"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Furcifer]

If women don't treat all men as potential rapists, they are acting irresponsibly and should be prepared to shoulder some of the fault.

Funny how that works out. Of course I believe in that thread the chance of a young woman being sexually assaulted wasn't "tiny".

Anyhow you're being intellectually dishonest. First; you're supporting the notion that the probability is "tiny", this isn't what you argued before. Just so you can say identifying the risk and doing something to prevent it is "paranoid". Now you're deliberately trying to equate high risk activity like being alone with an older man to talking to a stranger on the bus.

In that thread I think everyone agreed with the measures taken by the author to reduce the risk in situations like going out on a date with a guy alone. It was ignoring a guy with tattoos and treating him like a potential rapist that was objectionable.

It's inconsistent to the point of being irrational, and I just don't see where you are coming from. It's such a gigantic leap from avoiding high risk to "blame". Of course abandoning all logic in the process helps.

 

[OlegTheBatty]

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.

Absolutely.
You can't stop living your life because some people are predatory, and, even if a woman chooses to engage in risky behaviour, the responsibility for the rape is 100% on the guy who chooses to rape.
This isn't like hang-gliding, where the risk is inanimate. Rape is a person making a choice. The rapist's choice. Not their victim's choice.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

W.
T.
F.

Maybe you should read it again a few times and see if an intelligible meaning occurs to you.

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.

I think you just moved the goalposts, because what I was asking you was what metaphor you'd like us to use for behaviour which made it more likely you would be victimised. Not what metaphor you'd like us to use for cases where you could not do much about it, which seems like the case in most of these scenarios.

It looks like you are trying to insist that we ignore the percentage of rapes that could be prevented and insist we only talk about the percentage of rapes that could not be prevented, without presenting a rational justification of why we should do so. Assuming that both sets are non-zero, isn't it rational to pay at least some attention to preventing the preventable rapes? Wouldn't that be a good outcome if we could do so without advocating strategies that would unacceptably limit women's freedom to enjoy life?

 

[theprestige]

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

Now we're getting somewhere. Obviously there's not much I can do, practically, to avoid being ambushed by my ex-wife on my way home from the coffee shop.

Although, mind you, if I'm serious about avoiding violent confrontations with my ex-wife, I might very well change my route home, or even frequent a different coffee shop. For those of us who put a high value on avoiding violent confrontations, a different cup of coffee is a small price to pay. Those of us who put a low value on avoiding violent confrontations, on the other hand...

And let's not forget that bodyguards exist for a reason, and that people who find that the risk of ambush and violent confrontation in their lives is too high, go to great expense to have bodyguards in their company to mitigate these risks. Or, well, some of them do.

But I digress.

If I know my ex-wife has anger issues, and I put a high value on avoiding violent confrontation, and I especially put a high value on (ETA: avoiding) situations where my well-being might be seriously jeopardized, there are a few obvious things I can do: Not intentionally go anywhere alone with my ex-wife. Not intentionally meet in groups consisting only or largely of her friends (assuming her friends share her violent tendencies or otherwise enable them). Not intentionally become so intoxicated in her presence that I lose my inhibitions and risk saying or doing something to incite one of her well-known fits of rage.

Obviously if she beats me up, the responsibilty for beating me up is hers. But if I knowingly choose to take the risk of getting beat up, how can responsibility for choosing to take that risk be anybody's but my own?

If I do take the risk, and do get beat up, am I allowed to say to myself, "well that is one risk I'll never again choose to take"? Or is that too much like blaming the victim?

I mean, seriously? You give me a scenario in which I know my ex-wife is prone to violence, and somehow there's no way I could reasonably transform this knowledge into a reduced risk of getting beaten up by my ex-wife? There's no way I could reasonably be expected to turn this knowledge into reduced risk?

I'm beginning to wonder how, your world, reasonable risk reduction is ever accomplished at all. Maybe we shouldn't hold employers responsible (assuming "responsible" actually means something) for having a safe work environement. After all, what's the point of wearing a hard hat, when a piano could just randomly fall on your head at any moment?

But shame on me, suggesting people never leave their homes, for fear of falling pianos.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

If it was profound, yes. It's rather elementary though.

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".

I don't think you mean "most" but "more". If you mean most, obviously that's completely false.

No but we do have evidence of older men pressuring younger women into sex. Girls engaging in sexual activity have a higher probability of being raped. We also know they are more likely to consume alcohol, so it certainly has all the makings of a higher risk activity.

