I have not at any point said that men raping women is not the main problem. The only difference between what I've said and what most people in this thread have said is that one of the tools for prevention of rape (besides harsh punishments and education of males) lies in female behaviour; that there are things women can also do to reduce their chances of being raped.
What is your point here? What exactly are you trying to argue?
I can mitigate crime on my person by never leaving my home, but that does nothing to address the actual crime itself. It's simply giving more power to the offender.
OK, but this tells me that your primary interest is in punishment for rape rather than prevention of rape.
This is bizarre logic. Following your reasoning, I'm not interested in preventing being mugged(or the crime of mugging in society) because I choose to leave my home.
OK, I've had enough of this. I'm not responding to anyone else that does not provide a REAL situation, rather than a stupid extreme hypothetical.
It's odd that you can't see the irrationality of your stance.
Stupidly extreme situations are not a great way to ground things in the real world so that they can be `rationalised', FYI. Communicate better.
I have not at any point said that men raping women is not the main problem. The only difference between what I've said and what most people in this thread have said is that one of the tools for prevention of rape (besides harsh punishments and education of males) lies in female behaviour; that there are things women can also do to reduce their chances of being raped.
What is your point here? What exactly are you trying to argue?
I can mitigate crime on my person by never leaving my home, but that does nothing to address the actual crime itself. It's simply giving more power to the offender.
Threads like these make me miss The Cat
As a somewhat overweight, not especially good looking almost 40-year old guy, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about being raped, but I sure don't want to be robbed. Am I just "giving more power to offenders" when I lock my doors and windows, don't carry much cash money on my person, don't flash my smartphone around when I'm in high crime areas, and avoid going to high-crime areas alone at night? I'm certainly choosing to circumscribe and modify my behaviour and limit my freedom, but my POV is that I'm acting responsibly in taking reasonable precautions to avoid being burgled or robbed.
It's not convenient to have to remember to lock my door (and remember to take my door key) when i go out, and in summer, I sure would like to be able to leave the windows open all the time because the place gets pretty hot and stuffy inside. Should I continue to do so or should I refuse to concede my lifestyle to criminals?
I love how your first statement pretty much sinks your analogy completely.
I have not at any point said that men raping women is not the main problem. The only difference between what I've said and what most people in this thread have said is that one of the tools for prevention of rape (besides harsh punishments and education of males) lies in female behaviour; that there are things women can also do to reduce their chances of being raped.
What is your point here? What exactly are you trying to argue?
I can mitigate crime on my person by never leaving my home, but that does nothing to address the actual crime itself. It's simply giving more power to the offender.
Threads like these make me miss The Cat
As a somewhat overweight, not especially good looking almost 40-year old guy, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about being raped, but I sure don't want to be robbed. Am I just "giving more power to offenders" when I lock my doors and windows, don't carry much cash money on my person, don't flash my smartphone around when I'm in high crime areas, and avoid going to high-crime areas alone at night? I'm certainly choosing to circumscribe and modify my behaviour and limit my freedom, but my POV is that I'm acting responsibly in taking reasonable precautions to avoid being burgled or robbed.
It's not convenient to have to remember to lock my door (and remember to take my door key) when i go out, and in summer, I sure would like to be able to leave the windows open all the time because the place gets pretty hot and stuffy inside. Should I continue to do so or should I refuse to concede my lifestyle to criminals?
Are you really comparing the minor disempowerment from locking your doors to the suggested cessation of a social activity like getting drunk?
I have not at any point said that men raping women is not the main problem. The only difference between what I've said and what most people in this thread have said is that one of the tools for prevention of rape (besides harsh punishments and education of males) lies in female behaviour; that there are things women can also do to reduce their chances of being raped.
What is your point here? What exactly are you trying to argue?
I can mitigate crime on my person by never leaving my home, but that does nothing to address the actual crime itself. It's simply giving more power to the offender.
OK, but this tells me that your primary interest is in punishment for rape rather than prevention of rape.
This is bizarre logic. Following your reasoning, I'm not interested in preventing being mugged(or the crime of mugging in society) because I choose to leave my home.
OK, I've had enough of this. I'm not responding to anyone else that does not provide a REAL situation, rather than a stupid extreme hypothetical.
It's odd that you can't see the irrationality of your stance.
Stupidly extreme situations are not a great way to ground things in the real world so that they can be `rationalised', FYI. Communicate better.
You haven't even substantiated your argument though.
OK, I've had enough of this. I'm not responding to anyone else that does not provide a REAL situation, rather than a stupid extreme hypothetical.
Okay.
The following is an extremely graphic, but very real, actual rape that occurred: Reader discretion is advised:
On the 4th of January, 1974, Ted Bundy broke into the locked home where an 18 year old woman given the pseudonym Joni Lenz was living in the basement. He attacked her while she slept, smashing her forehead repeatedly with a rod from her own bedframe and then penetrating her with a speculum until her mattress was soaked with her own blood.
Bundy left her for dead, and she was found 10 days later - still alive, but with brain damage and an unrecognisable face.
So, what is your recommendation for 'prevention' on the victim's part? Perhaps she should've had an armed security detail standing watch at all times?
