Rape prevention

[Saintland]

It isn't worth trying to reason with somebody that thinks that discussing rape prevention is "blaming the victim" or that "all men are potential rapists." The whole concept of "victim blaming" is itself ridiculous. If a woman leaves her house unlocked and somebody robs it while she's either sleeping or out of the house, is it "blaming the victim" to tell her that she should lock her house when she's away and when she's sleeping? If so, then "blaming the victim" is a good thing and we should do more of it.

The problem with alot of people is that they think of crimes committed by disturbed individuals as societal problems committed by one collective against another. There is no such thing as a collective. The only thing that actually exists is the individual. There is no "conspiracy" of men that is out to hold women down. The collective called "Men" do not rape the collective called "Women." Individual men (that are invariably disturbed individuals) rape individual women.

As for specific rape prevention tips, I don't think how a woman dresses has much impact on her risk of being raped (unless she's a reporter covering an Islamic fundamentalist revolution in a country like Egypt, in which case she should be careful about how she dresses). The best way for a woman to reduce her risk of being raped is to avoid back alleys and stay off of city streets in the middle of the night. If she has to go out in a dangerous area, then it makes sense to carry a weapon for protection. This is called "common sense," but apparently common sense is controversial with the ideologues.

Telling people to "not rape women" is simply insulting. Most men are not rapists and would never rape women. Rapists are a small minority of disturbed individuals. The whole concept of a "safe space" is also absurd, since what that means is that you can't debate the subject and that makes the very existence of such a topic pointless, but then again there are people who like thinking of themselves as helpless "victims" of society.

If you did not follow common sense crime prevention methods and end up being a crime victim, that means you are partially responsible for being victimized. It doesn't make the criminal justified. It just means that you did not take sufficient steps to prevent the crime from happening in the first place, making it more likely that you would be a crime victim. This applies whether you are a rape victim, a burglary victim or a victim of any other crime. What kind of society do we live in if it is now so controversial to state something that is blatantly obvious to everybody? All the critics of "victim blaming" do is increase the frequency of rape by causing women to be more reckless (I'm aware that the frequency of rapes has plummeted since the 1970s, probably because of widespread availability of pornography providing desperate men with another outlet, similar to how video games providing people with an outlet has caused almost every crime to plummet since the early 1990s; the efforts of the NRA to protect the 2nd Amendment and make guns "cool" again may have had a favorable effect on the crime rate or maybe video games and porn had such a positive effect that it more than canceled out any negative effects of the pro-gun lobby's efforts).

[Occupied Deutschland]

[snip]
Having murder and manslaughter is necessary because you can't spell it without laughter there is a difference between the two. There is no difference between rape and sexual assault.

Except...There really is. Let me say this now, inappropriate touching and comments/suggestions that are lewd are a bad thing to do to someone who doesn't want them.

They aren't as bad as forcing yourself on that someone who doesn't want you, however, and should be treated as such. Because smacking an ass, as dickish and inappropriate as it is, isn't the same as pushing someone down and forcing them to have sex with you.

[Nailed to the Perch]

again, people are quite capable of reading between the lines. You should stop acting like this is some "new topic" without defined perameters, and dirty tricks. Arguments carry baggage. Positions have presumptions. If you're trying to argue "but it's not rape if it's not with a penis" has been a starting line by many a rape apologist.

You might find your position merely to be one of legal consistency, but I'm a lawyer, and I'm not that fucking nitpicky. You don't get to walk down the same road of rape apologists and then throw your hands up in the air and declare "what, I'm just being technical!"

There's only two reasons to make that argument. Apologism, or nitpickiness beyond the point of anal retentiveness. And it's extremely hard to believe, staggeringly, monumentally hard to believe, that someone who really tries to argue "but you can't rape without a boner!" is trying to be "technically correct".

Frankly, I just don't believe it.

If you're a lawyer;

1. Seems odd to choose such a small audience as NationStates instead of a wider medium like YouTube for these discussions.