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.

My apologies, it's not that you don't understand. Just a little confused because of the way I worded it. if you engage in higher risk activity and nothing happens you certainly have beaten the odds. It's relative.

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.

Food for thought then.

Your. Sheesh, your English sucks worse than mine.

No just my proofreading. You try to post 15 posts in an hour with a Blackberry, it's tough.

 

[theprestige]

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

Hrm.

Maybe you're right. But then, if body isn't really all that much more valuable than money in a wallet, then rape probably isn't such a big deal after all, is it?

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think I've ever seen so many people fundamentally agreeing in such an adversarial way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

I don't think if you read the study and the questions asked that you would consider either position reasonable.

 

[Morrigan]

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 thought the point was that it was unreasonable to expect a woman to follow such rigid guidelines (I'm talking about "being alone with a man", not "following a ex-con acquaintance in a sleazy motel") to avoid that partial "responsibility" if she does get raped. It seems illogical to me that doing something so innocuous would somehow be considered such a blatantly, obviously risky activity. Maybe I just don't live around sexual predators, so I am not scared to be alone with men I know?

isn't it rational to pay at least some attention to preventing the preventable rapes? Wouldn't that be a good outcome if we could do so without advocating strategies that would unacceptably limit women's freedom to enjoy life?

Absolutely. So far, though, I think the biggest disagreement is over what is considered acceptable or not.

Maybe you're right. But then, if body isn't really all that much more valuable than money in a wallet, then rape probably isn't such a big deal after all, is it?

Wait. I have trouble parsing your sarcasm here, but are you suggesting that we -should- wear Godzilla armour at all times?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought the point was that it was unreasonable to expect a woman to follow such rigid guidelines (I'm talking about "being alone with a man", not "following a ex-con acquaintance in a sleazy motel") to avoid that partial "responsibility" if she does get raped. It seems illogical to me that doing something so innocuous would somehow be considered such a blatantly, obviously risky activity. Maybe I just don't live around sexual predators, so I am not scared to be alone with men I know?

This is why we have science, because individual experiences may not be representative of the community.

A parallel might be smoking. Lots of people smoke their whole lives and do not develop lung cancer or emphysema, but most of the people who do develop those problems will be smokers. Lots of people might spend time alone with male acquaintances their whole lives without being sexually assaulted, but maybe being alone with men accounts for a substantial portion of potentially preventable acquaintance-rapes (as opposed to stranger or sex-partner rapes).

If that's the case, rationally risk-averse women might want to avoid ever being alone with male acquaintances.

That said, I'm going to engage in some blatant armchair psychology and potential victim-blaming here for a second: I think a lot of women can tell with satisfactory accuracy whether a given man is a rape risk or not. I've got 99.9...9% certainty that all of my close male friends are 0% rape risks, and I think in fact most men are 0% rape risks. I suspect that the women at highest risk of being sexually assaulted by an acquaintance they are alone with are the ones whose radar for sexual predators isn't well-developed, and I've known one or two women like that, whose response to men I considered potentially dangerous was not in my view wise. The problem, as with a lot of similar issues, is that the people incompetent to make good judgments don't realise that they are incompetent.

(Needless to say I and like-minded friends kept a close eye on the suspect individuals while they were in our company and nobody got raped).

It should go without saying (but obviously doesn't) that some rapes just aren't preventable by reasonable precautions, and things like the "don't be alone with a man, ever" rule even if strictly followed would only reduce and not eliminate the risk of being raped, so many rape victims have done absolutely nothing foolish or risky.

Absolutely. So far, though, I think the biggest disagreement is over what is considered acceptable or not.

From an evidence-based perspective that's going to be a complicated matter to hash out which is going to require some fairly specific statistics about what situations lead to sexual assaults and how often.

From a political perspective, I think there's an idea doing the rounds that women have a right to do whatever they want without being told verifiable facts about the degree of risk entailed by their behaviour, because telling those verifiable facts to them constitutes oppression or blaming the victim.

As a feminist skeptic that's a profoundly alien position to me. I don't think you can have too much relevant and accurate information about the risks involved in the various activities open to us.

 

[chillzero]

Right, and how many are 19 again? And you're what? Well beyond the high risk age group we're talking about.

Thanks for the useless self aggrandizing, it didn't have anything to do with the topic. But I'm glad and relieved to know you have nice friends.

