of Godzilla scale whenever they move outside their home.

 

[bookitty]

I agree, all women should wear armor made out of Godzilla scale whenever they move outside their home.

Move outside their home!?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'd like to take this moment to say that I am still queer, and I had a serious comment to make before this went into Saudi Arabia territory. Now I really don't know what I was going to say.

 

[Furcifer]

You probably realize that my sarcasm was a strong indication of my opinion that you are overprotective and paranoid, and overall a pretty bad parent. But just in case you're oblivious, let me say it: you are overprotective and paranoid, and it's likely that your daughter will rebel against you, leading her to get into troublesome and riskier situations than she would have had had you let her breathe a bit more.

What because my daughter wouldn't be hanging around 19 year old boys alone until she's 18? I suppose you have to pick and chose your battles and this happens to be one of them. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, no need for sarcasm.

You're basically saying two things here: a) that it's near-impossible for an older guy to want to interact with a teenage girl in a non-sexual way; and b) that your teenage daughter should be watched at all times, just in case she might encounter a rapist.

a) pretty much, I'd say maybe 1 out of 10? I think it really depends on the girl. Assuming she attracts as much attention from male suitors as I did from female at that age, probably 1 in 50 maybe higher.
b)no, I'm saying I would identify high risk activities and protect her from them. I really don't see how you've missed 9 pages of this being repeated over, and over and over again

b) is paranoid misandry, and is counter-productive. Sure, it might prevent rape... it might also alienate your daughter to the point of causing her unhappiness. But that's okay, since the tiny risk of rape is now reduced to 0!

Actually no, you're wrong. I'm really shocked that a woman would say this. Perhaps you should read this thread : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184958 and get back to me.

High-risk activity... I'm so glad that I am not so bitter as to treat every older boy as a potential rapist.

See the above thread, There's another one that may interest you but the title eludes me right now. I strongly suggest you read that thread.

"Beat the odds"? When you say someone beat the odds, you're saying that it was more likely for them to fail than to succeed. So you're saying that it was MORE likely for me to be raped than NOT raped. Wow.

Math and statistics isn't your strong suit is it?

You're right. I am contributing to the endemic rapes that occur in society. How shall I ever sleep at night.

Hopefully not with some guy you've met a few times at the bar and decided to go hoe with drunk. But it's up to you now isn't it?

By the way, I actually find it somewhat insulting that you think I was being naive by trusting those guys. I mean, do you think that just because I was 15, I had no judgment whatsoever? My parents raised me right, and I definitely knew if someone was suspicious to hang out with or not.

You really just don't understand statistics do you?

I think you're sexist, but now I'm not sure if you're sexist against men ("most men are lecherous creeps and potential rapists, and no girl should ever be left alone with any of them"), or women ("girls are naive and must constantly be protected from their own stupidity").

Sexist against older men dating my younger daughter from the age of 16-20 something? Or fulfilling my duty as parent protecting my daughter the best way I see fit until she's 18 sexist? No just a guy who lived a lot of life from the age of about 14-22.

At what point do you realize that you're projecting? Just curious.

At what point do you realize you're own experience from the age of 15-22 probably wasn't anything like mine, or the girls I "hung out with" or anything like what I would anticipate for my own daughter? It's pretty clear from how you've described things it wasn't the same? Think about that

 

[Furcifer]

What specifically is this perimeter. Within your posts, the age has ranged from 19 - 75.

What does it matter? Apparently I was wrong:

But that's okay, since the tiny risk of rape is now reduced to 0!

You obviously agree that the risk of rape is tiny or you would have said something, so I must have been mistaken. Here I was thinking the risk of rape was fairly serious for a girl of this age. Who knew, and it would be misanthropic of me to correct woman on what's what about rape.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And we're all the way back to rapists in the bushes. Which, statistically, they aren't. Even if they were, simply being female is not the same thing as waving around a wallet.

I'm trying to meet you halfway here Bookitty.

What analogy would you prefer us to use for actions which, from an evidence-based perspective, do as a matter of fact place you at higher risk of rape?

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not discussing actions which are held by social myths to be risky but are in fact safe. I am asking you about actions which as a matter of fact in the real world do increase your risk of being raped.

Just tell us and I'll be happy to use that analogy instead of the fat-wallet-in-a-bad-neigbourhood analogy. Unless, as I speculated earlier, this is just an instance of special pleading where the underlying assertion is actually "You're just not allowed to say that any action places you at higher risk of rape, regardless of the facts, because it's politically incorrect".

 

[bookitty]

What does it matter? Apparently I was wrong:



You obviously agree that the risk of rape is tiny or you would have said something, so I must have been mistaken. Here I was thinking the risk of rape was fairly serious for a girl of this age. Who knew, and it would be misanthropic of me to correct woman on what's what about rape.