If you are more concerned about `addressing the actual crime' and not `giving power to the offender', than with `not being raped', your primary interest is in punishing rapists, not preventing rape.
Punishing rapists is not the same thing as preventing rape, the same as punishing murderers is not the same thing as preventing murder. Having a punishment for rapists is a great preventative to an extent, but even death penalties don't stop all people from committing crimes...so there is a gap that needs to be covered by other things, such as preventative action.
Sure, preventative action can act against the crime of rape to some extent, by preventing it, which means the quota of rape punishment also goes down. Which I guess empowers offenders?
I have not at any point said that men raping women is not the main problem. The only difference between what I've said and what most people in this thread have said is that one of the tools for prevention of rape (besides harsh punishments and education of males) lies in female behaviour; that there are things women can also do to reduce their chances of being raped.
What is your point here? What exactly are you trying to argue?
I can mitigate crime on my person by never leaving my home, but that does nothing to address the actual crime itself. It's simply giving more power to the offender.
Threads like these make me miss The Cat
As a somewhat overweight, not especially good looking almost 40-year old guy, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about being raped, but I sure don't want to be robbed. Am I just "giving more power to offenders" when I lock my doors and windows, don't carry much cash money on my person, don't flash my smartphone around when I'm in high crime areas, and avoid going to high-crime areas alone at night? I'm certainly choosing to circumscribe and modify my behaviour and limit my freedom, but my POV is that I'm acting responsibly in taking reasonable precautions to avoid being burgled or robbed.
It's not convenient to have to remember to lock my door (and remember to take my door key) when i go out, and in summer, I sure would like to be able to leave the windows open all the time because the place gets pretty hot and stuffy inside. Should I continue to do so or should I refuse to concede my lifestyle to criminals?
See, the difference between a discussion of having your home burglarized is different from rape. Because, while men have been raped, the cultural mindset affects both men and women unequal. In fact, the mindset maintains and propagates that inequality. My advice to anyone of any sex or age without discrimination would be to "lock your windows and doors when you leave the house."
The general idea may be the same in telling women not to do shots in a frat house, but there is a LOT of cultural baggage attached to that kind of advice. Bad, sexist cultural baggage.
So while your personal contribution may totally be in the spirit of safety, the topic of rape is instantly more complex than being burglarized. This kind of advice is more harmful than helpful in a variety of ways when applied to sexual assault.
The following is an extremely graphic, but very real, actual rape that occurred: Reader discretion is advised:
On the 4th of January, 1974, Ted Bundy broke into the locked home where an 18 year old woman given the pseudonym Joni Lenz was living in the basement. He attacked her while she slept, smashing her forehead repeatedly with a rod from her own bedframe and then penetrating her with a speculum until her mattress was soaked with her own blood.
Bundy left her for dead, and she was found 10 days later - still alive, but with brain damage and an unrecognisable face.
So, what is your recommendation for 'prevention' on the victim's part? Perhaps she should've had an armed security detail standing watch at all times?
Yeah, not much you can do there (based on the information presented). I have at no stage said that there is ever going to be a 100% rape prevention; in fact, I've said the opposite a bunch of times. But just because there is no 100% sure prevention, does that mean you do nothing?
Isn't that something that also needs to be addressed?
If you have had a friend pour you a drink or grab you one from a bar, have you ever whipped-out a testing kit to make sure the alcohol concentration is what you expected?
No, I didn't. Peer pressure can be a factor is what I said - but it's very easy to hand someone a double without them realizing it, without peer pressure being a factor. You seemed to suggest that only stupid / ditzy girls get drunk enough to be taken advantage of. That's not the case.
The following is an extremely graphic, but very real, actual rape that occurred: Reader discretion is advised:
On the 4th of January, 1974, Ted Bundy broke into the locked home where an 18 year old woman given the pseudonym Joni Lenz was living in the basement. He attacked her while she slept, smashing her forehead repeatedly with a rod from her own bedframe and then penetrating her with a speculum until her mattress was soaked with her own blood.
Bundy left her for dead, and she was found 10 days later - still alive, but with brain damage and an unrecognisable face.
So, what is your recommendation for 'prevention' on the victim's part? Perhaps she should've had an armed security detail standing watch at all times?
Yeah, not much you can do there (based on the information presented). I have at no stage said that there is ever going to be a 100% rape prevention; in fact, I've said the opposite a bunch of times. But just because there is no 100% sure prevention, does that mean you do nothing?
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I think incautious girls are more likely to be taken advantage of, sure. I find it hard to relate to your situation presented, because I have always been able to tell how drunk I am.
If you are more concerned about `addressing the actual crime' and not `giving power to the offender', than with `not being raped', your primary interest is in punishing rapists, not preventing rape.
Punishing rapists is not the same thing as preventing rape, the same as punishing murderers is not the same thing as preventing murder. Having a punishment for rapists is a great preventative to an extent, but even death penalties don't stop all people from committing crimes...so there is a gap that needs to be covered by other things, such as preventative action.
Sure, preventative action can act against the crime of rape to some extent, by preventing it, which means the quota of rape punishment also goes down. Which I guess empowers offenders?
You're missing the point though. Precluding social activities because there's a chance of crime is an expectation that should not be placed on a potential victim regardless of efficacy in prevention of said crime.