I'm speaking of people I've known a lot longer than just now. Even, when in my teens I had more male friends than female. But fair enough - ignore the point if you wish.
Morrigan is right, though, that you are not teaching your daughter anything that will protect her much in her coming years.

 

[myowninvention]

Look, if you guys want to seriously discuss things that women can be taught that will minimize their chances of being raped, the whole "risky behaviour" thing is just pointless. This is not something most women don't know. In all honesty, I don't know a single woman who considers, for example, getting drunk and going home with a stranger, to be a good, risk-free activity. I think this is why it feels like 'blaming the victem' when people harp on about these sort of behaviours as a way to prevent rape. Do any of you think that any woman who is raped as a result of risky behaviour on her part is not already feeling ashamed and guilty, in part because they know they weren't 100% absolutly perfectly careful? I guess all I'm saying here is that women are already being warned about the dangers of so called risky behaviour, most are warned from an early age, and insinuating that we can simply... tell them again, and thus reduce the number of rapes is kind of insulting.

That said, I think there are things more women need to learn that could help reduce instances of rape. These things include ways of recognizing a potentially abusive relationship, systems for how to get out of a situation that makes you uncomfortable. Teaching girls that it is ok to be assertive, and that feeling safe is much much more important then not being rude. These are things that therapists will teach someone after they have been raped as a form of empowerment that I think should be reinforced far more then they are, and I find far more useful then the **** 'be careful' mantra.

Let's be honest here... No matter how careful you are, you can still wind up in a situation that could end in rape. Statistics tell us it probably won't be some stranger on the street, but someone you know. It is so important to learn strategies that could get you out of that situation then to delude yourself into thinking you can just be that little bit more careful and nothing will ever happen. Teach women what to do if something does go wrong. That's rape prevention.

I guess this topic kind of hit a nerve.

 

[Morrigan]

Good post. I'd also say "welcome to the forums" but you've registered a while ago. Long-time lurker?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am so sorry that happened to your girlfriend. It's horrible. Too me, it's a bit heartbreaking to hear that she blames herself. If only she hadn't been alone with him. It's not her fault in any way, shape, or form. She trusted him, he raped her.

It was her brother's friend. There was nothing wrong with her trust. She didn't do anything stupid. She didn't do anything unusual. That "friend" of her brother's was just a criminal, a vicious beast.

On the other hand, it's great to hear that she has you as a boyfriend. Although her precautions wouldn't work for me, they work for her which is what's really important. It's given her a safe place to start new relationships. That's great.

I realize I'm dragging up a post from a few pages ago, and there's a reason for that.

You, Bookitty, are guilty of twisting my post to fit what you were looking for it to say. I never stated that my GF blamed(s) herself for what happened - you chose to interpret my post (and what happened to my GF) to fit your agenda. In response, this is all I have to say that won't get me dinged:

Tiramisu
Ingredients

7 yolks
1 cup sugar for yolks
3 cups or 1 (750-gram) container mascarpone
4 1/2 tablespoons water
1 1/2 tablespoons powdered gelatin
3 egg whites
1/4 cup sugar for whites
1 cup heavy cream, whipped
2 1/2 cups cooled espresso
1/2 cup kalhua
20 to 24 ladyfingers
1 cup chocolate shavings

Directions

In a mixer with the whip attachment, whip yolks and sugar until thick and pale in color (ribbon stage). Add mascarpone and whip until well incorporated. Pour water into a small bowl then pour powdered gelatin over it. Do not stir. Allow gelatin to absorb all of the water (about 15 minutes) then place the bowl on top of a small saucepan containing simmering water (creating a double boiler). Immediately turn off the heat and allow the gelatin to dissolve completely. In a separate bowl, whip egg whites to a soft peak, gradually add sugar, then slowly pour in dissolved gelatin. Whip to a stiff, glossy peak. Fold whites into mascarpone and yolk mixture then fold in whipped cream.

In a separate bowl, combine espresso and kalhua. Soak 1 ladyfinger at a time in the espresso mixture. In an 8 by 10-inch pan, arrange soaked ladyfingers close together in neat rows until the bottom of the pan is completely covered. Pour 1/2 of the mousse over the ladyfingers and smooth with a rubber spatula. Sprinkle 1/2 of the chocolate shavings over mousse. Create another layer and chill until set.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm speaking of people I've known a lot longer than just now. Even, when in my teens I had more male friends than female. But fair enough - ignore the point if you wish.
Morrigan is right, though, that you are not teaching your daughter anything that will protect her much in her coming years.