2. Surely you appreciate the value of respecting the "benefit of a doubt" when uncertain. Yes, it's possible these people are trying to diminish sexual assaults committed with something other than a penis. So long as we aren't sure, though, we should only address what is actually being said, not what we speculate is being implied.

I'm not sure what I find funnier here - the notion that NSG should be treated as a court of law, or that YouTube is where all the cool lawyers hang out.

(Oh, and he's definitely a lawyer. Trust me on this one.)

[Neo Art]

If you're a lawyer;

Ya caught me!

1. Seems odd to choose such a small audience as NationStates instead of a wider medium like YouTube for these discussions.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I blame it on recent revival of Sherlock Holmes methos, like Sherlock and Elementary and those movies about what that dude does when he's not Iron Man. Everyone thinks they're a fucking detective or something.

I mean, seriously, "if you're REALLY a lawyer, why aren't you on Youtube?" What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?

2. Surely you appreciate the value of respecting the "benefit of a doubt" when uncertain. Yes, it's possible these people are trying to diminish sexual assaults committed with something other than a penis. So long as we aren't sure, though, we should only address what is actually being said, not what we speculate is being implied.

What fucking bullshit is this? This is almost worse than your first point. Believe it or not, but most normal people, having a reasonable education, are capable of understanding inferences, and drawing conclusions. It's a basic human skill, that just about anyone with a sliver of social awareness masters.

To function otherwise is to presume that Swift really really wanted to eat babies.

I am capable of reading between the lines. Perhaps you are not. Don't presume your issues are mine.

[Forsakia]

That extends the accusation of victim blaming to ridiculous extents.

Some people who have been raped might not have been raped if they carried weapons is simple truth (it's true to a limited extent given the common characteristics of rape, but it's true in some cases).

I'm not denying that. I never did.

Getting a better lock for my bicycle would make it harder to steal, this is truth. It doesn't mean it's my fault it got stolen from an average lock, but it would be less likely to have happened if I'd had a great one.

Indeed. But someone saying it's your responsibility to get one is blaming you.

It is possible to suggest ways to reduce rape without victim blaming.

Yes, but suggesting all women carry weapons is not one of them.

On an obvious level, advising people not to leave their drink unattended in a night club. They aren't doing anything blameworthy by leaving their drink unattended, but it increases the risk they're exposed to.

Advising people to do so is one thing. Saying it's their responsibility is another.

Pictures about "Advice to reduce rape: don't rape" are nice for internet debates and hopefully have a positive effect, but using them to shut down potential ways to make people safer from rape is skewing priorities way off.

Using it to shut down victim blaming is, however, good.

If I have a daughter then I probably would encourage her to take a martial arts class (and certainly not leave her drink unattended). Parents who don't aren't worse parents, and it's not her fault if she is raped but to an extent it would reduce the risk, which is something.

(N.B. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the OP's ambiguous use of the word should as to if that pushes towards any responsility towards victims, which I'd oppose. But to say "suggesting people wouldn't get raped if they did X" is not enough for victim blaming).

My main problem is with how the OP goes about it. I mean, advising someone to take precautions is usually OK. Saying they have to, they should or "it's their responsibility" is, as I said, another thing entirely.

Fair enough. I felt when you said

saying that some people who have been raped might not have been raped if they had carried weapons. That's victim blaming.

went past opposing victim blaming into denying reality.

It is possible to suggest ways to reduce rape without victim blaming. On an obvious level, advising people not to leave their drink unattended in a night club. They aren't doing anything blameworthy by leaving their drink unattended, but it increases the risk they're exposed to.

Pictures about "Advice to reduce rape: don't rape" are nice for internet debates and hopefully have a positive effect, but using them to shut down potential ways to make people safer from rape is skewing priorities way off.

If I have a daughter then I probably would encourage her to take a martial arts class (and certainly not leave her drink unattended). Parents who don't aren't worse parents, and it's not her fault if she is raped but to an extent it would reduce the risk, which is something.