The following is an extremely graphic, but very real, actual rape that occurred: Reader discretion is advised:
On the 4th of January, 1974, Ted Bundy broke into the locked home where an 18 year old woman given the pseudonym Joni Lenz was living in the basement. He attacked her while she slept, smashing her forehead repeatedly with a rod from her own bedframe and then penetrating her with a speculum until her mattress was soaked with her own blood.
Bundy left her for dead, and she was found 10 days later - still alive, but with brain damage and an unrecognisable face.
So, what is your recommendation for 'prevention' on the victim's part? Perhaps she should've had an armed security detail standing watch at all times?
Yeah, not much you can do there (based on the information presented). I have at no stage said that there is ever going to be a 100% rape prevention; in fact, I've said the opposite a bunch of times. But just because there is no 100% sure prevention, does that mean you do nothing?
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
Wherever there exists an inequality in the victimization of males and females under various circumstances, the more victimized gender should take extra precautions until approaching the point where the incidents occur at a negligible rate to the average person.
Once you equalize the incidence of these crimes between the two genders, I'll call off the prophylactic precautions. I'll even apologize for them. But I won't stop using them just so we can punish more offenders. I'm not going to let people be the bait to solve a social problem.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In a world where we want to prevent rape, not just punish it, is the responsibility for this entirely on the male population to self-monitor to achieve this (including a significant minority of males with serious impulse control issues), or do females have some role in preventing rape from happening?
How do women prevent rape from happening? Rape is sexual assault, perpetrated by one person against another. The only way to prevent rape is to lock yourself in your home, forever.
Really? So there's nothing more that can be done except one strawman extreme thing?
So a given woman being raped is 100% chance, and nothing to do with behaviour?
It's entirely to so with the behavior of the rapist, yes. When have I ever argued that it was chance?
No it isn't, but that's where we start running into the refusal of modern discourse to distinguish between 'responsibility' and 'blame'.
It is (by definition) never a rape victim's fault that they are raped, but they can certainly behave irresponsibly. To choose a deliberately ludicrous example, if I, a 19-year old cheerleader, chose to dress in a g-string and a tight T-shirt with a "CUM DUMPSTER" slogan and hired a helicopter to drop me into a prison riot, then it would take some truly hyper-Euclidean logic-bending to argue that I was not in some way partyl responsible for what would immediately ensue.
Rape is never excusable because it's just straight up against the rules. These are the rules: you can't have sex with someone unless they agree, and if you do, then you're a rapist.
However, it is a sad fact of life that not everyone agrees 100% on the exact boundaries of those rules and what, precisely, constitutes 'agreement', and futhermore sex (like violence or love or fear) isn't something that is based on logic and reason to start with. Futher complication is caused by the fact that our society, along with most (but not all) others has a massive problem with sex and the whole subject is slathered in shifting, schizophrenic, ambiguous and unspoken rules, customs and laws. And then there are fetishes and sexual preferences, oh boy.
There is plenty of scope for real miscommunication and misunderstanding (and of course that means there is even more scope for deceitfully hiding behind misunderstanding and miscommunication). And whilst final blame will lie with anyone who 'misunderstands', it's also the responsible thing to do to make sure that you're not exacerbating the problem by miscommunicating.
In short there are things that can reasonably done to reduce the risk of rape, and there are behaviours and choices which we can reasonably say irresponsibly increase the risk and are less extreme than walking into a prison riot.
No, the crime of rape is entirely to do with the behavior of the rapist. The responsibility for the act of rape is not on the victim. Ever. In fact, your post makes that pretty clear, clearer than other posts have.
People like to pull out these extreme hypotheticals in a discussion like this to justify discussions of "responsibility" but the reality is that we aren't talking about extreme hypotheticals, we are taking about a very small range of normal social behaviors, and we are asking women to think twice about engaging in these behaviors, or to not engage in them at all.
This is sexist against women because we don't expect men to behave with these restrictions, at least not to the same degree. And it is sexist against men, or misanthropic against society as a whole, because the implication is that "men" or "people you are partying/drinking with" cannot be trusted.
This is not good. Those implications are not good, and putting a chilling effect on a normal range of female behaviors is terrible.
If my daughter came to me and said she wanted to be lowered, naked, into a prison full of rapists then yeah I'd advise her not to. But if I were to advise her not to go to a party out of fear she will be raped, well that is crap in my opinion. And let's be honest here: the range of restrictions parents and society expect of women are different for that of men. Most parents wouldn't think twice about their boy going to a party with 10 girls but would think twice about their daughter going to a party with 10 boys. That kind of sexism targets both genders and is ingrained in society. It also does everyone a lot more harm than good.
Just in case my point is not clear: Attempting to restrict the behavior of women iis pretty harmful in and of itself, even if it is in the spirit of trying to help them not be raped. So basically, they are damned either way by this cultural mindset, one that continues to propagate.
Is it sexist to say that women are, as a matter of fact, at much greater risk of being raped than men?