And just about every woman I know says the exact same thing "I don't get along well with girls, girls are catty, I have more guy friends than girls".

Which is probably another thread itself, but I think it speaks well to the present topic. I think some girls expect to have guy friends and expect them to not have feelings for them.

I think this confuses guys, especially younger guys, in this high risk age group. They bide their time as friends hoping that eventually things will change and the girls will develop feeling for them.

Things don't progress as far as a relationship goes but a trust builds. Then frustration.

Then along comes alcohol and with it opportunity and happy accidents. Or maybe not. Maybe it isn't an accident at all,maybe it's something much worse.

In the last several threads on the topic of rape and sexual assault I was somewhat surprised, but not entirely shocked at the number of women victimized at some point in their lives. In all the discussions however nobody has really accounted for all those assaults, reported and unreported.

I think the above scenario is a very good example of how an unreported rape happens. A girl is victimized by a friend or acquaintance that she trusts enough to to be alone and intoxicated with.

So you guys can tell anecdote after anecdote about how you have guy friends you "hang around" with and nothing happens, but you're just making it harder to explain the number of assaults we know occur.

Do you see how this simply doesn't add up? Morrigan tried to explain it away as "tiny" but we know for a fact that isn't the case. It can't be.

Unless you come up with a viable explanation, I'm still inclined to believe a majority of these assaults occur because older men encourage younger girls to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, young girls are foolishly going home with or taking home a guy they think is a friend, and drinking so much they're easily coerced into the above or worse yet pass out.

Say what you want about me, I think it amounts to neglect for parents not to start instilling this information in young girls starting around the age of 14 so by the age of 18 it's something they can carry on for themselves into their mid twenties.

There's nothing in this that precludes a girl from having guy friends or even being alone with a guy. It's just information that keeps them from forgetting that being alone with a guy shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially if you've been drinking.

Feel free to actually show how this is misguided or how exactly it "blames the victim".

 

[Baylor]

And just about every woman I know says the exact same thing "I don't get along well with girls, girls are catty, I have more guy friends than girls".

Which is probably another thread itself, but I think it speaks well to the present topic. I think some girls expect to have guy friends and expect them to not have feelings for them.

I think this confuses guys, especially younger guys, in this high risk age group. They bide their time as friends hoping that eventually things will change and the girls will develop feeling for them.

Things don't progress as far as a relationship goes but a trust builds. Then frustration.

Then along comes alcohol and with it opportunity and happy accidents. Or maybe not. Maybe it isn't an accident at all,maybe it's something much worse.

In the last several threads on the topic of rape and sexual assault I was somewhat surprised, but not entirely shocked at the number of women victimized at some point in their lives. In all the discussions however nobody has really accounted for all those assaults, reported and unreported.

I think the above scenario is a very good example of how an unreported rape happens. A girl is victimized by a friend or acquaintance that she trusts enough to to be alone and intoxicated with.

So you guys can tell anecdote after anecdote about how you have guy friends you "hang around" with and nothing happens, but you're just making it harder to explain the number of assaults we know occur.

Do you see how this simply doesn't add up? Morrigan tried to explain it away as "tiny" but we know for a fact that isn't the case. It can't be.

Unless you come up with a viable explanation, I'm still inclined to believe a majority of these assaults occur because older men encourage younger girls to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, young girls are foolishly going home with or taking home a guy they think is a friend, and drinking so much they're easily coerced into the above or worse yet pass out.

Say what you want about me, I think it amounts to neglect for parents not to start instilling this information in young girls starting around the age of 14 so by the age of 18 it's something they can carry on for themselves into their mid twenties.

There's nothing in this that precludes a girl from having guy friends or even being alone with a guy. It's just information that keeps them from forgetting that being alone with a guy shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially if you've been drinking.

Feel free to actually show how this is misguided or how exactly it "blames the victim".

Good post. Teaching your daughter how to communicate effectively with males can certainly decrease her risk of being raped. There's so much miscommunication in male-female dynamics, especially with the younger ones.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And just about every woman I know says the exact same thing "I don't get along well with girls, girls are catty, I have more guy friends than girls".

Which is probably another thread itself, but I think it speaks well to the present topic. I think some girls expect to have guy friends and expect them to not have feelings for them.

I think this confuses guys, especially younger guys, in this high risk age group. They bide their time as friends hoping that eventually things will change and the girls will develop feeling for them.

Things don't progress as far as a relationship goes but a trust builds. Then frustration.

