Not to mention how long that mindset has been I'm effect. I remember when I was I guess 12 or 13 my best friend made a comment about one of our classmates. She was tall and leggy and came to school one day wearing a micro mini skirt. My friend said "she's gonna get raped like that" or something to that effect. That was 17 or so years ago and I still remember it. It bothered me at the time and still bothers me.
Remember when it was mainstream and socially acceptable to promote "good housewife" behaviors and how it was almost bizarre to expect women to be anything else? We evolved from that thank god but it seems to me all this "don't dress provocatively" stuff is just the modern way of trying to control women's behavior and curtail their freedom. I'm sure that most people aren't actively doing this. They aren't sitting at home laughing mischeviously saying "mwuhahah let's see how long we can keep women under our thumb," but perpetuation of the patriarchy doesn't actually require conscious effort - in that un/subconscious propagation of it, simply by taking things for granted, is probably the most harmful attitude.
I think that saying to someone 'You shouldn't really take drinks from strangers' is like other safety advice. It doesn't condone the consequences of not following it, but it does say that if you want to be safer there are steps you can take.
For example, I might give this advice to a guy 'If walking behind a girl you don't know at night, either speed up and walk past her, or stop and wait for her to walk ahead' This doesn't mean I think he is a rapist, it just says that he can be considerate of the feelings of others.
Or, I might say to a barman 'If someone buys a drink for a girl at the bar, give her the drink yourself and tell her who it is from, don't give it to the guy and have her give it to him', again I'm not blaming the barman, I'm just saying there are steps we can take to make things safer for people.
I don't approve of pedestrians being run over, but I still think you should be careful even in a crosswalk.
That's fair if we're trying to change the atmosphere a bit, but I mean, it still doesn't address people who are actually going to rape.
The best idea I've heard from anyone on the matter was attempting to educate guys (and girls) about what counts as rape and where they should try to draw the line. It doesn't involve trashing supposed rape jokes, but it does let people know where they stand when it comes to sex. Although, the fact that such education would even be needed may illustrate that that education may not have much effect since there's apparently a threshold for some guys (and gals) of where they think that "no" or basic consent isn't good enough. You're sometimes dealing with people who are not sober, so they're already not in their right mind so they may not even think twice about what the victim is saying, and they are also horny and aggressive.
Does education and good manners matter when a person has, effectively, lost control of their actions? It's still their fault for losing control and raping someone. This isn't me trying to justify rape. I'm only trying to sort through why an ordinary person who would never rape a person normally would follow through with it.
I think drez pretty much hit the nail on the head. If we keep talking about the what is preventable/avoidable it kinda misses the whole point.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
Sure. How would you propose we stop rapists from raping?
I think a good place to start is frank and honest recognition of the fact that any one of us could, in fact, be a rapist, and that quite probably some of us are. That's a really hard thing to admit, because we've built this edifice of rationalization that all rapists are monsters, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a monster. So maybe we have to dial that back a bit, and recognize that rape is a terrible thing, but it often happens because people feel a sense of entitlement to another person's body, and that sense of entitlement overrides their empathy and better judgment, not because that person is demented or sadistic or especially cruel in general.
Exactly, you need to think of the mentilty that breeds sexual assault as less "criminal supervillain" and more similar that of a chronic alcoholic; someone who's destructive but doesent neccisarilly have the self awareness to understand why they're destructive, and is very likely to come from an enviroment where their behaviour (military, frat house, family ect) is subtly encouraged, even if officially it would be condemned.
I think drez pretty much hit the nail on the head. If we keep talking about the what is preventable/avoidable it kinda misses the whole point.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
Sure. How would you propose we stop rapists from raping?
I think a good place to start is frank and honest recognition of the fact that any one of us could, in fact, be a rapist, and that quite probably some of us are. That's a really hard thing to admit, because we've built this edifice of rationalization that all rapists are monsters, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a monster. So maybe we have to dial that back a bit, and recognize that rape is a terrible thing, but it often happens because people feel a sense of entitlement to another person's body, and that sense of entitlement overrides their empathy and better judgment, not because that person is demented or sadistic or especially cruel in general.
This, so much this. Rapists have been demonized to the point where it almost seems like some people can't handle the idea that someone can be a nice person, even admirable, in one part of their life and also a rapist.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Not to mention how long that mindset has been I'm effect. I remember when I was I guess 12 or 13 my best friend made a comment about one of our classmates. She was tall and leggy and came to school one day wearing a micro mini skirt. My friend said "she's gonna get raped like that" or something to that effect. That was 17 or so years ago and I still remember it. It bothered me at the time and still bothers me.
Remember when it was mainstream and socially acceptable to promote "good housewife" behaviors and how it was almost bizarre to expect women to be anything else? We evolved from that thank god but it seems to me all this "don't dress provocatively" stuff is just the modern way of trying to control women's behavior and curtail their freedom. I'm sure that most people aren't actively doing this. They aren't sitting at home laughing mischeviously saying "mwuhahah let's see how long we can keep women under our thumb," but perpetuation of the patriarchy doesn't actually require conscious effort - in that un/subconscious propagation of it, simply by taking things for granted, is probably the most harmful attitude.
Is that really perpetuating patriarchy though?
It isn't exactly socially acceptable for a man to wander around in short shorts with a thong sticking out, yet I doubt the vast majority of peoples negative views towards him being dressed that way stem from an unconscious/societal desire to curtail his freedom.
"Rape culture" is a great boogie-man for feminists, because it means whatever they want it to mean when making a particular argument.
It's a concept that's impossible to actually discuss because no one can really define it in a meaningful way. And you should know by now that any crime or rape statistics will simply be handwaved away if they don't fit in to rape culture meme.
