Rape Threats and Free Speech

Anything can happen.

 

come on people - is it a sin to look now?

Imagine you're in a restaurant, you've ordered your meal, lovely lemon soul, boiled new potatoes in garlic, side order of veg, baby carrots maybe and cute little sweetcorns swimming in melted butter. Don't tell me you've never looked at somebody else's steak and wondered...

It's ok to look, just don't order - or at least don't get caught - that's just stupid!

 

Of course that's what he's saying.

 

Aww, where did you get that cliche? 1954 November edition of Cosmo? You should read some more up to date issues

Reality check, though. I could counteract that scenario with a more realistic one, in which a woman isn't a glutton for punishment, because she hasn't been raised by a mother who turned a blind eye to her husband sleeping around and thanked heavens when the untreated chlamydia made her infertile so she can stop having damned children all the time (the husband won't hear of any contraception, of course, that is offensive in his own interpretation of the Bible). But what would be the point? Bottom line, the attitudes you are promoting are by all modern standards completely offensive and outdated, but because in this day and age we actually like tolerance, I am tolerant of your right to hold completely offensive views. However, the society at large is intolerant of such views becoming official policy, and rightfully so.

Be as it may, I feel social responsibility to point out errors every time I encounter such travesty of logic, so sue me

 

Truth is truth. If you go outside, you know what I'm talking about. There's always exceptions, as T Trian pointed out, but I'm an observe and report kind of guy, so what more is there for me to argue about this?

 

I think that glass is 50% full as well as 50% empty.

 

EC, I appreciate your question and would love to address it.

Being a security officer, situational awareness is, as you say, important to making sure everyone stays safe.

SA is especially important for a woman, who is at greater risk for assault.

Let me give you an example. Last year, a woman and her daughter were leaving the mall in the evening. A man who was awaiting trial for child pornography and had an ankle bracelet stopped her vehicle, raped the woman and killed her with a knife, all in front of her daughter.

Was she in any sense of the imagination at fault? No, absolutely not.

Now he is in prison for life without parole. I wish he would have been put to death for what he did.

But on the other side of that coin, you have a woman that dresses provocatively, goes to a bar, accepts alcohol/drugs from random strange men and then willingly gets in his car or goes to his place. Why is it taboo to say that was a string of horrible decisions? They will had to live with the, 'Why did I do that?' for the rest of her life.

In both cases, the man is equally as guilty, 100% and should be charged for his crimes.

Perhaps guilt is the wrong word, but if you ignore common sense, knowing the risks then you should take some responsibility for bad judgement.

If there is a sign that says, 'Danger! Strong undercurrents! Swim at your own risk!' and I swim and drown, you can't really say I bear no resposibility for the outcome.

 

I strive for objectivity.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of 'outside'. I go out every day, like most people do, but now that you mention it, I did see an episode of "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" once, where the mother of the bride was saying something quite similar to what you are talking about. And then, of course, there is Jerry Springer, Jeremy Kyle, Ricky Lake...

I suppose you are right! This is a problem that devastates certain relationships. Emphasis on certain.

 

You mean start the thread? Anyway, I will do that... but I'll do it tomorrow. I have discussed this heavies vs. skinnies -thing extensively with KaTrian because we've written characters of all sizes, ranging from rotund to muscular to a bag of bones.

I don't think anybody has claimed that rape cases never include bad decisions on the victim's part (they often do), only that no guilt should be placed on the victim.

And yeah, situational awareness is the cornerstone of self-defense. Without SA, all SD training is all but useless.

 

Actually, after his post, no, it wasn't.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION] you don't go to bars, you have this idea they are dens of sin, that girls who accept drinks from guys are gagging for it, that the guy who bought the drink thinks she's about to worship him or now she's drank from his glass she's his to take. That they are full of drugs and users both voluntary and unsuspect, that the girls are naked and the boy's trousers are around their ankles. Ahem it doesn't really work like that, at least not in the bars I frequent.

Yes girls can make bad decisions, like the Norwegian girl in Saudi last week who got raped by her work colleague in his hotel room and then to add insult to injury got 14 years prison for unlawful carnal knowledge (or some shit) of a guy she wasn't married to. There's still only one person guilty - HIM!

On the other hand, banks spend vast fortunes securing their properties, everyday there is a bank robbery somewhere. Nothing is failsafe. As for "Why did I do that?" If the girl dressed in a hibab, went to Mosque in a taxi, straight to the door, told the taxi driver to wait till worship was over, returned to his cab to go straight home and he raped her - I'm sure that girl would for the rest of her life wonder "Why did I ring that taxi company - why oh why didn't I walk or get the bus?"

I'm glad your stance is softening but you're still way off the mark.

 

Hey ya'll. J.J's wife here. I would just like to say...HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!!! lol jk. But for real...I feel like I have to come not only to my Husbands defense but mine as well. I am not a slave and I believe that J.J used a poor choice of words when he said I was below him. Below isn't the right word the way I see ourselves is like an army he is the General and I am the lieutenant. Now he does rank above me but only slightly. We work together and make decisions together. I don't want all the power and I don't need all the power but I am not a yes sir kind of gal either. I like to think we are very balanced. Am I making any sense? Am I rambling? lol Anyway hope I cleared things up a bit.

 

erebh, you are never going to convince me that drunkeness or casual sex is acceptable or right.

I have already stated that act of rape is the fault of the man entirely.

Women make poor choices and put themselves in a position to greatly increase their chances of something bad happening.

This viewpoint is neither controversial nor out of the realm of common sense.

 

Well, there's a beautiful face! Hey baby!