Then along comes alcohol and with it opportunity and happy accidents. Or maybe not. Maybe it isn't an accident at all,maybe it's something much worse.

In the last several threads on the topic of rape and sexual assault I was somewhat surprised, but not entirely shocked at the number of women victimized at some point in their lives. In all the discussions however nobody has really accounted for all those assaults, reported and unreported.

I think the above scenario is a very good example of how an unreported rape happens. A girl is victimized by a friend or acquaintance that she trusts enough to to be alone and intoxicated with.

So you guys can tell anecdote after anecdote about how you have guy friends you "hang around" with and nothing happens, but you're just making it harder to explain the number of assaults we know occur.

Do you see how this simply doesn't add up? Morrigan tried to explain it away as "tiny" but we know for a fact that isn't the case. It can't be.

Unless you come up with a viable explanation, I'm still inclined to believe a majority of these assaults occur because older men encourage younger girls to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, young girls are foolishly going home with or taking home a guy they think is a friend, and drinking so much they're easily coerced into the above or worse yet pass out.

Say what you want about me, I think it amounts to neglect for parents not to start instilling this information in young girls starting around the age of 14 so by the age of 18 it's something they can carry on for themselves into their mid twenties.

There's nothing in this that precludes a girl from having guy friends or even being alone with a guy. It's just information that keeps them from forgetting that being alone with a guy shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially if you've been drinking.

Feel free to actually show how this is misguided or how exactly it "blames the victim".

Cite?

 

[Furcifer]

In all honesty, I don't know a single woman who considers, for example, getting drunk and going home with a stranger, to be a good, risk-free activity.

And this is inherent knowledge? I don't think so, she had to be told.

I think this is why it feels like 'blaming the victem' when people harp on about these sort of behaviours as a way to prevent rape.

What do you mean "harp on"? It shouldn't be discussed in public? Just have the government mail a young woman "the Pamphlet". I think it's only harping when someone says "Don't say that you're blaming the victim". Then it becomes circular.

Do any of you think that any woman who is raped as a result of risky behaviour on her part is not already feeling ashamed and guilty, in part because they know they weren't 100% absolutly perfectly careful? I guess all I'm saying here is that women are already being warned about the dangers of so called risky behaviour, most are warned from an early age, and insinuating that we can simply... tell them again, and thus reduce the number of rapes is kind of insulting.

No one is "telling them again". This isn't directed at rape victims, it's always directed at the girl who doesn't yet know it isn't a good idea to get drunk at a bar and go home with a guy.

I've never heard anyone say "This is what rape victims should have done..." It's always "If a woman wants to avoid engaging in high risk behaviour..."

This is what doesn't make sense. What this amounts to is "Don't tell anyone not to get drunk at a bar and go home with a guy she just met because some victim might over hear it and feel blamed. The message is at the thousands that don't know, not the hundreds that have already lived it.

That said, I think there are things more women need to learn that could help reduce instances of rape. These things include ways of recognizing a potentially abusive relationship, systems for how to get out of a situation that makes you uncomfortable. Teaching girls that it is ok to be assertive, and that feeling safe is much much more important then not being rude. These are things that therapists will teach someone after they have been raped as a form of empowerment that I think should be reinforced far more then they are, and I find far more useful then the **** 'be careful' mantra.

Yes, I think this is a very good example of something more effective than reiterating the same risky behaviour speech or some "Not Ever" campaign.

Sorry I didn't mean to badger you, you just happened to make a post that was easy to make my point with

 

[Furcifer]

Cite?

Just Friends starring Ryan Reynolds of Canada.

What were you looking for? Most of this came from one of the earlier threads on rape.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

Is that what it comes down to? 'I want to be able to do all the things men can do'? Without the basic acceptance that there are things that will be more risky for a woman to do than for a man? And without the acceptance that even men would steer clear of certain situations because of the risk factor?

Well in that case, yes, you will be putting yourself at a higher risk of bad things happening to you and you should understand that and be prepared to accept it. That's not excusing the perpetrator as I'm sure you would like to think but if a bad thing happens to you then the damage is done anyway regardless of what happens to them.

You need to exercise your own judgement on how much risk you are willing to take, but denying the risk is there and worse still forbidding others to talk about it isn't going to change that.

All of these gender discussions inevitably seem to revolve around the rights of women and the responsibilities of men, conveniently forgetting that both genders have rights and responsibilities and the even more salient fact that your 'rights' mean very little when there are people out there who are not prepared to respect them.