Actually, we're talking about blame. Many people in this thread have said that some of the responsibility for being raped lies with the woman. Her actions put her in harm's way. Of course, they don't see this as blame necessarily, just putting some of the responsibility where it belongs. (Although, I must admit, that particular difference escapes me.)

So far, this burden of responsibility has been applied to the victim if they may have behaved "irresponsibly." Such behavior includes (but is not limited to) getting drunk, being around older men, going to hotel rooms with convicts, being alone with any man, being in a bad neighborhood, etc.

With the older man/younger victim scenario, it is the woman's fault for trusting him. Despite the fact that 99% of the time that trust is warranted.

We had one thread where the guys went ballistic because one writer said that all women must treat all men as potential rapists. Now that we've switched to the blame of rape, that idea is fine and dandy. If women don't treat all men as potential rapists, they are acting irresponsibly and should be prepared to shoulder some of the fault.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, we're talking about blame. Many people in this thread have said that some of the responsibility for being raped lies with the woman. Her actions put her in harm's way. Of course, they don't see this as blame necessarily, just putting some of the responsibility where it belongs. (Although, I must admit, that particular difference escapes me.)

So far, this burden of responsibility has been applied to the victim if they may have behaved "irresponsibly." Such behavior includes (but is not limited to) getting drunk, being around older men, going to hotel rooms with convicts, being alone with any man, being in a bad neighborhood, etc.

So is it true as a matter of fact or false as a matter of fact that such actions increase one's risk of being raped? If it's true, isn't it better to say so?

With the older man/younger victim scenario, it is the woman's fault for trusting him. Despite the fact that 99% of the time that trust is warranted.

I think a rationally risk-averse person would go well out of their way to avoid a 1% chance of being raped, maimed, killed, seriously injured or whatever.

If I had a 1% chance, or even an 0.1% chance of getting a broken leg in a car trip, damn right I'd take the train or walk instead.

We had one thread where the guys went ballistic because one writer said that all women must treat all men as potential rapists. Now that we've switched to the blame of rape, that idea is fine and dandy. If women don't treat all men as potential rapists, they are acting irresponsibly and should be prepared to shoulder some of the fault.

Men aren't a monolithic bloc such that the men in one thread owe it to you to be perfectly consistent with the men in another thread. That said, how I think about that rule is going to depend on how "treat all men as potential rapists" is going to work in practice.

I'm going to guess it means something other than the obvious literal meaning, or else you'd never let your boyfriend or husband into the room with you since a very significant number of rapes are committed by boyfriends and/or husbands of the victim.

If it just means not being alone and drunk with any man who you don't trust implicitly, say because they are already your partner and you are very sure they aren't in the least bit inclined to rape you, then I think some of the men here would agree with that principle.

 

[bookitty]

I think a rationally risk-averse person would go well out of their way to avoid a 1% chance of being raped, maimed, killed, seriously injured or whatever.

If I had a 1% chance, or even an 0.1% chance of getting a broken leg in a car trip, damn right I'd take the train or walk instead.

Yes, except that so much advice for women includes limiting their actions to a degree that no man would stand for. For example, I prefer to travel alone. I take necessary precautions but I do stay at hostels, walk into potentially bad neighborhoods, and do a lot of things that, based on this thread, would make me responsible for getting raped if it were to happen.

I also take the subway at night, alone. I have male friends with whom I've enjoyed some wine, alone. On and on.

In order to make myself free of potential blame for being raped, I would need to give up all of those things. I won't. Neither will I let down my guard.

But, if the worst should happen, it is not my actions that led to rape. It is the actions of the rapist. He will have made a decision.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, except that so much advice for women includes limiting their actions to a degree that no man would stand for. For example, I prefer to travel alone. I take necessary precautions but I do stay at hostels, walk into potentially bad neighborhoods, and do a lot of things that, based on this thread, would make me responsible for getting raped if it were to happen.

I also take the subway at night, alone. I have male friends with whom I've enjoyed some wine, alone. On and on.

In order to make myself free of potential blame for being raped, I would need to give up all of those things. I won't. Neither will I let down my guard.

But, if the worst should happen, it is not my actions that led to rape. It is the actions of the rapist. He will have made a decision.

Really, the italic part? Just no.

"This is something that may increase your chances of getting raped, therefore it is inadvisable" =/= "It's your fault you got raped, you did X."

 

[Meed]

One interesting statistic was that women who were raped as minors were twice as likely to be raped again as adults, which suggests there is something that these women are doing or not doing that affects being chosen as a target.