The thing is, there's two schools of thought on this, and a line that can be crossed. One is the simple "good advice" to prevent crimes against you, generally. Don't carry your social security card in your wallet. Make sure you lock your doors at night. Leave some lights on if you're going to be gone a while. Have a friend pick up your mail so it's not piling up. Don't feen Mogli after midnight.

These are sort of the "good advice" ideas. A "here's a way to reduce your chances" sorta vibe. And I think a lot of people, perhaps innocently, but rather ignorantly, try to move this to the area of rape. Gee, don't dress too provocatively, don't wander alone after dark, don't flirt too much if you're not willing to go all the way.

And people have used the "good avice" arguments as a shield against obvious misoginy. A sort of "what, is it wrong to tell people to lock their doors if they don't want to get robbed? THAT'S JUST GOOD ADVICE" defense which is used to try and shield them from criticism when it's pointed out that their "advice" boils down to basically "if you don't want to be raped, try not being such a filthy whore all the time", and that their willingness to "provide advice" is just a smokescreen to backdoor moralize about, well, those filthy whores

So there's automatically a defensive position one is going to encounter whenever one tries to give "advice" about "preventing" rape, and couch it in terms of "what, I'm not victim blaming, I'm not putting the onus on you, I'm just saying, you know...good advice, like making sure your doors are locked at night". And anyone who really wants to give actual good advice about how to avoid being the victim of rape, is going to recognize they have to deal with that, there's an automatic, and well deserved, presumption against "just good advice here", ESPECIALLY when the question gets asked "gee, where's your advice on how to avoid robbery, or identity theft, or murder?" and anyone who seems to suddenly have a very vested interested in "telling women how to not get raped" is automatically having their motives suspect, and for pretty well established reasons.

Secondly, along those lines, far more often than not the advice is just BAD. As demonstrably pointed out, being armed would not actually do a thing against the vast majority of rapes, which are committed at home, by a loved one or family member, coercing, blackmailing, or manipulating sexual contact without consent. And a handgun would, AT BEST, prevent against violent rapes, by individuals who the victim would be willing to use lethal force against. And that is, in reality, a VERY small number of ACTUAL rapes, at least in the United States.

So when you come out the gate, very eager to provide advice to "prevent rapes" (and only rapes, it seems), and don't actually seem to know anything about rapes as they ACTUALLY happen in this country, yeah, one wonders, and I think, for good reason, what your motivation is.

But beyond that, ignoring that, even if your motivation is 100% pure, it's still shitty advice, deserving criticism. Why? Because first, you shoot your mouth off before learning. You decide that combating rape is, despite your claims, not even worth the effort to learn about how rape is actually committed, and then try to craft advice. You're so little concerned with it, that you can't even be bothered to learn if your advice HELPS at all.

Secondly, it's obscenely insulting to actual rape victims. Here's the thing. People know that handguns exist. This isn't a shock. People who don't own handguns don't, for a reason. They're legally not allowed, it's too expensive, or they just plain old don't like guns. But the existence of handguns is nothing new. It's nothing surprising. It's nothing shocking. We know guns exist. We choose not to own one. And coming down with this "you know what you should do if you don't want to be raped? Own a gun!" reeks of "hey little lady, did you know, there's this magical device that you just point at bad people to make them go away!" It's patronizing, patriarical, and more than a little insulting.

As for the victim blaming aspect, NtaP said it better than I. If you presume that the way to stop rape is the application of force, then it stands to reason that any rape that DID occur, could have been stopped with MORE FORCE, which means that anyone who got raped got raped because she didn't fight back hard enough.

Which is exactly victim blaming.

No, because you're skipping a step. Namely that a gun increases the amount of force someone would hypothetically be able to resist with. Which is the general argument of pro-gun people in terms of crime generally (and so general to not be patriarchal).

I am very much aware of the rape stats (iirc it's 10% that are the stereotypical stranger rapes, which is small).

I agree with a lot of your posts, that said I felt some of the definitions of victim blaming went too broad

[Fluffy Coyotes]

For what it's worth, my first point was deliberately less relevant. I often just like to start with a sidenote. Perhaps I've been watching too much Bill Maher lately.