I think you made an excellent point!

 

(Monty Python quote in there?)

Your description makes sense. I've known others who have similar viewpoints on marriage. I'm of the opinion that two adults should be able to structure their relationship in whatever way both of them see fit and that it isn't really anyone else's business (presuming both people are consenting adults, etc.).

 

I'm glad you came to say this in all honesty, gives a better sense of perspective. Kudos.

 

Hi there nameless, as far as I'm concerned that whole thing is yours, and only your business. What JJ said earlier, that people hooked onto was he would not allow you into a bar.

I have no intention of convincing you of anything JJ. We are never going to agree on this anyway. All I can say is I've been hammered and loved one night stands - I don't know anyone who hasn't. But no matter how drunk I've been I've always managed to control myself when the moment presented itself. There is no excuse for going that little bit too far and as someone mentioned earlier that moment was contact without penetration when she changed her mind. It's always her prerogative to change her mind and the guy has to suck it up - tough shit dude if it aint happening it aint happening.

 

There are some problematic underlying assumptions here.

I'm a person who has my key out on the way to my car in any parking lot, and I look around when getting in my car.

According to The US Bureau of Justice Statistics (see table 2 on page 4)

Activity and location of female victims when rape or sexual assault victimization occurred:
At or near victim’s home 42-55%
At or near home of friend/relative/ acquaintance 12-18%
Commercial place/parking lot or garage 10-16%
School 5-12%
Open areas/public transportation/ other* 14-15%

Activity when crime occurred:
Working 9-12%
Attending school 4-9%
Sleeping/other activities at home 41-48%
Traveling to or from work, school, other place/shopping or errands/ leisure activity away from home 29-35%
Other/unknown 5-5%

While it's not clear where 'going home with a guy from the bar' fits into that data, it is clear in your scenario that the woman in the parking lot was likely taking some risk. But you don't mention the lack of care getting to the car, or failing to lock the doors right away, or anything of risk that the woman may have contributed to the parking lot assault.

It's often said that being home with someone you know has the greatest risk of rape, which implies, strangers in the bar, not so much.


I don't see in your posts recognition that you are applying a double standard to risk reduction. You are clearly putting your thumb on the scale where you see moral guilt and taking it off the scale when the failure to reduce risk doesn't include anything you judge immoral.

 

[MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION] - Are you stipulating that there are not actions that increase risk?

According to a publication on Alcohol and Sexual Abuse by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

This would lead me to believe that drinking creates a substantial increase in risk of sexual assault.

 

It's interesting how often we attack another person's opinion and ask them to validate it rather than state our own and leave it to speak for itself. The need to be right or to influence opinion overshadows learning to understand other people's thinking. That's a wasted opportunity (and don't tell me that asking for justification helps in this regard).

Few people on this forum seem to be willing to understand and appreciate a different perspective (not to agree) because empathy and understanding a different idea (or ideals) is critical for creating a broad range of believable and interesting characters. You really should be able to, as a writer, convincingly debate either side of a discussion regardless of your own personal opinion. You can only to that with any real merit if you allow yourself to understand and appreciate why people believe what they do in the first place, rather than attack it.

It's not about agreeing, or changing opinion. Instead of saying, 'you're wrong and here's why, dumbass', we should be asking why they believe what they do in the first place and really try to understand, especially if we disagree.

Just sayin'

 

Hi, I'm Selbbin. Now you do. I hate one night stands and have said no a fair few times to the opportunity, when single or not. I should hand back my Man Card, as I don't like engines or big breasts, dislike porn, and I hate heels. But that's the thing about social expectations, it doesn't account for our differences.

 

How can you possibly believe this is what I said?

I have suggested looking at risk reduction separately from victim blaming. If you did that, you might be more likely to recognize you are doing the latter (victim blaming) when you believe you are only doing the former (addressing the contribution of risky behavior). When you apply a double standard to some risks that you do not apply to other risky behavior, you are victim blaming.

The point: You are applying a double standard to risk reduction. You are clearly putting your thumb on the scale where you see moral guilt (alcohol and revealing clothing) and taking that thumb off the scale when the failure to reduce risk doesn't include anything you judge immoral (letting a stranger approach when going to your car in the parking lot, for example).


You cite a fairly informative link. Hooray!

It supports what I've said, you are emphasizing risky behavior that is much less likely to result in sexual assault and not including behavior in your assignment of guilt which you don't find morally objectionable but that is more likely to result in sexual assault.

First the paper in general:

That approach suggests a reliable analysis likely follows.


Let's look at some of the other data in your link:

Meeting the new guy in the bar? Apparently some figure less than 20%.

Guess dating's out.

If you do the math, the scenario above that you find most problematic is fairly uncommon. If you consider how often people hook up at bars and parties with alcohol involved, the actual risk of such behavior is pretty low per capita (of partygoers) and the risk of being assaulted on a regular date is lot higher.


While the paper does a good job addressing the causal effects alcohol might have on sexual assaults, it doesn't address the denominator which one needs to assign a level of risk. For that you need to know how often drinking occurs that does not result in sexual assault. We can, however, compare the risks of two different behaviors, dating and partying/going-to-bars. 80% of the sexual assaults addressed here occur during the dating scenario. That leaves a much smaller number of drunk men seeking drunk women at bars and parties.

 

When two positions cannot both be equally true, is it not inevitable the discussion will address the conflicting position, at least indirectly?


On another level, however, I find defending my position is an excellent tool for both refining it, and changing it if the evidence doesn't support it.

 

It depends on the content of the discussion and the intention of the outcome.