Either that or women willing to report being raped as minors are more likely to be willing to report being raped as adults. Or they have a broader understanding of what constitutes rape.

 

[Morrigan]

So far, this burden of responsibility has been applied to the victim if they may have behaved "irresponsibly." Such behavior includes (but is not limited to) getting drunk, being around older men, going to hotel rooms with convicts, being alone with any man, being in a bad neighborhood, etc.

With the older man/younger victim scenario, it is the woman's fault for trusting him. Despite the fact that 99% of the time that trust is warranted.

We had one thread where the guys went ballistic because one writer said that all women must treat all men as potential rapists. Now that we've switched to the blame of rape, that idea is fine and dandy. If women don't treat all men as potential rapists, they are acting irresponsibly and should be prepared to shoulder some of the fault.

That's also what I've gleaned from this thread.

Honestly, it sounds like a huge bunch of fear-mongering to me. And since most rapes are committed by someone known, often close, to the victim, it appears to me that those same rapes could not have so easily been avoided by the woman altering her behaviour.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, except that so much advice for women includes limiting their actions to a degree that no man would stand for. For example, I prefer to travel alone. I take necessary precautions but I do stay at hostels, walk into potentially bad neighborhoods, and do a lot of things that, based on this thread, would make me responsible for getting raped if it were to happen.

I also take the subway at night, alone. I have male friends with whom I've enjoyed some wine, alone. On and on.

In order to make myself free of potential blame for being raped, I would need to give up all of those things. I won't. Neither will I let down my guard.

But, if the worst should happen, it is not my actions that led to rape. It is the actions of the rapist. He will have made a decision.

Now assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed all activities that put you at higher risk of rape - let's make it for the sake of argument a 1% risk of rape which otherwise would not exist - is it not the case that more women will be raped women if all behave as you do? Is that really a good outcome?

As I said earlier and repeatedly (although possibly not repeatedly enough if it has been forgotten) it shouldn't be the case that women are at risk of being raped, but it is. There are men out there who will rape in certain situations. If we can do things to make it so that they won't rape women that would be fantastic. Wonderful. All right-thinking people would party in the streets to celebrate a world without rape. However until that happy day comes what should be is not what is.

If you were to say "I think it's unacceptable that a woman should be at a 1% risk of rape (or whatever) if they do these things, we should make it a high social priority to fix this in any way possible" I think we'd all agree.

However just because there's a sense in which you have a right to be able to do these things in safety doesn't mean that you actually can do these things in safety in the imperfect world we live in, and pretending that we live in a more perfect world rather than behaving in a rationally risk-averse manner consistent with safety in the world we actually live in does not seem to me like a plan that is going to lead to good outcomes.

Lastly if you want to go back and answer the whole of my post rather than picking one point and replying only to that one I would appreciate the effort. I still would like to know what analogy you would prefer us to use for behaviour which is known to increase your risk of being victimised if you don't like the wallet-in-a-bad-neighbourhood analogy for some reason other than special pleading.

 

[Morrigan]

b)no, I'm saying I would identify high risk activities and protect her from them. I really don't see how you've missed 9 pages of this being repeated over, and over and over again

What makes you think I "missed" it? Because I disagree that it's such a huge risk? I guess it's easier for you to assume that I somehow missed your profound insight, rather than I would dare disagree with it.

Actually no, you're wrong.

Do you have evidence that most girls who happen to ever be alone with an older guy, end up getting raped? If not, then you can't say "you're wrong".

Math and statistics isn't your strong suit is it?

Excuse me? It's not about math, it's about English idioms. I've always understood the expression "beating the odds" as meaning, "winning despite the odds being against you". Like, say, if I have 1% chance of winning, and I win, I beat the odds (so I'm exceptionally lucky or skilled, depending on context). If I have 99% chance of winning, and I win, no one would say "she totally beat the odds".

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. English isn't my first language.

Hopefully not with some guy you've met a few times at the bar and decided to go hoe with drunk. But it's up to you now isn't it?

Cute. Real cute. FYI, I've been with the same partner for 10 years. He's one year older than me. And I've never been drunk in my entire life. So this snide remark is just terribly amusing, I must say.

You really just don't understand statistics do you?

What statistics would those be? If only you'd elaborate with actual content, instead of making lame snipes.

At what point do you realize you're

Your. Sheesh, your English sucks worse than mine.

 

[bookitty]

Now assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed all activities that put you at higher risk of rape - let's make it for the sake of argument a 1% risk of rape which otherwise would not exist - is it not the case that more women will be raped women if all behave as you do? Is that really a good outcome?