I mean, seriously, "if you're REALLY a lawyer, why aren't you on Youtube?" What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?

Anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet. I could claim to be a government spy without anyone proving me wrong. I don't doubt that it's possible that you're a lawyer, but it's also possible that you aren't. I bring up that question purely out of curiosity as to what you'd say. I use this webforum partly as debate practice; I figure someone who's a lawyer has enough practice at it that they have less reason to hesitate on taking their debating to a much wider audience. YouTube was only an example.

In this context, though, since we're arguing about logic here, the careers of the individuals involved are of limited relevance anyway.

Believe it or not, but most normal people, having a reasonable education, are capable of understanding inferences, and drawing conclusions. It's a basic human skill, that just about anyone with a sliver of social awareness masters.

We have guesses, but not reliable certainties; at least not reliable enough to immediately dismiss offhand any distinctions people make instead of addressing them.

[Ovisterra]

went past opposing victim blaming into denying reality.

I phrased it kinda badly. My apologies.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Rape is forced sexual intercourse, regardless whether you're a man or woman... Therefore, if you can prevent someone from forcing someone do to something, lets say: committing suicide, then how much harder would it be to ensure that the would be victims wont get raped...

[Neo Art]

I figure someone who's a lawyer has enough practice at it that they have less reason to hesitate on taking their debating to a much wider audience.

This is why world class chefs will cook out on the street, accountants will wander the cities looking for people who need their taxes done, and doctors perform impromptu surgeries on those in need.

Why the fuck would you presume that "a lawyer" would seek out an audience to do, for free, what they're normally paid to do? Especially when such a presumption is completely nonsensical for literally every other profession.

We have guesses, but not reliable certainties;

I can not, in fact, be certain you're not a hyper intelligent ape.

Yet, if you don't mind, I'm going to keep on keeping on believing that you're not.

[Ifreann]

I'm sure that if one were to seclude one's self from all other humans, one would be very difficult to rape.

[Person012345]

In that thread, I suggested that women (let's be realistic, it is almost always women who are victimized)]

You just lost your credibility.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

Why the fuck would you presume that "a lawyer" would seek out an audience to do, for free, what they're normally paid to do?

You're doing this for free anyway. I'd have thought it'd sound more efficient to discuss it with a larger group.

Especially when such a presumption is completely nonsensical for literally every other profession.

Most professions don't require that level of specialization, though. (EDIT: And even within your analogy, many chefs and accountants have their own advertised websites relating to their professions, and there are TV shows where doctors discuss medical issues.)

I can not, in fact, be certain you're not a hyper intelligent ape.

Apes haven't been known to discuss things on webforums. At least not yet.

Yet, if you don't mind, I'm going to keep on keeping on believing that you're not.

Meh, for the purposes of this discussion, that too is irrelevant.

I'm sure that if one were to seclude one's self from all other humans, one would be very difficult to rape.

And even that wouldn't do much if one ended up in prison for some reason or another.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm sure that if one were to seclude one's self from all other humans, one would be very difficult to rape.

I rape myself daily.

[Khadgar]

I figure someone who's a lawyer has enough practice at it that they have less reason to hesitate on taking their debating to a much wider audience.

This is why world class chefs will cook out on the street, accountants will wander the cities looking for people who need their taxes done, and doctors perform impromptu surgeries on those in need.

Why the fuck would you presume that "a lawyer" would seek out an audience to do, for free, what they're normally paid to do? Especially when such a presumption is completely nonsensical for literally every other profession.

We have guesses, but not reliable certainties;

I can not, in fact, be certain you're not a hyper intelligent ape.

Yet, if you don't mind, I'm going to keep on keeping on believing that you're not.

Seeing as humans are hyper-intelligent apes, what are you believing he is?

[The Emerald Dawn]

[snip]
Having murder and manslaughter is necessary because you can't spell it without laughter there is a difference between the two. There is no difference between rape and sexual assault.