If it isn't, then I don't see how it's sexist to say that it would be a damb good idea for women to take that greater risk into account. I wholly and 100% agree that the extra responsibility is caused by horrible misogynistic attitudes, and I'm not trying to excuse them or shift blame or any of that hoo-hah. I don't think it's OK to assume that "no means yes" if she's wearing a skirt that shows her knees. I am saying that it is a known fact that there are men who think like this and it would be nothing more than sensible to take their existence into account.
I deliberately chose a ludicrously extreme example for two reasons.
First it definitely illustrates the validity of the concept of responsibility. You cannot deny that the cheerleader in my example has behaved irresponsibly. That means that the debate is actually about where on the spectrum of choice and behaviour that responsibility to avoid risk lies (and once again, let me re-iterate that responsibility is not a synonym for blame here).
Secondly, it's meant to illustrate that actually, you have to go quite far towards the end of the spectrum before responsibility becomes completely unambiguous. Your example of the party is a good one here. Should women never go to parties in case they're raped? I don't agree and neither do you. Should a woman stay on her own at a party after all her friends have left, and there are a large number of rooms in the building, and there are a lot of very drunk guys on their own, most of whom she doesn't know? The choice becomes less obvious.
But to say that a person bears no responsibilty at all for their own safety (whether from rape, robbery, or any other incident) is in itself an irresponsible position to take IMO. It's not reasonable to say that in a society where rape is such a widespread problem that women should not act as if it is because of some concern about conceding the discourse or something. I look forward to the day when theft is finally eradicated, but until then I will lock my doors and windows when I go out.
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
I think incautious girls are more likely to be taken advantage of, sure. I find it hard to relate to your situation presented, because I have always been able to tell how drunk I am.
lol
The bolded part tells me that you're the easiest type of person to get drunk (I say that from some shameful personal experience).
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
If you are more concerned about `addressing the actual crime' and not `giving power to the offender', than with `not being raped', your primary interest is in punishing rapists, not preventing rape.
Punishing rapists is not the same thing as preventing rape, the same as punishing murderers is not the same thing as preventing murder. Having a punishment for rapists is a great preventative to an extent, but even death penalties don't stop all people from committing crimes...so there is a gap that needs to be covered by other things, such as preventative action.
Sure, preventative action can act against the crime of rape to some extent, by preventing it, which means the quota of rape punishment also goes down. Which I guess empowers offenders?
You're missing the point though. Precluding social activities because there's a chance of crime is an expectation that should not be placed on a potential victim regardless of efficacy in prevention of said crime.
Yeah, see, you're more hung up on what `should' be the case rather acting on what actually is the case.
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
It's sexist because males can do this stuff while females can't, but it's not unreasonable because a substantial proportion of males aim to take advantage of females in bars, and females don't show nearly as vigorous a showing on that front. It's unfair, but the fact remains that females have to do extra things to reach the statistical male level of safeness.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's sexist because males can do this stuff while females can't, but it's not unreasonable because a substantial proportion of males aim to take advantage of females in bars. It's unfair, but the fact remains that females have to do extra things to reach the statistical male level of safeness.
You keep using words like 'statistics', but you don't provide any data.
What are your sources for this information? What literature are you getting these ideas from?
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
It's sexist because males can do this stuff while females can't, but it's not unreasonable because a substantial proportion of males aim to take advantage of females in bars. It's unfair, but the fact remains that females have to do extra things to reach the statistical male level of safeness.
Well then, perhaps we should deal with that substantial proportion, instead of just writing off their conduct.
If you are more concerned about `addressing the actual crime' and not `giving power to the offender', than with `not being raped', your primary interest is in punishing rapists, not preventing rape.
Punishing rapists is not the same thing as preventing rape, the same as punishing murderers is not the same thing as preventing murder. Having a punishment for rapists is a great preventative to an extent, but even death penalties don't stop all people from committing crimes...so there is a gap that needs to be covered by other things, such as preventative action.
Sure, preventative action can act against the crime of rape to some extent, by preventing it, which means the quota of rape punishment also goes down. Which I guess empowers offenders?
You're missing the point though. Precluding social activities because there's a chance of crime is an expectation that should not be placed on a potential victim regardless of efficacy in prevention of said crime.
Yeah, see, you're more hung up on what `should' be the case rather than what is the case.
Again, what is your point? That bad things can be prevented by taking(or not taking) certain actions?
I mean, it's like you're arguing for people to restrict their freedoms based on the threat of personal endangerment. The examples you've provided are not enough to warrant/justify this restriction of freedom placed on the individual.
See, here's the thing - if a guy buys a woman drinks all night, and then she rebuffs his advances, well, he needs to man the fuck up, realize he misread the situation, and chalk it down to experience for the future.
And if he decides that those drinks bought him sex and he decides to take it, I don't want the book thrown at him, I want it shoved down the shitheel's throat.
Before the OP, a pop quiz! Some of the following quotes were pulled from popular UK men's magazines (FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo - yankees, if you've never heard of these, think of Maxim and Stuff and you have the right idea). The rest of the quotes were from a book called The Rapist Files: Interviews With Convicted Rapists which contains exactly what it says on the cover.
Can you guess which of the following lines came from major UK magazines and which were pulled from interviews with convicted rapists?
1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.
2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?
3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.
4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.
5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.
6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .
7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.
8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.
9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.
10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.
11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ‘Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'
12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.
13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.