To be fair, you can say that about almost any concept in social science. As long as people are arguing in good faith and not moving the goal posts, there's no reason it really needs an exact definition to be used in an argument.
Not so. A great many concepts in social science have very precise, measured meanings. Religiosity, to take an example I'm familiar with, is a measure of how devout someone is, measured by a regression over like four or five different statistics. Frankly, I find it incredibly difficult to believe there's been any quantitative research of note into "rape culture."
I don't know... a simple EBSCO search of peer-reviewed articles just turned up 65 results. Not a ton but by no means completely unresearched. Naturally Religiosity returns significantly more, but again that is to be expected.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Oh, and by the way, every website does that. Even the... uh... pro-freedom? ones do. I've never seen Foxnews.com post a bill in its entirety, or even provide a link to one.
Would there normally be irony to be had? What does Fox News, mostly filled with RINOs, have to do with anything?
Nevermind. You answered my question. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I think that saying to someone 'You shouldn't really take drinks from strangers' is like other safety advice. It doesn't condone the consequences of not following it, but it does say that if you want to be safer there are steps you can take.
For example, I might give this advice to a guy 'If walking behind a girl you don't know at night, either speed up and walk past her, or stop and wait for her to walk ahead' This doesn't mean I think he is a rapist, it just says that he can be considerate of the feelings of others.
Or, I might say to a barman 'If someone buys a drink for a girl at the bar, give her the drink yourself and tell her who it is from, don't give it to the guy and have her give it to him', again I'm not blaming the barman, I'm just saying there are steps we can take to make things safer for people.
I don't approve of pedestrians being run over, but I still think you should be careful even in a crosswalk.
That's fair if we're trying to change the atmosphere a bit, but I mean, it still doesn't address people who are actually going to rape.
The best idea I've heard from anyone on the matter was attempting to educate guys (and girls) about what counts as rape and where they should try to draw the line. It doesn't involve trashing supposed rape jokes, but it does let people know where they stand when it comes to sex. Although, the fact that such education would even be needed may illustrate that that education may not have much effect since there's apparently a threshold for some guys (and gals) of where they think that "no" or basic consent isn't good enough. You're sometimes dealing with people who are not sober, so they're already not in their right mind so they may not even think twice about what the victim is saying, and they are also horny and aggressive.
Does education and good manners matter when a person has, effectively, lost control of their actions? It's still their fault for losing control and raping someone. This isn't me trying to justify rape. I'm only trying to sort through why an ordinary person who would never rape a person normally would follow through with it.
To be honest, while I don't 100% agree that all rape is equivalent, it's just too complex to sort out the details of exactly what happened. So, I say this to both genders.
Don't have sex with someone unless they are absolutely sure they want to have sex with you, and that you want to have sex with them. Don't assume prior consent. Don't have sex with someone who is drunk enough that they can't tell you that they consent. If you do give consent, and wish to change your mind halfway through. tell the other person to stop immediately. If you find yourself doing the latter more than once, be more picky with choosing sexual partners. If you are asked to stop, do so immediately and completely.
I mean, clearly there are different crimes (just like manslaughter is different from murder) but the reason we seperate manslaughter and murder and don't seperate rape and 'non violent sex without definite consent' is that everything would rapidly become the latter if we did and you'd never convict for the former.
Nevermind. You answered my question. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant in order for us to have a healthy debate and so we may grow and learn from other peoples belief systems. Much appreciated.
I mean, clearly there are different crimes (just like manslaughter is different from murder) but the reason we seperate manslaughter and murder and don't seperate rape and 'non violent sex without definite consent' is that everything would rapidly become the latter if we did and you'd never convict for the former.
A lot of criminal codes kind of do this, though. Typically, non-consensual penetrative sex involving violence is treated the worst and non-consensual non-penetrative sexual contact without violence is considered a lesser crime. Often there are a couple of other gradations in between as well.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think drez pretty much hit the nail on the head. If we keep talking about the what is preventable/avoidable it kinda misses the whole point.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
Sure. How would you propose we stop rapists from raping?
I think a good place to start is frank and honest recognition of the fact that any one of us could, in fact, be a rapist, and that quite probably some of us are. That's a really hard thing to admit, because we've built this edifice of rationalization that all rapists are monsters, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a monster. So maybe we have to dial that back a bit, and recognize that rape is a terrible thing, but it often happens because people feel a sense of entitlement to another person's body, and that sense of entitlement overrides their empathy and better judgment, not because that person is demented or sadistic or especially cruel in general.
This, so much this. Rapists have been demonized to the point where it almost seems like some people can't handle the idea that someone can be a nice person, even admirable, in one part of their life and also a rapist.
No. A thousand times no. This is absurd. With no other crime would we make a claim like this. We wouldn't insist people go through life contemplating how they are just potential murders waiting to happen since all people have violent impulses, no matter how much we want to pretend we don't. You wouldn't ask people to go around contemplating deeply how they are a potential thief because they experience the very natural human impulse of greed.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
Nevermind. You answered my question. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant in order for us to have a healthy debate and so we may grow and learn from other peoples belief systems. Much appreciated.
Look, I'm sorry I just don't really feel the need to clarify and think continuing on about it won't lead to anything good. I was asking if you were using the phrase anti-freedom without irony and you clearly were, so the matter is resolved.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
If you mean to say you wanted all women to be honest with themselves they they too, might be rapist, and that they too may have raped in their lifetime and not realized it, then fine. But I believe the rest of what I said still stands.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
ugh... I'm much less offended by rape culture then I am by victim-hood culture which is what Namrok is specifically engaging in here.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
If you mean to say you wanted all women to be honest with themselves they they too, might be rapist, and that they too may have raped in their lifetime and not realized it, then fine. But I believe the rest of what I said still stands.