Except...There really is. Let me say this now, inappropriate touching and comments/suggestions that are lewd are a bad thing to do to someone who doesn't want them.

They aren't as bad as forcing yourself on that someone who doesn't want you, however, and should be treated as such. Because smacking an ass, as dickish and inappropriate as it is, isn't the same as pushing someone down and forcing them to have sex with you.

My contention was that calling certain types of rape "sexual assault" is a distinction without a point. The phrasing was wrong there, and I admit that. The entire string began with the fallacy of only phallus rape is "Rape".

[Maskrosor]

It isn't worth trying to reason with somebody that thinks that discussing rape prevention is "blaming the victim" or that "all men are potential rapists." The whole concept of "victim blaming" is itself ridiculous. If a woman leaves her house unlocked and somebody robs it while she's either sleeping or out of the house, is it "blaming the victim" to tell her that she should lock her house when she's away and when she's sleeping? If so, then "blaming the victim" is a good thing and we should do more of it.

No, because there's no end to it. What if the victim HAVE locked the door, what if the victim HAS a gun, and STILL get robbed? Well, she obviously didn't have a strong enough lock, a big enough gun, and so on. The problem is the perpetrator, not the victim.

The problem with alot of people is that they think of crimes committed by disturbed individuals as societal problems committed by one collective against another. There is no such thing as a collective. The only thing that actually exists is the individual. There is no "conspiracy" of men that is out to hold women down. The collective called "Men" do not rape the collective called "Women." Individual men (that are invariably disturbed individuals) rape individual women.

As for specific rape prevention tips, I don't think how a woman dresses has much impact on her risk of being raped (unless she's a reporter covering an Islamic fundamentalist revolution in a country like Egypt, in which case she should be careful about how she dresses). The best way for a woman to reduce her risk of being raped is to avoid back alleys and stay off of city streets in the middle of the night. If she has to go out in a dangerous area, then it makes sense to carry a weapon for protection. This is called "common sense," but apparently common sense is controversial with the ideologues.

Telling people to "not rape women" is simply insulting. Most men are not rapists and would never rape women. Rapists are a small minority of disturbed individuals. The whole concept of a "safe space" is also absurd, since what that means is that you can't debate the subject and that makes the very existence of such a topic pointless, but then again there are people who like thinking of themselves as helpless "victims" of society.

You DO know that most rapes are committed by husbands, boyfriends, dates, co-workers, relatives, acquaintances, i.e NOT drooling lunatics hiding in the shadows of dark alleys.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

No, because there's no end to it. What if the victim HAVE locked the door, what if the victim HAS a gun, and STILL get robbed? Well, she obviously didn't have a strong enough lock, a big enough gun, and so on. The problem is the perpetrator, not the victim.

The problem is primarily the perpetrator, but whether or not this constitutes "victim blaming" depends on how the advice is framed. Using something as a cautionary tale in safety is not the same thing as using it to absolve the perpetrator of blame. Like how you can suggest someone stay inside during a thunderstorm, even though that might not always be enough.

[Forsakia]

went past opposing victim blaming into denying reality.

I phrased it kinda badly. My apologies.

All's well that ends with tea.

[Maskrosor]

No, because there's no end to it. What if the victim HAVE locked the door, what if the victim HAS a gun, and STILL get robbed? Well, she obviously didn't have a strong enough lock, a big enough gun, and so on. The problem is the perpetrator, not the victim.

The problem is primarily the perpetrator, but whether or not this constitutes "victim blaming" depends on how the advice is framed. Using something as a cautionary tale in safety is not the same thing as using it to absolve the perpetrator of blame. Like how you can suggest someone stay inside during a thunderstorm, even though that might not always be enough.

So, should the bullied behave in some other way to not get bullied?

[Nailed to the Perch]

No, because there's no end to it. What if the victim HAVE locked the door, what if the victim HAS a gun, and STILL get robbed? Well, she obviously didn't have a strong enough lock, a big enough gun, and so on. The problem is the perpetrator, not the victim.

The problem is primarily the perpetrator, but whether or not this constitutes "victim blaming" depends on how the advice is framed.