14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.
15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.
16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.
Dr Miranda Horvath and Dr Peter Hegarty argue that the findings are consistent with the possibility that lads’ mags normalise hostile sexism, by making it seem more acceptable when its source is a popular magazine.
Dr Horvath, lead researcher from Middlesex University, said: “We were surprised that participants identified more with the rapists’ quotes, and we are concerned that the legitimisation strategies that rapists deploy when they talk about women are more familiar to these young men than we had anticipated.”
When the participants of the study were asked to say which lines they identified with more, they tended to sympathize with the rapists' quotes more. However, when the participants of the study were told explicitly that certain quotes came from interviews with rapists, they tended to sympathize less with those quotes - even if those attributions were actually false and simply randomly assigned.
This validates a suspicion that I've held for quite a long time. The vast majority of people understand that rape is wrong. However, we don't necessarily accept that the sexist attitudes that rapists use to legitimize those actions are wrong. We want to believe, for whatever reason, that rape is an anomaly rather than a direct product of cultural sexism. We want to believe that rapists are a unique class of people - aberrant, damaged, monstrous people - rather than face the possibility that rapists are just acting upon particularly extreme versions of sexist attitudes that are also expressed by non-rapists.
We hate rapists, but we don't particularly hate rape-y ideas.
The actual journal article hasn't been published yet; it's going to be in the British Journal of Psychology. I'm hoping to get a PDF of it once it becomes publicly available.
It was a valiant effort Feral, but your thread went awful places.
Anyway, it's amazing to me just how scummy these "men's" magazines are these days. And not just to women. They promote the stupidest, most puerile sit-comesque caricature of men as well.
But it really amazes me these days how creepy this and things like porn are towards women and the way they try to in turn portray men as well.
See, here's the thing - if a guy buys a woman drinks all night, and then she rebuffs his advances, well, he needs to man the fuck up, realize he misread the situation, and chalk it down to experience for the future.
And if he decides that those drinks bought him sex and he decides to take it, I don't want the book thrown at him, I want it shoved down the shitheel's throat.
Me too.
And maybe the woman could also realise that taking free drinks all night and telling the guy to fuck off at the end of it is potentially the start of a bad situation, and act accordingly. Maybe she could even have been aware she was giving the wrong impression and cut short the situation early.
In a world where we want to prevent rape, not just punish it, is the responsibility for this entirely on the male population to self-monitor to achieve this (including a significant minority of males with serious impulse control issues), or do females have some role in preventing rape from happening?
How do women prevent rape from happening? Rape is sexual assault, perpetrated by one person against another. The only way to prevent rape is to lock yourself in your home, forever.
Really? So there's nothing more that can be done except one strawman extreme thing?
So a given woman being raped is 100% chance, and nothing to do with behaviour?
It's entirely to so with the behavior of the rapist, yes. When have I ever argued that it was chance?
No it isn't, but that's where we start running into the refusal of modern discourse to distinguish between 'responsibility' and 'blame'.
It is (by definition) never a rape victim's fault that they are raped, but they can certainly behave irresponsibly. To choose a deliberately ludicrous example, if I, a 19-year old cheerleader, chose to dress in a g-string and a tight T-shirt with a "CUM DUMPSTER" slogan and hired a helicopter to drop me into a prison riot, then it would take some truly hyper-Euclidean logic-bending to argue that I was not in some way partyl responsible for what would immediately ensue.
Rape is never excusable because it's just straight up against the rules. These are the rules: you can't have sex with someone unless they agree, and if you do, then you're a rapist.
However, it is a sad fact of life that not everyone agrees 100% on the exact boundaries of those rules and what, precisely, constitutes 'agreement', and futhermore sex (like violence or love or fear) isn't something that is based on logic and reason to start with. Futher complication is caused by the fact that our society, along with most (but not all) others has a massive problem with sex and the whole subject is slathered in shifting, schizophrenic, ambiguous and unspoken rules, customs and laws. And then there are fetishes and sexual preferences, oh boy.
There is plenty of scope for real miscommunication and misunderstanding (and of course that means there is even more scope for deceitfully hiding behind misunderstanding and miscommunication). And whilst final blame will lie with anyone who 'misunderstands', it's also the responsible thing to do to make sure that you're not exacerbating the problem by miscommunicating.
In short there are things that can reasonably done to reduce the risk of rape, and there are behaviours and choices which we can reasonably say irresponsibly increase the risk and are less extreme than walking into a prison riot.
No, the crime of rape is entirely to do with the behavior of the rapist. The responsibility for the act of rape is not on the victim. Ever. In fact, your post makes that pretty clear, clearer than other posts have.
People like to pull out these extreme hypotheticals in a discussion like this to justify discussions of "responsibility" but the reality is that we aren't talking about extreme hypotheticals, we are taking about a very small range of normal social behaviors, and we are asking women to think twice about engaging in these behaviors, or to not engage in them at all.
This is sexist against women because we don't expect men to behave with these restrictions, at least not to the same degree. And it is sexist against men, or misanthropic against society as a whole, because the implication is that "men" or "people you are partying/drinking with" cannot be trusted.
This is not good. Those implications are not good, and putting a chilling effect on a normal range of female behaviors is terrible.