I used gender-neutral language for that exact reason, yes. Ultimately, I do think that dudes probably need to be more careful, since we're socialized to be more sexually aggressive, but you're projecting something demonstrably absent into my argument if you think I was only holding men to account.
As for the bold. Not really, and here's why: we all know that most people, most of the time, don't want to die, and wouldn't consent to being killed. That's why we don't go around killing people and accidentally commit murder. We can usually distinguish between our property and the property of others. That's why we don't go around taking things that don't belong to us and accidentally commit theft (though this is a real thing that happens, and I think we do counsel people to make sure that they don't take something when they're not sure if it belongs to them).
When it comes to sex, however, there is always going to be the chance that a person with whom you are engaged in sexual activity does not, or will not, want to continue. The only thing that separates sex from rape is consent, and sometimes it can be absent even when it appears on hasty observation that it is present.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
ugh... I'm much less offended by rape culture then I am by victim-hood culture which is what Namrok is specifically engaging in here.
Is that really what he is doing? I completely misread that, if you are correct. I thought he was just making a point that not all men are "potential rapists", and that the best way to get people to get along is to not make them feel uncomfortable: which, believe you and me, I would feel uncomfortable if someone told me I was a potential rapist/likely to commit rape.
Isn't that a reasonable position?
If 1 in 12 men commit rape, that still leaves 11 out of 12 who don't. So if the numbers are so skewed against being a rapist, why should every man walk through life feeling like a rapist?
With that said: I try to keep it in mind that there are very few "evil monsters" in the world, and any of my actions could possibly harm someone else. That is why I'm really careful when I drive, and go exactly the speed limit, unless it is busy: then I go slower.
The odds of you crashing a car--on accident--are far higher than the odds of you raping someone, I'd assume, just on a statistical analysis of car accidents per day versus individual people becoming rapists.
So why is it that we all should walk around thinking, "I am potentially a rapist"? If we are going to do that, let us also walk around thinking, "I may murder someone with my car. I may rob a liquor store. I may become homeless."
It isn't exactly a very stirring mantra, but if we really think it is a good idea to walk around telling ourselves we are potential rapists, I don't know why we will ignore the other potential things we can be. Maybe we can add in, "I am a potential entrepreneur. I am a potential CEO." etc...
e. to grid system: well yes, murder is a very specific type of crime. Manslaughter with a car? Drunken driving leading to a death? These are very real possibilities for the average person.
Seriously. Attempting to paint people who disagree with the response comic and shirt as psychos doesn't do anyone any favours. I reserve my seething rage not for Mike and Jerry at all, but for the people coming in here and using terrible, horrible arguments while being complete dicks to the people they cast as 'the enemy'. If you can't defend the original comic without resorting to the exact kind of denial the concept of rape culture is designed to expose and fight, you've failed from the start.
And there's a special hell for those of you who are acting precious about the concept's name. If we called it fluffy-bunny culture, it'd still have the exact same implications. Try and engage with the topic like grownups, please.
Or, alternatively, if we talked about the core problems instead of obscuring them behind a piece of inflammatory jargon, it'd have the same implications but wouldn't raise all a bunch of stupid divisiveness like what is seen here or really most places where it is brought up. Is the phrase "rape culture" so important that every discussion about it needs to be 50% justifying the words instead of the content?
I think there's a significant portion of folks that have the kind of knee-jerk reaction to the phrase that is easily seen here. However, a fair amount of that same portion might agree with the core concepts.
Feminism is definitionally a movement existing to effect change. If you think it's immature to worry about whether or not a phrase popular among some is conducive to bringing about that change in others, then man, I don't know what to tell you. It's easy to make the concepts clear and digestible, and no piece of jargon is worth saving in the face of that.
No, I don't buy that, having had this discussion and having discussed just about every other feminist-related topic going on this board multiple times before. I think that no matter what its called, some people will always assume that the concept means "lawl all men are rapists" when it quite plainly does not. These people shit me, because all they're doing is making the issue all about them, when it doesn't have to be. This happens with topic after topic. I don't know why these people are so driven to paint themselves as victims, but its not productive.
I really don't want to get anecdotal here, but when I first heard "Rape Culture", I was immediately tossing the entire idea out the window, and wondering how many crackpots actually thought that there was a large sect of society who wants to rape people.
Yes, the terminology is fucking terrible for conveying the point.
Will you get some people that still won't get it? Of course you will. But I would be willing to believe the number would be a lot lower if it wasn't wrapped up in a term that is inherently pointing a finger at everyone and saying, "Rapist".
I honestly don't understand. Why did you make that leap? Can you explain your thought processes? Why do you feel it is pointing fingers at anybody? Or calling anybody a rapist?
But when I first heard the term I instantly knew exactly what it was referring to and thought it was pretty brilliant shorthand because it got its meaning across so well. So I just don't understand all the anger against the name. And a bunch of posters just keep saying it is inflammatory and how you all thought it meant something very different than it does like it is obvious why you think that. Could you explain?
This is the "leap" I made:
Rape Culture.
Culture of Rape.
A Society where Rape is the norm.
A Society where everyone Rapes.
Without any sort of context, what else would I think it meant?
I mean, keep in mind, I have a greater understanding of it now, thanks to this thread, but my knee-jerk was considerably different, and I can't imagine I'm the only one.
I think drez pretty much hit the nail on the head. If we keep talking about the what is preventable/avoidable it kinda misses the whole point.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
Sure. How would you propose we stop rapists from raping?
I think a good place to start is frank and honest recognition of the fact that any one of us could, in fact, be a rapist, and that quite probably some of us are. That's a really hard thing to admit, because we've built this edifice of rationalization that all rapists are monsters, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a monster. So maybe we have to dial that back a bit, and recognize that rape is a terrible thing, but it often happens because people feel a sense of entitlement to another person's body, and that sense of entitlement overrides their empathy and better judgment, not because that person is demented or sadistic or especially cruel in general.