No. As soon as you say "the problem is primarily the perpetrator," it necessarily follows that the problem is secondarily not the perpetrator, and when we're talking about two people, a perpetrator and a victim, that means you are blaming the victim.

Like how you can suggest someone stay inside during a thunderstorm, even though that might not always be enough.

Wow. Yes, that is definitely a great analogy to indicate that you are holding rapists accountable for their actions rather than blaming their victims, when you compare them to literal unstoppable forces of nature.

[The Merchant Republics]

That image implies that women are weak, hapless victims, and as a feminist, I find it offensive.

-Says the person who thinks all women should carry weapons

Your hypocrisy would be laughable if we were on a more light hearted topic. Instead, I'm closer to crying.

Women should carry weapons therefore they are weak, hapless people and prone to victimization? That's an odd sort of logic.

A woman with a gun is neither weak nor helpless, a woman without a gun may or may not be weak or helpless. Considering that in many cases of violent rape, the victim is necessarily weaker, ambushed or less capable than her assailant (else wise she would have been able to successfully resist). A gun increases the chance she will be stronger and more capable, in an equal sense to how a man carrying a gun may make himself stronger than an assailant.

The same advice would apply for a man against a potential rapist, but rape victimizes almost exclusively women.


How should we prevent rape aside from giving the victims weapons? Particularly if the majority of rapes are not violent ambushes but date and drug-induced rape?

Our culture currently looks the other way at this incredibly heinous crime when it is done under the pretense of a date or while both participants are intoxicated, not completely so, and certainly not as it used to be, but still a great many men would argue and too many judges and lawyers agree, that a date implies some sort of consent, that alcohol makes the issue of consent harder. This should change, men need to stop treating women like sexual objects.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The problem is primarily the perpetrator, but whether or not this constitutes "victim blaming" depends on how the advice is framed.

No. As soon as you say "the problem is primarily the perpetrator," it necessarily follows that the problem is secondarily not the perpetrator, and when we're talking about two people, a perpetrator and a victim, that means you are blaming the victim.

Like how you can suggest someone stay inside during a thunderstorm, even though that might not always be enough.

Wow. Yes, that is definitely a great analogy to indicate that you are holding rapists accountable for their actions rather than blaming their victims, when you compare them to literal unstoppable forces of nature.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a freaking hurricane when I rock people.

[The Merchant Republics]

The problem is primarily the perpetrator, but whether or not this constitutes "victim blaming" depends on how the advice is framed.

No. As soon as you say "the problem is primarily the perpetrator," it necessarily follows that the problem is secondarily not the perpetrator, and when we're talking about two people, a perpetrator and a victim, that means you are blaming the victim.

Like how you can suggest someone stay inside during a thunderstorm, even though that might not always be enough.

Wow. Yes, that is definitely a great analogy to indicate that you are holding rapists accountable for their actions rather than blaming their victims, when you compare them to literal unstoppable forces of nature.

It's not that rape is an unstoppable element, but I think occasionally people take too great offence at the idea that women should be prepared to protect themselves.

The Nazis for instance (I think comparing rapists to Nazi's is fair use of Godwin's law no?) are rightly to blamed wholly for all the crimes of the holocaust, it is abominable that any person should have ever done such a thing.

A person who suggests that women take cautious measures to prevent rape, would be akin to someone suggesting the Jews should have had a more organized resistance, or that they should have smuggled themselves out of the country while they had the chance. These things are true, in hind-sight if the Jews had not been deprived of their arms and been aware of the extant of the holocaust and escaped while they had the chance, far fewer would have died. Saying that however is not saying the Jews deserved the holocaust, or that the Nazi's are not fully to blame for it.

Suggesting that women be cautious and prepared in case they are attacked, is not implying that we shouldn't be attempting to stop the attacks or punishing the rapists to fullest extent in the first place, nor is it implying that women who fail to be cautious share any blame for being raped.