If my daughter came to me and said she wanted to be lowered, naked, into a prison full of rapists then yeah I'd advise her not to. But if I were to advise her not to go to a party out of fear she will be raped, well that is crap in my opinion. And let's be honest here: the range of restrictions parents and society expect of women are different for that of men. Most parents wouldn't think twice about their boy going to a party with 10 girls but would think twice about their daughter going to a party with 10 boys. That kind of sexism targets both genders and is ingrained in society. It also does everyone a lot more harm than good.
Just in case my point is not clear: Attempting to restrict the behavior of women iis pretty harmful in and of itself, even if it is in the spirit of trying to help them not be raped. So basically, they are damned either way by this cultural mindset, one that continues to propagate.
Is it sexist to say that women are, as a matter of fact, at much greater risk of being raped than men?
If it isn't, then I don't see how it's sexist to say that it would be a damb good idea for women to take that greater risk into account. I wholly and 100% agree that the extra responsibility is caused by horrible misogynistic attitudes, and I'm not trying to excuse them or shift blame or any of that hoo-hah. I don't think it's OK to assume that "no means yes" if she's wearing a skirt that shows her knees. I am saying that it is a known fact that there are men who think like this and it would be nothing more than sensible to take their existence into account.
I deliberately chose a ludicrously extreme example for two reasons.
First it definitely illustrates the validity of the concept of responsibility. You cannot deny that the cheerleader in my example has behaved irresponsibly. That means that the debate is actually about where on the spectrum of choice and behaviour that responsibility to avoid risk lies (and once again, let me re-iterate that responsibility is not a synonym for blame here).
Secondly, it's meant to illustrate that actually, you have to go quite far towards the end of the spectrum before responsibility becomes completely unambiguous. Your example of the party is a good one here. Should women never go to parties in case they're raped? I don't agree and neither do you. Should a woman stay on her own at a party after all her friends have left, and there are a large number of rooms in the building, and there are a lot of very drunk guys on their own, most of whom she doesn't know? The choice becomes less obvious.
But to say that a person bears no responsibilty at all for their own safety (whether from rape, robbery, or any other incident) is in itself an irresponsible position to take IMO. It's not reasonable to say that in a society where rape is such a widespread problem that women should not act as if it is because of some concern about conceding the discourse or something. I look forward to the day when theft is finally eradicated, but until then I will lock my doors and windows when I go out.
It isn't sexist to state a statistic, but I would say it is sexist to expect one gender to conform to or restrict certain behaviors because of a statistic. And the statistic of men being raped is not zero. I have never seen anyone suggest any behavioral modifications for men.
Seo, yes, I would say the advice is sexist in nature no matter that the statistics are like.
Also, you have to go to extreme examples for the advice to become gender neutral. Being lowered into a prison riot with a t-shirt that says "cumdumpster"? I wouldn't advise that of anyone.
Propagating misogyny is a massive problem that is serviced by advice of this nature. And even if you think that these behaviors are also responsible behaviors men should follow, the reality is that no one is suggesting it to men. Advice of this nature almost always only comes up in topics of rape, and toward women. So even if you personally believe it is good, gender-neutral advice, most of society does not apply it that way.
And even of your intentions are positive, you must be aware of what affect the words you say may have, and what culture they feed into. Unfortunately, intent is irrelevant if you are saying the same things about responsibility that misogynists and rapists were arguing 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and so on about what a woman should or should not do. I'm not saying that you or anyone in this thread is mimicking the exact language of a rapist but I do think a lot of the advice trends toward sexism and feeds into the same culture as the comments presented in the OP.
Yeah Lucid, if I can't explain this to you by now, its not going to happen. Have a good weekend.
It's not that we don't get you, it's that we find your position to be incredibly harmful. You're basically saying "well, because of how society is, women can't participate fully in it, and that's the way it is."
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
Okay then. I think we're done.
PS. I would actually recommend this to guys also.
Just unreasonable then.
But I have trouble believing you would recommend these same behavioral restrictions to a guy. And even of you would, a large swath of society wouldn't.
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I guess what you're actually after is a list of things that women should do in order to be responsible that men don't have to?
I'll kick off with some pretty obvious ones:
If you're going on a first date with someone you don't know, then make sure you have told someone where you're going and with whom.
If you're going to a party where there is likely to be plenty of alcohol or other drugs, don't go alone, and don't stay after your friends have left. If you're planning to get wasted, make sure that there's going to be someone to keep an eye out for you.
When travelling to other countries, don't assume that their cultural assumptions about sex and gender won't extend to you. (Actually this does apply to men as well, but in a different way).
Always have a phone with you, make sure it's charged up and that there's some credit on it if it's a pay-as-you-go.
Avoid walking alone at night, especially in areas with lots of motive (lots of drunk guys about) or opportunity (isolated/secluded areas).
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
Okay then. I think we're done.
PS. I would actually recommend this to guys also.
Just unreasonable then.
But I have trouble believing you would recommend these same behavioral restrictions to a guy. And even of you would, a large swath of society wouldn't.
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
I'll give you a really short list of pretty obvious stuff.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
It's sexist because males can do this stuff while females can't, but it's not unreasonable because a substantial proportion of males aim to take advantage of females in bars. It's unfair, but the fact remains that females have to do extra things to reach the statistical male level of safeness.
