Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course, and we’ve done that here. The problem is some people KEEP talking about the need for pedestrians to take precautions. At some point, it’s wasting everyone’s time and looks an awful lot like blame shifting.

Jeez, am I really going to get into this again?!?! Apologies ahead of time...

Some of us keep talking about it because women are still getting hurt, and we think it can help. That's all. It doesn't feel like wasting time. To me it feels as helpful as talking about how to stop men from committing the crimes.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Video

 

Clearly.

Zapatos, StringJunky, Gees, MisterMack, and I, are all the far conservative right who judge women based on what they wear and treat them like dirt.

Zapatos, StringJunky, Gees, MisterMack, and I, are all the far conservative right who don't believe a woman should be allowed to not be raped.

 

 

That video perfectly sums up your mentality.

"You do not agree perfectly with me, therefore you disagree with everything I believe in, and are an evil disgusting human pig who doesn't deserve the right to live. Because in the end, it is I  who decides what is right and what is wrong, and who is good and who is evil,"

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Some of us keep talking about it because women are still getting hurt, and we think it can help.

For that to work there has to be more that women can do to avoid being victims.
Have you any suggestions?
For example, do you think they should dress more modestly?

 

My view is that women are already doing practically everything they realistically can to avoid being harmed and there's not much more they can do.
That option is saturated- or at least  well into the realms of "diminishing returns". And if I'm right in thinking there's not a lot more women can do then the only option worth talking about is trying to change the behaviour of the men. 

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

For that to work there has to be more that women can do to avoid being victims.
Have you any suggestions?
For example, do you think they should dress more modestly?

3

Previous suggestions included:

Not stopping current precautions* such as making sure others know where you are if you are alone, avoiding men known to harass, avoiding risky situations like dark alleys in crime areas, etc.

At no point did anyone say women should dress more modestly except for once.

And that was in reference to the woman walking around topless at the music festival. And while you may be offended by that and start saying we think women should line up to our views of modesty, I 100% guarantee you that we don't think men should be walking around with their dicks hanging out. Which is where the argument that we only want to control women falls apart. 

 

 

*this is what spawned the debate in the first place. That by saying women should not stop current precautions, we were advocating for more additional mandatory precautions. And in an attempt to steer the conversation away from this topic, because it's basically a bunch of people who mostly agree with each other arguing, into something more productive, please don't reply to this post.  

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Not stopping current precautions* such as making sure others know where you are if you are alone, avoiding men known to harass, avoiding risky situations like dark alleys in crime areas, etc.

Did anyone suggest that we stopped anyone taking such precautions?

 

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Which is where the argument that we only want to control women falls apart. 

When you say that the argument fell apart you puzzle me.

Where do you think it was even started?

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That by saying women should not stop current precautions,

As far as I can tell, nobody said that.
If you think they did, please quote where they did so.

Plenty of people have said that the focus of the discussion shouldn't be in what the women do- but that's a different issue.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It does. No one I've seen is saying that having a tendency to do something makes it acceptable. Did someone say otherwise?

Yes. I keep seeing "boys will be boys" and similar sentiments. If that's not acceptance, what is it?

 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You do not agree perfectly with me, therefore you disagree with everything I believe in, and are an evil disgusting human pig who doesn't deserve the right to live. Because in the end, it is I  who decides what is right and what is wrong, and who is good and who is evil,"

 

LOL read again or watch again, either way, WTF are you talking about?

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. I keep seeing "boys will be boys" and similar sentiments. If that's not acceptance, what is it?

 

Being fair I think (from reading his posts) the 'boys will be boys' was part of the explanation...  not an acceptance or an excuse but rather a reason.  I can't see where either side of this discussion is coming from - you are both right (imo) -  The tendency and drives are in all humans...  it doesn't excuse abusive behaviour and no-one (as far as I can see) has said that it does.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Because if you read the part you quoted:

"There is point in trying to stop them."

Then you'll realize that what you posted is literally contradicting exactly what he said.

Think of it this example.

Person 1: "Snakes bite people. There is point in trying to stop them. But don't hold your breath. The results won't be very noticeable at first."

Person 2: "So you're saying there is no point in trying to stop them?"

And that's the part I'm having trouble with. It's contradictory. So which is it? 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

This is literally what happened. You're reasonable, and I'm certain you can see how quickly your logical process falls apart put into this context. Now apply it to the discussion, and suddenly it makes no sense. You're saying "He means A = B" by quoting him saying "I don't mean A = B"

It makes no sense.

I'm reading as "A is like B. They are completely different."

 

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Surely you're smarter than that. I know you are.