So what you're saying is that the solution is making everyone more empathic so that they won't be able to override their empathy?
Let's start genetically engineering a retrovirus that'll turn those mirror neurons to the max.
Shanadeus on
0
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
edited February 2011
Gabe posted this on twitter about 25 minutes ago:
I'm sorry if I was a jerk to you earlier. That was unnecessary and had nothing to do with defending the comic. I was just being snarky.
Remember when it was mainstream and socially acceptable to promote "good housewife" behaviors and how it was almost bizarre to expect women to be anything else? We evolved from that thank god but it seems to me all this "don't dress provocatively" stuff is just the modern way of trying to control women's behavior and curtail their freedom. I'm sure that most people aren't actively doing this. They aren't sitting at home laughing mischeviously saying "mwuhahah let's see how long we can keep women under our thumb," but perpetuation of the patriarchy doesn't actually require conscious effort - in that un/subconscious propagation of it, simply by taking things for granted, is probably the most harmful attitude.
Well, depending on the application, maybe. If it goes into "deserves," sure, but OTOH, personal security best practices suggest avoiding standing out by dress. Now, it would be completely insane to live like that 24/7, but OTOH, any time you dress in a noticeable way you are making a very minor security concession, and it has nothing to do with patriarchy.
To tell a rape survivor, in a mocking tone, that you "hate rapers and all the rapes they do" is, frankly, unfathomably classless and cruel, and goes a long way towards perpetuating the stereotype of rape survivors as crazy hysterics.
Except it wasn't aimed at rape survivors. It was aimed at the idiots who are so stupid they thought that the first comic was about rape-apologizing. So they were trying to put it in as clear a language as possible that they hate rapers, and all the rapes they do. Can't get much clearer than that.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
No. Actions have consequences. And the sooner people realize that the sooner we can help stop certain types of rapes from happening. Notice I said certain, because most rapes are done by someone you know and think is safe so this conversation doesn't have anything to do with those types since there isn't a whole lot you can do about that.
YES!! I have caught up with the current course of debate!...
To tell a rape survivor, in a mocking tone, that you "hate rapers and all the rapes they do" is, frankly, unfathomably classless and cruel, and goes a long way towards perpetuating the stereotype of rape survivors as crazy hysterics.
Except it wasn't aimed at rape survivors. It was aimed at the idiots who are so stupid they thought that the first comic was about rape-apologizing. So they were trying to put it in as clear a language as possible that they hate rapers, and all the rapes they do. Can't get much clearer than that.
We should be looking at the rapist. As far as I'm concerned, the victim is just that: a victim and has little bearing on the act of rape since it is being forced upon them. I don't care if they're drugged or drunk or naked - it's not an invitation (and I'm sure everyone agrees about that).
So let's just focus on the rapist...kay?
No. Actions have consequences. And the sooner people realize that the sooner we can help stop certain types of rapes from happening. Notice I said certain, because most rapes are done by someone you know and think is safe so this conversation doesn't have anything to do with those types since there isn't a whole lot you can do about that.
YES!! I have caught up with the current course of debate!...
Dangit! I this is distracting me from minecraft!
Let me see if I follow you.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
You have no idea who Jerry and Mike are addressing or even if they are addressing anybody at all specifically. I assume they're talking to certain emailers or some of the inflammatory bloggers that have been mentioned earlier. Could some of them be rape survivors? It's possible. Are Jerry and Mike addressing them on that level? I doubt it. They're likely addressing them on their outrage to the Dickwolves comic.
It's not 'possible.'. A cursory look at the negative response to the initial strip shows that many of those upset were upset because the strip triggered them as survivors of sexual assault. Whether or not that means the strip was unacceptable is debatable. What is not debatable is that in responding to the criticisms, Mike and Jerry were knowingly addressing rape survivors. And a lot of people, myself included, do not think that acceptable methods of expressing disagreement with rape survivors include taunting them by trivializing rape. Did they have a valid point about over-reaction to the original strip? Absolutely. But to be funny, they trivialized rape in a response to rape survivors, and in the process alienated a lot of people who believe that to be a serious violation of Wil Wheaton's Law.
Without any sort of context, what else would I think it meant?
I mean, keep in mind, I have a greater understanding of it now, thanks to this thread, but my knee-jerk was considerably different, and I can't imagine I'm the only one.
Is worth mentioning that one of the more accepted sociology terms for Rape Culture is RMA (Rape myth acceptence) which I propose we adopt immediately to halt this awful tangent.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
People really need to stop using the word "fault" in this context. It's not the "fault" of the drunk girl that someone raped her. However, unwise decisions, such as drinking yourself unconscious, can lead to negative consequences.
If you get in a car with a drunk driver, you personally haven't done anything morally wrong. But, your unwise decision can lead to negative consequences for you.
I don't know why people have a problem with this concept. Making a bad decision can lead to bad consequences.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Except it wasn't aimed at rape survivors. It was aimed at the idiots who are so stupid they thought that the first comic was about rape-apologizing.
My point is that these are not mutually exclusive groups, and disagreeing with them about their position on the comic should not mean ignoring that they come at to their position in part due to a traumatic and dehumanizing experience. You want to say they're wrong? Fine. But do it without trivializing rape. Why is that so hard?
I mean, clearly there are different crimes (just like manslaughter is different from murder) but the reason we seperate manslaughter and murder and don't seperate rape and 'non violent sex without definite consent' is that everything would rapidly become the latter if we did and you'd never convict for the former.
A lot of criminal codes kind of do this, though. Typically, non-consensual penetrative sex involving violence is treated the worst and non-consensual non-penetrative sexual contact without violence is considered a lesser crime. Often there are a couple of other gradations in between as well.
yes, but they are gradations which are physical. For example, it's considered worse to penetrate someone than to grope them. You can prove whether or not the latter happened.