Until men are capable of treating women everywhere with respect and dignity, and while there remains predatory sexual deviants, we should nonetheless encourage caution. Women should be able to walk the streets without fear at night, but that isn't currently the case and a gun does a lot to help that effect.

We tell our children not to talk to strangers, not because we presume every stranger is a danger, but because it is prudent to do so. We tell men and women alike to avoid seedier areas at night, not because every person in the neighbourhood is a criminal, but because it is prudent to do so, so why should we not also encourage women to be prudent about the men she chooses to accompany, not because everyone one of them is a potential rapist, but because it is wise to avoid undue danger.

[Ashmoria]

-Says the person who thinks all women should carry weapons

Your hypocrisy would be laughable if we were on a more light hearted topic. Instead, I'm closer to crying.

Women should carry weapons therefore they are weak, hapless people and prone to victimization? That's an odd sort of logic.

A woman with a gun is neither weak nor helpless, a woman without a gun may or may not be weak or helpless. Considering that in many cases of violent rape, the victim is necessarily weaker, ambushed or less capable than her assailant (else wise she would have been able to successfully resist). A gun increases the chance she will be stronger and more capable, in an equal sense to how a man carrying a gun may make himself stronger than an assailant.

The same advice would apply for a man against a potential rapist, but rape victimizes almost exclusively women.


How should we prevent rape aside from giving the victims weapons? Particularly if the majority of rapes are not violent ambushes but date and drug-induced rape?

Our culture currently looks the other way at this incredibly heinous crime when it is done under the pretense of a date or while both participants are intoxicated, not completely so, and certainly not as it used to be, but still a great many men would argue and too many judges and lawyers agree, that a date implies some sort of consent, that alcohol makes the issue of consent harder. This should change, men need to stop treating women like sexual objects.

i just find it hard to imagine that a woman would shoot her boyfriend or her boyfriends roommate. especially if her gun was across the room in her purse. so few women keep their guns in their hands at all times.

[Maskrosor]

No. As soon as you say "the problem is primarily the perpetrator," it necessarily follows that the problem is secondarily not the perpetrator, and when we're talking about two people, a perpetrator and a victim, that means you are blaming the victim.



Wow. Yes, that is definitely a great analogy to indicate that you are holding rapists accountable for their actions rather than blaming their victims, when you compare them to literal unstoppable forces of nature.

It's not that rape is an unstoppable element, but I think occasionally people take too great offence at the idea that women should be prepared to protect themselves.

The Nazis for instance (I think comparing rapists to Nazi's is fair use of Godwin's law no?) are rightly to blamed wholly for all the crimes of the holocaust, it is abominable that any person should have ever done such a thing.

A person who suggests that women take cautious measures to prevent rape, would be akin to someone suggesting the Jews should have had a more organized resistance, or that they should have smuggled themselves out of the country while they had the chance. These things are true, in hind-sight if the Jews had not been deprived of their arms and been aware of the extant of the holocaust and escaped while they had the chance, far fewer would have died. Saying that however is not saying the Jews deserved the holocaust, or that the Nazi's are not fully to blame for it.

Suggesting that women be cautious and prepared in case they are attacked, is not implying that we shouldn't be attempting to stop the attacks or punishing the rapists to fullest extent in the first place, nor is it implying that women who fail to be cautious share any blame for being raped.

Until men are capable of treating women everywhere with respect and dignity, and while there remains predatory sexual deviants, we should nonetheless encourage caution. Women should be able to walk the streets without fear at night, but that isn't currently the case and a gun does a lot to help that effect.

We tell our children not to talk to strangers, not because we presume every stranger is a danger, but because it is prudent to do so. We tell men and women alike to avoid seedier areas at night, not because every person in the neighbourhood is a criminal, but because it is prudent to do so, so why should we not also encourage women to be prudent about the men she chooses to accompany, not because everyone one of them is a potential rapist, but because it is wise to avoid undue danger.

I repeat:
You DO know that most rapes are committed by husbands, boyfriends, dates, co-workers, relatives, acquaintances, i.e NOT drooling lunatics hiding in the shadows of dark alleys.