I clearly said that 70% of rapes are a problem, and you're worried about definitions.

So, if they are a problem, what aren't they part of the "rape culture" (whatever that is)?

44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Can you provide evidence, that in rapes committed by strangers, there is absolutely no correlation to their location?

With this level of straw manning, there probably isn't much hope for this thread.

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This is why we aren't currently discussing the more general problem of abuse of power.

That was the original context the thread. But never mind.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

LOL read again or watch again, either way, WTF are you talking about?

Let's start with the opening statements of the very first song.

"I believe that women have the right to walk the streets at night without being afraid for their lives."

"And I believe a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body without suffering the judgement of the conservative right."

"And I believe a woman has the right to wear the clothes she likes without being treated like dirt."

 

Pretty clear that the blame is on the conservative right here.

And since you are posting this, I'm assuming you believe him.

And since it's also pretty clear you disagree with Zapatos and the others I mentioned, it's pretty clear this is what you believe they're doing.

 

If this isn't, then why are you posting meaningless pointless videos that don't really offer anything to the discussion?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

LOL read again or watch again, either way, WTF are you talking about?

And read again, that was your mentality, based on the video.

Unless the video had absolutely nothing to do with your opinions?

In which case, why are you even posting it?

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. So, if they are a problem, what aren't they part of the "rape culture" (whatever that is)?

2. With this level of straw manning, there probably isn't much hope for this thread.

3. That was the original context the thread. But never mind.

1

1. Forget the rape culture thing, I don't even remember what I meant by it.

2. I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall. Except at least a brick wall listens.

3. Refer to point #2.

 

This thread is going nowhere.

Nobody can get above any debate that doesn't involve finger pointing.

Literally, they've been pointed out repeatedly by multiple people and it just goes back to the same thing, and then blame the other side for not allowing the discussion to move forward and wasting everyone's time.

So I'm out. Because in this thread, A = B, B = C, C is larger then A, and D is larger than C and smaller then A. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

Being fair I think (from reading his posts) the 'boys will be boys' was part of the explanation...  not an acceptance or an excuse but rather a reason.  I can't see where either side of this discussion is coming from - you are both right (imo) -  The tendency and drives are in all humans...  it doesn't excuse abusive behaviour and no-one (as far as I can see) has said that it does.

It leaves a lot to be desired as a reason (it's very vague), and it's a phrase used by others as an excuse. Passing the buck. Why does it keep coming up as a response? It's an answer to a question nobody is asking, and it's a lousy answer to the questions that are being asked.

 

[dimreepr]

Mostly because I think it's funny

[Raider5678]

Just now, swansont said:

It leaves a lot to be desired as a reason (it's very vague), and it's a phrase used by others as an excuse. Passing the buck. Why does it keep coming up as a response? It's an answer to a question nobody is asking, and it's a lousy answer to the questions that are being asked.

 

By questions that are being asked, you must mean fingerpointing.

Okay, now I'm actually going.

[mistermack]

36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

My view is that women are already doing practically everything they realistically can to avoid being harmed and there's not much more they can do.

I accept that that's your view. But it's not what victims say. As I pointed out much earlier, victims very often bitterly regret some of their actions, in the wake of an attack. Whether it's drinking so much that they passed out, or accepting a lift from a stranger. Their advice, afterwards, is generally that it's not worth the risk.

[iNow]

My neighbor went to the grocery store and got robbed. People didn't tell him he should've shopped elsewhere.

My friend went to park and got bit by a dog. People didn't tell him he shouldn't have gone to the park, or make comments like "dogs will be dogs."

My aunt was walking to the subway and got hit by a baseball. People didn't tell her to start wearing a helmet or start taking a different route.

My uncle was at a red stoplight waiting for it to turn green when he got rear-ended by another vehicle that failed to stop. People didn't tell him watch his rearview mirror and pull out of the way when cars approach behind him too quickly.

Yet... the woman gets harassed or assaulted or raped and we start talking about the precautions she should have taken, where she should've been, who she should've texted, etc.

 

Sure, everyone should avoid risk and avoid taking dumb ones. That point is so obvious it doesn't warrant stating explicitly, but why is that point deemed to be such a critical part of the discussion in this context when it's absolutely not deemed that way in essentially every other context or for any other crime? 

Part of the reason this feels so contentious is because women (for some reason) are very much being treated differently than we treat other victims of other situations. It's a systemic issue itself part of what needs changing.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I accept that that's your view. But it's not what victims say. As I pointed out much earlier, victims very often bitterly regret some of their actions, in the wake of an attack. Whether it's drinking so much that they passed out, or accepting a lift from a stranger. Their advice, afterwards, is generally that it's not worth the risk.