However it's also worse to say, have sex with someone who is saying 'No, no no!' and has never ever said anything to indicate this is OK than it is to have sex with someone who is drunk and only later thinks 'Oh no, I really didn't want to have sex with that guy. I hate him.' however you can't truly show the difference there without perfect witnesses who saw everything. As such you can't really grade between these two things well in court.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
Yes it would be partially her fault if she got so drunk she couldn't control her body at all and got raped, assuming she isn't like say in the safety of her own house where normally you would assume you are safe from any harm. You are responsible for your actions whether you are drunk or not. If you put yourself in a situation where you know bad things sometimes happen to people in that situation, then you are partly responsible to blame for what happened to you. Note: I am in no way saying that it is ok for them to be raped. The fucker who did the raping should be punished severely.
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
You mean I got so drunk I passed out in an ally somewhere that is known to be a violent neighborhood? Yeah, your dang right it would be partially my fault. I get so drunk I pass out in the safety of my own home and someone breaks in and kills me, no partial blame on me.
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
What I find so upsetting is that some people think that they can do whatever they want without any consequences for what happens to them. All that does is create a Larger likelihood for rape, robbery, muggings, and other bad things to happen.
Crap! I had another point I was wanting to make in hopes to help you understand my side of the debate but I can't remember it.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
People really need to stop using the word "fault" in this context. It's not the "fault" of the drunk girl that someone raped her. However, unwise decisions, such as drinking yourself unconscious, can lead to negative consequences.
If you get in a car with a drunk driver, you personally haven't done anything morally wrong. But, your unwise decision can lead to negative consequences for you.
I don't know why people have a problem with this concept. Making a bad decision can lead to bad consequences.
I don't need to stop using fault--that is the original posters concept.
Of course making a bad decision can lead to bad consequence. That is an understood and accepted fact. With that said, why do you feel the need to bring it up in this context? You make it sound as if the rapist had no control over what happened.
I've come across a girl--blackout drunk or drugged--on our town green at night. What did I do? I called the police. I mean, that is what any normal healthy human being would have done.
Two attention whores make a comic with the word "rape" in it and other attentions whores wanting to bring attention to their crappy blogs harass the first two attention whores because they made some attention whores imaginary friend "trigger" their buried rape memories and reminded them of the horrible experience that one side is using to bring hits to their otherwise unmemorable blog sites, while the other uses the act to bring advertising hits to their own webcomic website. One side starts off using the harshest sounding hyperbole they can think of, "Rape Apologists", they use this phrase because "Rape Enablers" is not as confusing to the general online populace and would be something the blogger AWs (Attention Whores) would have to actually back up, while still retaining the same spirit of the phrase's intention. The webcomic AWs decide to fire back with the worst written comic in their entire history that misses the point completely.
All the while nearby observer attention whores get riled up with righteous indignation for one side or the other and try to bring attention to their own thoughts and opinions with hyperbole filled emails, posted comments, forum topics, and tweets, all the while fully aware of the definition of "irony". And then the webcomic artists make a shirt to alienate the fans who were already uncomfortable with the comic to begin with, simply out of spite, still wondering why they are getting so much shit.
I mean, clearly there are different crimes (just like manslaughter is different from murder) but the reason we seperate manslaughter and murder and don't seperate rape and 'non violent sex without definite consent' is that everything would rapidly become the latter if we did and you'd never convict for the former.
A lot of criminal codes kind of do this, though. Typically, non-consensual penetrative sex involving violence is treated the worst and non-consensual non-penetrative sexual contact without violence is considered a lesser crime. Often there are a couple of other gradations in between as well.
yes, but they are gradations which are physical. For example, it's considered worse to penetrate someone than to grope them. You can prove whether or not the latter happened.
However it's also worse to say, have sex with someone who is saying 'No, no no!' and has never ever said anything to indicate this is OK than it is to have sex with someone who is drunk and only later thinks 'Oh no, I really didn't want to have sex with that guy. I hate him.' however you can't truly show the difference there without perfect witnesses who saw everything. As such you can't really grade between these two things well in court.
Rape cases can be really tough to prove in scenarios where the victim and defendant know each other. The issue of consent in many cases is pretty murky and it's often-times nearly impossible for the prosecution to show that consent was not given.
I think that's a point a lot of anti-rape activists get stuck on. How do you get past the hurdle of reasonable doubt when the only evidence is conflicting testimony from the defendant and victim? It's not like prosecutors don't want to put rapers in jail. It's just that, with limited resources, they can't justify prosecuting a case they're not likely to win.
Which creates a negative feedback loop, I guess. Rape victims look at this low rate of success in prosecution and decide they don't want to go through with pursuing the matter. Why go through the indignity of a rape kit and cross-examination by defense counsel for such low odds.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
No. A thousand times no. This is absurd. With no other crime would we make a claim like this. We wouldn't insist people go through life contemplating how they are just potential murders waiting to happen since all people have violent impulses, no matter how much we want to pretend we don't. You wouldn't ask people to go around contemplating deeply how they are a potential thief because they experience the very natural human impulse of greed.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
Guess what, the statistics on rape mean that there's a good likelihood that someone in this thread has done it (and perhaps doesn't even think what they did was rape!), or that you know someone who has done it.
Please go back and read my story about my friend who was raped by her father. I've known her (and her family) since kindergarten - I never, ever, ever in my entire life would have thought her dad was a rapist and her mom was complicit.
So, I need to dig up the study, because it suddenly becomes relevant. It wasn't about rape, but it was about spousal abuse. People who abuse their spouse honestly believe its normal. Even though only a minority of people abuse their spouse, people who do believe everyone does.