Well then, perhaps we should deal with that substantial proportion, instead of just writing off their conduct.
This brings it back to my point regarding the main topic: I believe that no matter what we do, we can't ever solve for this population. We can reduce it, but not to the levels where I can say that males and females are truly equally susceptible to rape, which would be itself a safely remote occurrence.
I was never arguing that only women should change their behavior, but realistically, only women can be depended on to change their behavior, because it's their bodies that are at stake, not the rapist's. I realize that asking women to restrict their freedoms because of the dangers of rapists retards the progression of society towards your goal of eliminating rape, but not to do so would be to sacrifice the current generation of women to hasten a future I have doubts will ever occur, and I'm not willing to do that.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
See, here's the thing - if a guy buys a woman drinks all night, and then she rebuffs his advances, well, he needs to man the fuck up, realize he misread the situation, and chalk it down to experience for the future.
And if he decides that those drinks bought him sex and he decides to take it, I don't want the book thrown at him, I want it shoved down the shitheel's throat.
Me too.
And maybe the woman could also realise that taking free drinks all night and telling the guy to fuck off at the end of it is potentially the start of a bad situation, and act accordingly. Maybe she could even have been aware she was giving the wrong impression and cut short the situation early.
Why should she? If I was in that situation, I'd probably think she was a horrible person and not worth my time, but I wouldn't ever dream of hurting her.
Posts
I love how your first statement pretty much sinks your analogy completely.
Okay.
The following is an extremely graphic, but very real, actual rape that occurred: Reader discretion is advised:
Bundy left her for dead, and she was found 10 days later - still alive, but with brain damage and an unrecognisable face.
So, what is your recommendation for 'prevention' on the victim's part? Perhaps she should've had an armed security detail standing watch at all times?
If you are more concerned about `addressing the actual crime' and not `giving power to the offender', than with `not being raped', your primary interest is in punishing rapists, not preventing rape.
Punishing rapists is not the same thing as preventing rape, the same as punishing murderers is not the same thing as preventing murder. Having a punishment for rapists is a great preventative to an extent, but even death penalties don't stop all people from committing crimes...so there is a gap that needs to be covered by other things, such as preventative action.
Sure, preventative action can act against the crime of rape to some extent, by preventing it, which means the quota of rape punishment also goes down. Which I guess empowers offenders?
See, the difference between a discussion of having your home burglarized is different from rape. Because, while men have been raped, the cultural mindset affects both men and women unequal. In fact, the mindset maintains and propagates that inequality. My advice to anyone of any sex or age without discrimination would be to "lock your windows and doors when you leave the house."
The general idea may be the same in telling women not to do shots in a frat house, but there is a LOT of cultural baggage attached to that kind of advice. Bad, sexist cultural baggage.
So while your personal contribution may totally be in the spirit of safety, the topic of rape is instantly more complex than being burglarized. This kind of advice is more harmful than helpful in a variety of ways when applied to sexual assault.
If you have had a friend pour you a drink or grab you one from a bar, have you ever whipped-out a testing kit to make sure the alcohol concentration is what you expected?
How much behavior should a women restrict where you would say she is "responsible"?
Can you give me a list of things women shouldn't do, to satisfy your idea of personal responsibility? You seem to think "staying indoors" is beyond the pale and you recognize that a woman cannot safeguard herself 100% from rape, so at what point of restricted behavior does she satisfy your conditions of personal responsibility?
I am genuinely curious.
Wherever there exists an inequality in the victimization of males and females under various circumstances, the more victimized gender should take extra precautions until approaching the point where the incidents occur at a negligible rate to the average person.
Once you equalize the incidence of these crimes between the two genders, I'll call off the prophylactic precautions. I'll even apologize for them. But I won't stop using them just so we can punish more offenders. I'm not going to let people be the bait to solve a social problem.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is it sexist to say that women are, as a matter of fact, at much greater risk of being raped than men?
If it isn't, then I don't see how it's sexist to say that it would be a damb good idea for women to take that greater risk into account. I wholly and 100% agree that the extra responsibility is caused by horrible misogynistic attitudes, and I'm not trying to excuse them or shift blame or any of that hoo-hah. I don't think it's OK to assume that "no means yes" if she's wearing a skirt that shows her knees. I am saying that it is a known fact that there are men who think like this and it would be nothing more than sensible to take their existence into account.
I deliberately chose a ludicrously extreme example for two reasons.
First it definitely illustrates the validity of the concept of responsibility. You cannot deny that the cheerleader in my example has behaved irresponsibly. That means that the debate is actually about where on the spectrum of choice and behaviour that responsibility to avoid risk lies (and once again, let me re-iterate that responsibility is not a synonym for blame here).
Secondly, it's meant to illustrate that actually, you have to go quite far towards the end of the spectrum before responsibility becomes completely unambiguous. Your example of the party is a good one here. Should women never go to parties in case they're raped? I don't agree and neither do you. Should a woman stay on her own at a party after all her friends have left, and there are a large number of rooms in the building, and there are a lot of very drunk guys on their own, most of whom she doesn't know? The choice becomes less obvious.