I think that is a normal human reaction to any bad event. When I have been robbed, or had an accident, or dropped something fragile I always spend some time thinking, "if only I had ..." The more serious the consequences, the more time you will spend on those thoughts. I think it partly an attempt to come to terms with it, partly an attempt to "turn back the clock" and undo events. 

Even if what you say is true for the cases when the victim had drunk too much or made some poor decision, it is irrelevant in the more general context of the thread (abuse of power in a sexual context). I don't think there is anything much the victims could do in most cases.

Rape is obviously a serious problem. But I think it is also very important not to overlook the continuous, everyday sexism and abuse that nearly all women have to put up with at work, in shops, at home, on the bus, etc. I think the fact that this exists is also part of the reason that women are not taken seriously when they complain. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I accept that that's your view. But it's not what victims say. As I pointed out much earlier, victims very often bitterly regret some of their actions, in the wake of an attack. Whether it's drinking so much that they passed out, or accepting a lift from a stranger. Their advice, afterwards, is generally that it's not worth the risk.

If I slip on ice and stub my toe I'm going to say "I wish I had been more careful", but in reality, you can't always make perfect decisions.

I wish I had bought bitcoin when I first heard of it. That doesn't mean it was a foolish decision I made, just a practical one.

The decision made by the attacker was the one that should be questioned, not that made by the victim.

Ironically most of the time, of course, it is "worth the risk". Most people who drink too much or walk down dark alleys are fine.

And that's why people do it. It's not sensible to change the behaviour of half the planet for the sake of a few deadbeats.

And did you have a look at the answer to the (far too common) question "what were you wearing?"?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

For that to work there has to be more that women can do to avoid being victims.
Have you any suggestions?
 

I did present some suggestions earlier. Here is some of what I said:

"Many people, young ones in particular, and not educated on how to deal with these complex situations that lead to assault. Look at the the US women's gymnastics team for example. A doctor molested dozens of young women, who by their own admission did not understand or know how to respond to the situation. Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact.

A more complex situation is the mixed signals sent out by some celebrities. Telling women to not allow themselves to be treated like sex objects, might be followed the next day by going out in public without underwear and flashing your hoohah. How do men react to that? How do young women react to that? Is that unknowingly putting young ladies at risk who might be tempted to do the same?"

"Young girls should not have to decide whether or not a doctor's 'treatment' is appropriate; maybe something more concrete, like requiring a woman appropriately trained to be there for all treatments. You shouldn't have to count on someone with a vested interest in the alleged perpetrator decide how to deal with a sexual harassment claim. "

Quote

For example, do you think they should dress more modestly?

I addressed this earlier too. Here is some of what I said:

"Personally I wish everyone would get away from the "dress modestly" theme as I find it to be a waste of time as well as a misrepresentation of what I've suggested. Putting mechanisms in place to educate young gymnasts and other women in similar circumstances, clear and effective ways to report abuse, understanding who is most vulnerable, support for those who choose to speak out, a public debate on sexual messaging in the media, etc. will in my mind address areas of weakness and deliver concrete results."

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. I keep seeing "boys will be boys" and similar sentiments. If that's not acceptance, what is it?

 

So if I say "murderers are going to kill" do you feel that also is acceptance?

Stating that a behavior occurs is not the same as accepting that behavior.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's not sensible to change the behaviour of half the planet for the sake of a few deadbeats.

No need for locks on your house or car then. Or insurance. Or passwords on your computer. Or police stations or courts if it comes to that.

The flaw in your argument is that once is too much, when it comes to a lot of these incidents. Walk safely across a dark park after midnight nineteen times, and you will still regret it, if it goes wrong the twentieth time.

[John Cuthber]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

No need for locks on your house or car then. Or insurance. Or passwords on your computer. Or police stations or courts if it comes to that.

The flaw in your argument is that once is too much, when it comes to a lot of these incidents. Walk safely across a dark park after midnight nineteen times, and you will still regret it, if it goes wrong the twentieth time.

Nice try, but it's a straw man.

The real question is "How many locks should I fit?"

If I already have locks and an alarm, but some determined crook breaks into my house, is that somehow my fault?

If I'm already taking such precautions as I reasonably can and yet there's still crime, is that my fault?

 

The problem with your argument is that , sure the victims may blame themselves  + say " I shouldn't have been there" (That's human nature as already pointed out).
 But there's always "something I could have done to prevent it" so there will always be the regret that "I didn't do that last thing"
That's going to always be the case for all attacks.