Why do they believe everyone abuses their spouse, and thus, ok that they do? The rampant spouse-abuse hysteria that grips certain media outlets.
Thats right, the hysteria around inflated statistics like "more women are killed by their spouse than any other cause" or "1 in 3 women are raped" or "The superbowl pisses off so many men that they turn around and beat their wives" actually makes people who do this think its OK because everyone does it.
Inflated statistics and hysterical rhetoric actually accomplish the exact opposite of what they are intended to do.
Just saying is all. Something to keep in mind. Now I need to dig that study up for when someone says prove it. Off to go look. I'll edit a link in here when I find it.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
People really need to stop using the word "fault" in this context. It's not the "fault" of the drunk girl that someone raped her. However, unwise decisions, such as drinking yourself unconscious, can lead to negative consequences.
If you get in a car with a drunk driver, you personally haven't done anything morally wrong. But, your unwise decision can lead to negative consequences for you.
I don't know why people have a problem with this concept. Making a bad decision can lead to bad consequences.
Every action we take can have negative consequences. Actions you would likely describe as totally innocuous can have negative repercussions. There is no link except what exists in your imagination between dressing sexy and increased rape, so we can put that in the same class of actions as "cross the street" or "get out of bed" as for alcohol or partying, these are things that men do too, so to suggest that a woman partaking in revelry is in any way responsible (or whatever non-inflammatory synonym you want to use) for the things perpetrated against her while partying or drunk or partying drunk you are engaging in irrelevant, harmful, divisive discourse.
I mean, what do you want here? You've more or less explicitly stated that women should not act with the same free range of action as men. Fuck that. Let's educate people on what constitutes rape. Let's provide adequate comfort and support for people who have been raped - which includes a prevalent culture that totally does away with anything that could even remotely be construed as victim-blaming or any euphemism for it - and let's punish the men that do it.
Rape is, in fact, a cultural problem to some degree, and this tangent we are on is simultaneously a symptom and an ongoing cause of that culture.
Posts
Remember when it was mainstream and socially acceptable to promote "good housewife" behaviors and how it was almost bizarre to expect women to be anything else? We evolved from that thank god but it seems to me all this "don't dress provocatively" stuff is just the modern way of trying to control women's behavior and curtail their freedom. I'm sure that most people aren't actively doing this. They aren't sitting at home laughing mischeviously saying "mwuhahah let's see how long we can keep women under our thumb," but perpetuation of the patriarchy doesn't actually require conscious effort - in that un/subconscious propagation of it, simply by taking things for granted, is probably the most harmful attitude.
That's fair if we're trying to change the atmosphere a bit, but I mean, it still doesn't address people who are actually going to rape.
The best idea I've heard from anyone on the matter was attempting to educate guys (and girls) about what counts as rape and where they should try to draw the line. It doesn't involve trashing supposed rape jokes, but it does let people know where they stand when it comes to sex. Although, the fact that such education would even be needed may illustrate that that education may not have much effect since there's apparently a threshold for some guys (and gals) of where they think that "no" or basic consent isn't good enough. You're sometimes dealing with people who are not sober, so they're already not in their right mind so they may not even think twice about what the victim is saying, and they are also horny and aggressive.
Does education and good manners matter when a person has, effectively, lost control of their actions? It's still their fault for losing control and raping someone. This isn't me trying to justify rape. I'm only trying to sort through why an ordinary person who would never rape a person normally would follow through with it.
Exactly, you need to think of the mentilty that breeds sexual assault as less "criminal supervillain" and more similar that of a chronic alcoholic; someone who's destructive but doesent neccisarilly have the self awareness to understand why they're destructive, and is very likely to come from an enviroment where their behaviour (military, frat house, family ect) is subtly encouraged, even if officially it would be condemned.
This, so much this. Rapists have been demonized to the point where it almost seems like some people can't handle the idea that someone can be a nice person, even admirable, in one part of their life and also a rapist.
welp
Is that really perpetuating patriarchy though?
It isn't exactly socially acceptable for a man to wander around in short shorts with a thong sticking out, yet I doubt the vast majority of peoples negative views towards him being dressed that way stem from an unconscious/societal desire to curtail his freedom.
I don't know... a simple EBSCO search of peer-reviewed articles just turned up 65 results. Not a ton but by no means completely unresearched. Naturally Religiosity returns significantly more, but again that is to be expected.
Nevermind. You answered my question. I hope you enjoy your time here.
To be honest, while I don't 100% agree that all rape is equivalent, it's just too complex to sort out the details of exactly what happened. So, I say this to both genders.
Don't have sex with someone unless they are absolutely sure they want to have sex with you, and that you want to have sex with them. Don't assume prior consent. Don't have sex with someone who is drunk enough that they can't tell you that they consent. If you do give consent, and wish to change your mind halfway through. tell the other person to stop immediately. If you find yourself doing the latter more than once, be more picky with choosing sexual partners. If you are asked to stop, do so immediately and completely.
I mean, clearly there are different crimes (just like manslaughter is different from murder) but the reason we seperate manslaughter and murder and don't seperate rape and 'non violent sex without definite consent' is that everything would rapidly become the latter if we did and you'd never convict for the former.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant in order for us to have a healthy debate and so we may grow and learn from other peoples belief systems. Much appreciated.
Rigorous Scholarship
No. A thousand times no. This is absurd. With no other crime would we make a claim like this. We wouldn't insist people go through life contemplating how they are just potential murders waiting to happen since all people have violent impulses, no matter how much we want to pretend we don't. You wouldn't ask people to go around contemplating deeply how they are a potential thief because they experience the very natural human impulse of greed.