But to say that a person bears no responsibilty at all for their own safety (whether from rape, robbery, or any other incident) is in itself an irresponsible position to take IMO. It's not reasonable to say that in a society where rape is such a widespread problem that women should not act as if it is because of some concern about conceding the discourse or something. I look forward to the day when theft is finally eradicated, but until then I will lock my doors and windows when I go out.
* Don't be pissed off your face, in the city, by yourself, at 3am.
* Don't hit on a guy at a club all night long for free drinks and tell him to go fuck himself just before you leave.
* If you do these things and have the money to take a cab home, consider taking a cab.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable, and there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be done also.
lol
The bolded part tells me that you're the easiest type of person to get drunk (I say that from some shameful personal experience).
Okay.
I think those things are sexist and unreasonable.
Okay then. I think we're done.
PS. I would actually recommend this to guys also.
It's sexist because males can do this stuff while females can't, but it's not unreasonable because a substantial proportion of males aim to take advantage of females in bars, and females don't show nearly as vigorous a showing on that front. It's unfair, but the fact remains that females have to do extra things to reach the statistical male level of safeness.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You keep using words like 'statistics', but you don't provide any data.
What are your sources for this information? What literature are you getting these ideas from?
Well then, perhaps we should deal with that substantial proportion, instead of just writing off their conduct.
I mean, it's like you're arguing for people to restrict their freedoms based on the threat of personal endangerment. The examples you've provided are not enough to warrant/justify this restriction of freedom placed on the individual.
And if he decides that those drinks bought him sex and he decides to take it, I don't want the book thrown at him, I want it shoved down the shitheel's throat.
It was a valiant effort Feral, but your thread went awful places.
Anyway, it's amazing to me just how scummy these "men's" magazines are these days. And not just to women. They promote the stupidest, most puerile sit-comesque caricature of men as well.
But it really amazes me these days how creepy this and things like porn are towards women and the way they try to in turn portray men as well.
And maybe the woman could also realise that taking free drinks all night and telling the guy to fuck off at the end of it is potentially the start of a bad situation, and act accordingly. Maybe she could even have been aware she was giving the wrong impression and cut short the situation early.
It isn't sexist to state a statistic, but I would say it is sexist to expect one gender to conform to or restrict certain behaviors because of a statistic. And the statistic of men being raped is not zero. I have never seen anyone suggest any behavioral modifications for men.
Seo, yes, I would say the advice is sexist in nature no matter that the statistics are like.
Also, you have to go to extreme examples for the advice to become gender neutral. Being lowered into a prison riot with a t-shirt that says "cumdumpster"? I wouldn't advise that of anyone.
Propagating misogyny is a massive problem that is serviced by advice of this nature. And even if you think that these behaviors are also responsible behaviors men should follow, the reality is that no one is suggesting it to men. Advice of this nature almost always only comes up in topics of rape, and toward women. So even if you personally believe it is good, gender-neutral advice, most of society does not apply it that way.
And even of your intentions are positive, you must be aware of what affect the words you say may have, and what culture they feed into. Unfortunately, intent is irrelevant if you are saying the same things about responsibility that misogynists and rapists were arguing 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and so on about what a woman should or should not do. I'm not saying that you or anyone in this thread is mimicking the exact language of a rapist but I do think a lot of the advice trends toward sexism and feeds into the same culture as the comments presented in the OP.
It's not that we don't get you, it's that we find your position to be incredibly harmful. You're basically saying "well, because of how society is, women can't participate fully in it, and that's the way it is."
Which is incredibly fucking goosey.
Just unreasonable then.
But I have trouble believing you would recommend these same behavioral restrictions to a guy. And even of you would, a large swath of society wouldn't.
I guess what you're actually after is a list of things that women should do in order to be responsible that men don't have to?
I'll kick off with some pretty obvious ones:
If you're going on a first date with someone you don't know, then make sure you have told someone where you're going and with whom.
If you're going to a party where there is likely to be plenty of alcohol or other drugs, don't go alone, and don't stay after your friends have left. If you're planning to get wasted, make sure that there's going to be someone to keep an eye out for you.
When travelling to other countries, don't assume that their cultural assumptions about sex and gender won't extend to you. (Actually this does apply to men as well, but in a different way).
Always have a phone with you, make sure it's charged up and that there's some credit on it if it's a pay-as-you-go.
Avoid walking alone at night, especially in areas with lots of motive (lots of drunk guys about) or opportunity (isolated/secluded areas).
This brings it back to my point regarding the main topic: I believe that no matter what we do, we can't ever solve for this population. We can reduce it, but not to the levels where I can say that males and females are truly equally susceptible to rape, which would be itself a safely remote occurrence.
I was never arguing that only women should change their behavior, but realistically, only women can be depended on to change their behavior, because it's their bodies that are at stake, not the rapist's. I realize that asking women to restrict their freedoms because of the dangers of rapists retards the progression of society towards your goal of eliminating rape, but not to do so would be to sacrifice the current generation of women to hasten a future I have doubts will ever occur, and I'm not willing to do that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why should she? If I was in that situation, I'd probably think she was a horrible person and not worth my time, but I wouldn't ever dream of hurting her.