As I said earlier and repeatedly (although possibly not repeatedly enough if it has been forgotten) it shouldn't be the case that women are at risk of being raped, but it is. There are men out there who will rape in certain situations. If we can do things to make it so that they won't rape women that would be fantastic. Wonderful. All right-thinking people would party in the streets to celebrate a world without rape. However until that happy day comes what should be is not what is.

If you were to say "I think it's unacceptable that a woman should be at a 1% risk of rape (or whatever) if they do these things, we should make it a high social priority to fix this in any way possible" I think we'd all agree.

However just because there's a sense in which you have a right to be able to do these things in safety doesn't mean that you actually can do these things in safety in the imperfect world we live in, and pretending that we live in a more perfect world rather than behaving in a rationally risk-averse manner consistent with safety in the world we actually live in does not seem to me like a plan that is going to lead to good outcomes.

Lastly if you want to go back and answer the whole of my post rather than picking one point and replying only to that one I would appreciate the effort. I still would like to know what analogy you would prefer us to use for behaviour which is known to increase your risk of being victimised if you don't like the wallet-in-a-bad-neighbourhood analogy for some reason other than special pleading.

And I'm out.

It's just too freaking depressing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's also what I've gleaned from this thread.

Honestly, it sounds like a huge bunch of fear-mongering to me. And since most rapes are committed by someone known, often close, to the victim, it appears to me that those same rapes could not have so easily been avoided by the woman altering her behaviour.

Wasn't the whole point of the "never be alone with a man" subtopic about means to avoid rapes by men known to you (other than current sexual partners)?

I agree that there's not much you can do about potential rape by your current sexual partner except to pick partners who aren't rapey, which is an uncertain proposition and not necessarily an easy task if you live in a community with widespread belief in the myths that purport to justify rape.

 

[Meed]

Now assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed all activities that put you at higher risk of rape - let's make it for the sake of argument a 1% risk of rape which otherwise would not exist - is it not the case that more women will be raped women if all behave as you do? Is that really a good outcome?

Obviously not in isolation. But you have to weigh that with the sacrifices. It's a freedom vs security issue. I drive on the highway, because it's a convenient way to travel and I enjoy it. I know it puts me at risk. And don't get me wrong, it's good that I have that knowledge. But saying people driving more will result in more deaths does not mean people shouldn't drive. That's a subjective decision.

If you were to say "I think it's unacceptable that a woman should be at a 1% risk of rape (or whatever) if they do these things, we should make it a high social priority to fix this in any way possible" I think we'd all agree.

No, we would not all agree with "in any way possible".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And I'm out.

It's just too freaking depressing.

Is it really that hard to admit that it might be a good idea to simultaneously try to reduce the number of men who will rape women, and try to reduce the opportunities that the rapists get to rape women? Doesn't that at least have the potential to bring about a better outcome than just trying to reduce the number of men who will rape women and then acting in such a way as to give the rapists who are not converted more opportunities to prey on women?

Shouldn't skeptical feminists be advocating for policies that will yield better outcomes for women, based on the available facts about the world as it actually is?

Yes, it sucks that women can't safely do all of the things men can safely do in the world as it currently exists. We all wish it was different and we'd all like to make it different. However until it is different do you want women to act in a rationally risk-averse manner or an irrational, politically-driven manner than puts them at risk of rape?

 

[bookitty]

Wasn't the whole point of the "never be alone with a man" subtopic about means to avoid rapes by men known to you (other than current sexual partners)?

I agree that there's not much you can do about potential rape by your current sexual partner except to pick partners who aren't rapey, which is an uncertain proposition and not necessarily an easy task if you live in a community with widespread belief in the myths that purport to justify rape.

W.
T.
F.

Lastly if you want to go back and answer the whole of my post rather than picking one point and replying only to that one I would appreciate the effort. I still would like to know what analogy you would prefer us to use for behaviour which is known to increase your risk of being victimised if you don't like the wallet-in-a-bad-neighbourhood analogy for some reason other than special pleading.

Ok, fine. How about something that addresses the most common reality, not the common myths of rape:

You're at home watching TV, your brother's friend drops by, beats you up and steals your wallet.

Or how about - Your boss asks you to work late. Once everyone else is gone, he beats you up and steals your wallet.

Or - You're having some drinks with friends at your house. The last guy to leave beats you up and steals your wallet.

Or maybe - A friend of a friend offers to drive you home. Once there, he invites himself in, beats you up and steals your wallet.

Or perhaps - Your ex-wife has anger issues. She waits for you to come home, beats you up and steals your wallet.

You could consider - You're spending the night at a friend's house - his older brother sneaks into the room, beats you up and steals your wallet.