To single out a specific crime, and a specific gender along with that crime, is just wrong. You want to make people more moral? More sensitive? More aware of other people's feelings, and more considerate? Don't do it by singling people out and accusing them of being a potential rapist. Thats an awful and inflammatory statement to make, no matter how you try to rationalize it. You don't start any sort of positive change by leveling an accusation at someone who has done nothing wrong.
Look, I'm sorry I just don't really feel the need to clarify and think continuing on about it won't lead to anything good. I was asking if you were using the phrase anti-freedom without irony and you clearly were, so the matter is resolved.
It's interesting that you claim someone singled out a specific gender, when I was very careful not to use any gendered pronouns at all.
If you mean to say you wanted all women to be honest with themselves they they too, might be rapist, and that they too may have raped in their lifetime and not realized it, then fine. But I believe the rest of what I said still stands.
ugh... I'm much less offended by rape culture then I am by victim-hood culture which is what Namrok is specifically engaging in here.
As for the bold. Not really, and here's why: we all know that most people, most of the time, don't want to die, and wouldn't consent to being killed. That's why we don't go around killing people and accidentally commit murder. We can usually distinguish between our property and the property of others. That's why we don't go around taking things that don't belong to us and accidentally commit theft (though this is a real thing that happens, and I think we do counsel people to make sure that they don't take something when they're not sure if it belongs to them).
When it comes to sex, however, there is always going to be the chance that a person with whom you are engaged in sexual activity does not, or will not, want to continue. The only thing that separates sex from rape is consent, and sometimes it can be absent even when it appears on hasty observation that it is present.
Is that really what he is doing? I completely misread that, if you are correct. I thought he was just making a point that not all men are "potential rapists", and that the best way to get people to get along is to not make them feel uncomfortable: which, believe you and me, I would feel uncomfortable if someone told me I was a potential rapist/likely to commit rape.
Isn't that a reasonable position?
If 1 in 12 men commit rape, that still leaves 11 out of 12 who don't. So if the numbers are so skewed against being a rapist, why should every man walk through life feeling like a rapist?
With that said: I try to keep it in mind that there are very few "evil monsters" in the world, and any of my actions could possibly harm someone else. That is why I'm really careful when I drive, and go exactly the speed limit, unless it is busy: then I go slower.
The odds of you crashing a car--on accident--are far higher than the odds of you raping someone, I'd assume, just on a statistical analysis of car accidents per day versus individual people becoming rapists.
So why is it that we all should walk around thinking, "I am potentially a rapist"? If we are going to do that, let us also walk around thinking, "I may murder someone with my car. I may rob a liquor store. I may become homeless."
It isn't exactly a very stirring mantra, but if we really think it is a good idea to walk around telling ourselves we are potential rapists, I don't know why we will ignore the other potential things we can be. Maybe we can add in, "I am a potential entrepreneur. I am a potential CEO." etc...
e. to grid system: well yes, murder is a very specific type of crime. Manslaughter with a car? Drunken driving leading to a death? These are very real possibilities for the average person.
This is the "leap" I made:
Rape Culture.
Culture of Rape.
A Society where Rape is the norm.
A Society where everyone Rapes.
Without any sort of context, what else would I think it meant?
I mean, keep in mind, I have a greater understanding of it now, thanks to this thread, but my knee-jerk was considerably different, and I can't imagine I'm the only one.
So what you're saying is that the solution is making everyone more empathic so that they won't be able to override their empathy?
Let's start genetically engineering a retrovirus that'll turn those mirror neurons to the max.
http://twitter.com/#!/cwgabriel/status/33231385263079424
My Backloggery
Well, depending on the application, maybe. If it goes into "deserves," sure, but OTOH, personal security best practices suggest avoiding standing out by dress. Now, it would be completely insane to live like that 24/7, but OTOH, any time you dress in a noticeable way you are making a very minor security concession, and it has nothing to do with patriarchy.
Except it wasn't aimed at rape survivors. It was aimed at the idiots who are so stupid they thought that the first comic was about rape-apologizing. So they were trying to put it in as clear a language as possible that they hate rapers, and all the rapes they do. Can't get much clearer than that.
No. Actions have consequences. And the sooner people realize that the sooner we can help stop certain types of rapes from happening. Notice I said certain, because most rapes are done by someone you know and think is safe so this conversation doesn't have anything to do with those types since there isn't a whole lot you can do about that.
YES!! I have caught up with the current course of debate!...
Dangit! This is distracting me from minecraft!
Let me see if I follow you.
You find a drunk girl--so drunk she can't even speak, on the verge of blackout--you think it would be "partially her fault"? In what way at all is that her fault?
What if someone found you lying somewhere drunk? and they gruesomely murdered you? Would it be "your fault"?
you can't make things like this up. This is exactly what the people talking about rape culture find so upsetting.
It's not 'possible.'. A cursory look at the negative response to the initial strip shows that many of those upset were upset because the strip triggered them as survivors of sexual assault. Whether or not that means the strip was unacceptable is debatable. What is not debatable is that in responding to the criticisms, Mike and Jerry were knowingly addressing rape survivors. And a lot of people, myself included, do not think that acceptable methods of expressing disagreement with rape survivors include taunting them by trivializing rape. Did they have a valid point about over-reaction to the original strip? Absolutely. But to be funny, they trivialized rape in a response to rape survivors, and in the process alienated a lot of people who believe that to be a serious violation of Wil Wheaton's Law.
Is worth mentioning that one of the more accepted sociology terms for Rape Culture is RMA (Rape myth acceptence) which I propose we adopt immediately to halt this awful tangent.
If you get in a car with a drunk driver, you personally haven't done anything morally wrong. But, your unwise decision can lead to negative consequences for you.
I don't know why people have a problem with this concept. Making a bad decision can lead to bad consequences.