If she took a different route home and avoided the alley, it just means the attacker would have had to wait a bit longer in the alley until someone else turned up to be his victim.
From my perspective, that's not an improvement.

 

Do you think it is somehow better that the second girl was attacked, rather than the first?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Part of the reason this feels so contentious is because women (for some reason) are very much being treated differently than we treat other victims of other situations. It's a systemic issue itself part of what needs changing.

A very, very big part, imo. Men have been dominant in business and politics long enough to have (inadvertently?) stacked the deck in their favor. The US Congress has contingency funds for dealing with sexual harassment claims against its members, to keep it quiet rather than trying to stop it. To me, this is a clear case of men wanting the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how their behavior is interpreted. Hard lines might be crossed often, so enforcement gets watered down to what we see today, where investigation stalls out because they start by assuming a) the victim did something she shouldn't have, and b) the victim is most likely exaggerating the danger. We've allowed men to set the tone of the laws and their enforcement, and for men sexual advances aren't viewed the same way as other physical assaults. 

It's like women are trying to tell us "STOP, it HURTS", and we're saying "Are you crazy? This feels GREAT!" Perhaps we should go out of our way to attract women into these positions of authority men have dominated for too long. I think we should focus on non-wealthy women to leadership positions and see what some soccer moms and scout leaders can do about fixing what's wrong with sexual assault enforcement. We can pay them 150% of what the men make as an incentive.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So if I say "murderers are going to kill" do you feel that also is acceptance?

That's not an equivalent statement. "murderers are going to kill" is tautological. A murderer is, by definition, someone who kills.  

So responding to "He killed that person" with "boys will be boys" is not acceptance? The meaning is not "that's what boys do"? Because that's how I have always understood it. 

 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

If I slip on ice and stub my toe I'm going to say "I wish I had been more careful", but in reality, you can't always make perfect decisions.

I wish I had bought bitcoin when I first heard of it. That doesn't mean it was a foolish decision I made, just a practical one.

The decision made by the attacker was the one that should be questioned, not that made by the victim.

Ironically most of the time, of course, it is "worth the risk". Most people who drink too much or walk down dark alleys are fine.

And that's why people do it. It's not sensible to change the behaviour of half the planet for the sake of a few deadbeats.

And did you have a look at the answer to the (far too common) question "what were you wearing?"?

I don't think it's even this. It's driving along on a car. A safe car, according to the reviews. You are wearing your seatbelt, the car has airbags. You are following the rules of the road.

You get into an accident anyway. You were not at fault. They hit you.  

The whole "risky behavior" red-herring line of discussion is not an issue here — you were not speeding, you were not driving impaired, etc. Somebody rammed into you anyway. (of course, to be a truer analogy it would be deliberate rather than an accident)

 

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

70% of rapes are by someone the person knows personally anyways.

We're focusing on the 30% of rapes committed by strangers, I.E. "the rape culture". 

No, I am not saying that 70% of rapes are perfectly okay. But you can't really take precautions against those because they're an entirely different scenario. Premeditated, I believe the word is. And while I'm not a criminal psychologist, I think it's safe to assume that when it's premeditated that clothing will have nothing to do with the situation.

However, focusing on the 30% of rapes done by complete strangers, perhaps there would be a larger effect when taking risk mitigation.

There's very little study into this area, for obvious reasons. Stopping 70% of rapes through risk mitigation is very unlikely. However, surely it can't be wrong to look into the 30%?

The pertinent issue is that while some of use are talking about the 70%, the responses have been about the 30%. And when we attempt top steer the conversation back to the topic of the 70%, it gets derailed with more harping on the 30%.

[zapatos]

Perhaps someone can tell me why my specific suggestions (five post back) are not the types of suggestions we should be focusing on as that may help me understand the position of those who are in disagreement with me.

In addition, a summary of what suggestions have been made that don't involve requests that women must/should take some particular action would be helpful.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps someone can tell me why my specific suggestions (five post back) are not the types of suggestions we should be focusing on as that may help me understand the position of those who are in disagreement with me.

In addition, a summary of what suggestions have been made that don't involve requests that women must/should take some particular action would be helpful.

I think educating girls is a good idea, however at same time it should also be the case for guys. Both need to understand the concept of consent, and where the (potential) fuzzy borders of sexual harassment/assault, consent etc. are.

Focusing exclusively one side seems to put the onus exclusively on the victims (which does include boys who may be victimized). Of course education may not stop a psychopathic rapist. However, that would be the extreme rare case. Most are in borderline situations (e.g. both parties being intoxicated) and having awareness of these concepts does seem to mitigate the issues in some areas.