Rigorous Scholarship
My point is that these are not mutually exclusive groups, and disagreeing with them about their position on the comic should not mean ignoring that they come at to their position in part due to a traumatic and dehumanizing experience. You want to say they're wrong? Fine. But do it without trivializing rape. Why is that so hard?
yes, but they are gradations which are physical. For example, it's considered worse to penetrate someone than to grope them. You can prove whether or not the latter happened.
However it's also worse to say, have sex with someone who is saying 'No, no no!' and has never ever said anything to indicate this is OK than it is to have sex with someone who is drunk and only later thinks 'Oh no, I really didn't want to have sex with that guy. I hate him.' however you can't truly show the difference there without perfect witnesses who saw everything. As such you can't really grade between these two things well in court.
Also Gabe and Tycho both posted on the main page.
Yes it would be partially her fault if she got so drunk she couldn't control her body at all and got raped, assuming she isn't like say in the safety of her own house where normally you would assume you are safe from any harm. You are responsible for your actions whether you are drunk or not. If you put yourself in a situation where you know bad things sometimes happen to people in that situation, then you are partly responsible to blame for what happened to you. Note: I am in no way saying that it is ok for them to be raped. The fucker who did the raping should be punished severely.
You mean I got so drunk I passed out in an ally somewhere that is known to be a violent neighborhood? Yeah, your dang right it would be partially my fault. I get so drunk I pass out in the safety of my own home and someone breaks in and kills me, no partial blame on me.
What I find so upsetting is that some people think that they can do whatever they want without any consequences for what happens to them. All that does is create a Larger likelihood for rape, robbery, muggings, and other bad things to happen.
Crap! I had another point I was wanting to make in hopes to help you understand my side of the debate but I can't remember it.
I don't need to stop using fault--that is the original posters concept.
Of course making a bad decision can lead to bad consequence. That is an understood and accepted fact. With that said, why do you feel the need to bring it up in this context? You make it sound as if the rapist had no control over what happened.
I've come across a girl--blackout drunk or drugged--on our town green at night. What did I do? I called the police. I mean, that is what any normal healthy human being would have done.
Two attention whores make a comic with the word "rape" in it and other attentions whores wanting to bring attention to their crappy blogs harass the first two attention whores because they made some attention whores imaginary friend "trigger" their buried rape memories and reminded them of the horrible experience that one side is using to bring hits to their otherwise unmemorable blog sites, while the other uses the act to bring advertising hits to their own webcomic website. One side starts off using the harshest sounding hyperbole they can think of, "Rape Apologists", they use this phrase because "Rape Enablers" is not as confusing to the general online populace and would be something the blogger AWs (Attention Whores) would have to actually back up, while still retaining the same spirit of the phrase's intention. The webcomic AWs decide to fire back with the worst written comic in their entire history that misses the point completely.
All the while nearby observer attention whores get riled up with righteous indignation for one side or the other and try to bring attention to their own thoughts and opinions with hyperbole filled emails, posted comments, forum topics, and tweets, all the while fully aware of the definition of "irony". And then the webcomic artists make a shirt to alienate the fans who were already uncomfortable with the comic to begin with, simply out of spite, still wondering why they are getting so much shit.
Am I about up to speed?
Oh, wait, no, now we have death threats. Great.
BRAWL: 1160-9686-9416
I think that's a point a lot of anti-rape activists get stuck on. How do you get past the hurdle of reasonable doubt when the only evidence is conflicting testimony from the defendant and victim? It's not like prosecutors don't want to put rapers in jail. It's just that, with limited resources, they can't justify prosecuting a case they're not likely to win.
Which creates a negative feedback loop, I guess. Rape victims look at this low rate of success in prosecution and decide they don't want to go through with pursuing the matter. Why go through the indignity of a rape kit and cross-examination by defense counsel for such low odds.
Rigorous Scholarship
There was no "trivialization" of rape.
For the most part, way off the mark.
Guess what, the statistics on rape mean that there's a good likelihood that someone in this thread has done it (and perhaps doesn't even think what they did was rape!), or that you know someone who has done it.
Please go back and read my story about my friend who was raped by her father. I've known her (and her family) since kindergarten - I never, ever, ever in my entire life would have thought her dad was a rapist and her mom was complicit.
I was wrong.
Why do they believe everyone abuses their spouse, and thus, ok that they do? The rampant spouse-abuse hysteria that grips certain media outlets.
Thats right, the hysteria around inflated statistics like "more women are killed by their spouse than any other cause" or "1 in 3 women are raped" or "The superbowl pisses off so many men that they turn around and beat their wives" actually makes people who do this think its OK because everyone does it.
Inflated statistics and hysterical rhetoric actually accomplish the exact opposite of what they are intended to do.
Just saying is all. Something to keep in mind. Now I need to dig that study up for when someone says prove it. Off to go look. I'll edit a link in here when I find it.
Every action we take can have negative consequences. Actions you would likely describe as totally innocuous can have negative repercussions. There is no link except what exists in your imagination between dressing sexy and increased rape, so we can put that in the same class of actions as "cross the street" or "get out of bed" as for alcohol or partying, these are things that men do too, so to suggest that a woman partaking in revelry is in any way responsible (or whatever non-inflammatory synonym you want to use) for the things perpetrated against her while partying or drunk or partying drunk you are engaging in irrelevant, harmful, divisive discourse.
I mean, what do you want here? You've more or less explicitly stated that women should not act with the same free range of action as men. Fuck that. Let's educate people on what constitutes rape. Let's provide adequate comfort and support for people who have been raped - which includes a prevalent culture that totally does away with anything that could even remotely be construed as victim-blaming or any euphemism for it - and let's punish the men that do it.
Rape is, in fact, a cultural problem to some degree, and this tangent we are on is simultaneously a symptom and an ongoing cause of that culture.