Rape prevention

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

Her boyfriend? Probably not, the best way to prevent that form of rape is ban people who think forcing sex on women is okay from every having a relationship.

Roommate? Eh, I could conceivably imagine a woman shooting someone like that. It crosses the line from where an established sexual relationship becomes violent, to a violent imposition of unwanted sex. Which obviously doesn't make the former any less a rape, it just seems less likely to be aggressively resisted, but being that I have never had sex forced on me by a lover, I'm hardly one to make such a distinction.

A gun, a taser or another similar weapon will not prevent all forms of rape, but it can prevent some. It's likely a woman wouldn't kill someone she knows in that situation, unless she is in fear for her life, but I'd hardly say she wouldn't be justified to do so. But for those who are raped by persons unknown to them, or by causal acquaintances, stalkers, date rapists, a weapon in her hands can save her life.

As for the others, the change has to be more nuanced. It needs to be a change in how men treat and respect women, and how we treat men who do not respect them.

[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.

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.

Then, you took steps to prevent it and still ended up a victim. There's nothing you could have done to prevent it. Just because you take steps to prevent yourself from being a crime victim doesn't mean you won't be a crime victim. It just means you are less likely to be a crime victim. If a crime happens, obviously the criminal is to blame, even if it happened because the victim did not follow common sense crime prevention methods. Its better to avoid being a victim in the first place (if you can) instead of being reckless and then wondering why you became a victim. The real world is not and will never be Utopia.

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.

Is this actually true or is it just something some ideologue made up and people just keep repeating? If so, that means that most women likely have the good sense to stay out of dark alleys and rape is something very rare that is basically a 1-in-a-million risk for most women, which it basically is so that might actually be true. There's not much that can be done to reduce the risk of being raped by somebody you know, other than using good judgment in choosing romantic partners. I'm assuming that the definition of rape being used here is actually rape and not the Swedish definition of rape (consensual sex a woman regrets after the fact, if the Assange case is any indication). Rape is a crime that is fortunately very rare, but whatever is possible should be done to make it more rare (provided that the costs of doing something don't outweigh the benefits and yes, there are always costs to any action in the real world). It would be possible to start convicting men of rape when it is more likely than not (instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but due process exists for a reason (protecting the innocent from being wrongly convicted) and needs to be upheld even if some criminals get away with their crimes (there's a reason why our justice system is based on the idea that it is better that 10 guilty men get away with it than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted). The problem with ideologues in general is that they consider any decent world unacceptable because it is not a Utopia (which can never exist and will never exist). Efforts to create Utopia invariably lead to Dystopia.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

Yes.

I also know most thefts occur while the home-owner is absent, most car-jackings while unoccupied, and most killers and kidnappers are associated with their victims.

That does not make preparing for those that do not, any less prudent.

Besides all that, I hardly see the separation, a woman has the very same right in my mind to shoot someone she knows if they try to rape her, as anyone else. She may be less apt to do so, she may be more likely to be caught off-guard, but why would we still not want her to be prepared if she can be?
Frankly, just working together is hardly a "familial" enough relationship for me to imagine that rape becomes any less abhorrent, and the quick end of the rapist any less deserved.

[Uawc]

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.

And why wouldn't open carry of a firearm still be effective in most cases? The intimidation factor would be a primary force in protecting the gun owner.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

Then, you took steps to prevent it and still ended up a victim. There's nothing you could have done to prevent it. Just because you take steps to prevent yourself from being a crime victim doesn't mean you won't be a crime victim. It just means you are less likely to be a crime victim. If a crime happens, obviously the criminal is to blame, even if it happened because the victim did not follow common sense crime prevention methods. Its better to avoid being a victim in the first place (if you can) instead of being reckless and then wondering why you became a victim. The real world is not and will never be Utopia.

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.

Is this actually true or is it just something some ideologue made up and people just keep repeating? If so, that means that most women likely have the good sense to stay out of dark alleys and rape is something very rare that is basically a 1-in-a-million risk for most women, which it basically is so that might actually be true. There's not much that can be done to reduce the risk of being raped by somebody you know, other than using good judgment in choosing romantic partners. I'm assuming that the definition of rape being used here is actually rape and not the Swedish definition of rape (consensual sex a woman regrets after the fact, if the Assange case is any indication). Rape is a crime that is fortunately very rare, but whatever is possible should be done to make it more rare (provided that the costs of doing something don't outweigh the benefits and yes, there are always costs to any action in the real world). It would be possible to start convicting men of rape when it is more likely than not (instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but due process exists for a reason (protecting the innocent from being wrongly convicted) and needs to be upheld even if some criminals get away with their crimes (there's a reason why our justice system is based on the idea that it is better that 10 guilty men get away with it than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted). The problem with ideologues in general is that they consider any decent world unacceptable because it is not a Utopia (which can never exist and will never exist). Efforts to create Utopia invariably lead to Dystopia.

Sadly, rape is not truly very rare.

If I recall the statistics for sexual assault hover around 1 in 3 women, and something around 1 in 10 women will be forced into sex without their consent (although actual rape charges and convictions are much rarer than that.)

[Wikkiwallana]

Smith & Wessen model 500. That'll stop a rape.

Reading the thread. That'll stop an ignorant post.

[Vareiln]

I have zero sympathy for any rapist who is maimed or killed in the process of committing rape.

That said, potential victims do not have an obligation to carry weapons, train in self-defense, avoid certain areas, especially not dress a certain way, because rape is always a choice, and rapists always make a conscious choice to harm someone and impose their will on someone.

If certain "prevention" measure would improve the quality of lives of those who have endured rape or are worried they will be raped by making them feel more secure, then they have a right to pursue those. But that should not be the status quo - rapists should stop committing rape. A society where potential victims need to be constantly vigilant and prepared for rapists is a sick society.

Pretty much this.

[Person012345]

Roommate? Eh, I could conceivably imagine a woman shooting someone like that.

That's because you're an internet tough guy. Go and kill a person in that sort of situation, then come back and advocate that women should have to do that in order that they not-get-raped.

The entire notion that ordinary women (or men) should have to shoot other people just to feel safe is disgusting.

[Nailed to the Perch]

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.

Is this actually true or is it just something some ideologue made up and people just keep repeating?

It is actually true. It is also very well-established, and very, very easy to find this information using a little thing called "Google." Maybe - and I know this is a radical idea - before spouting off about rape, you could read anything at all about rape!

If so, that means that most women likely have the good sense to stay out of dark alleys and rape is something very rare that is basically a 1-in-a-million risk for most women, which it basically is so that might actually be true.

What? No. Try more like 1 in 6. Are you somehow under the impression that only one in a million women has acquaintances? Because that's the only way I can fathom how you got from "most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim" to "rape is a one-in-a-million risk."

There's not much that can be done to reduce the risk of being raped by somebody you know, other than using good judgment in choosing romantic partners. I'm assuming that the definition of rape being used here is actually rape and not the Swedish definition of rape (consensual sex a woman regrets after the fact, if the Assange case is any indication).

I suppose it should come as no surprise that in between having opinions on rape prevention despite apparently never having done even the slightest bit of research on the subject, you also find the time to have opinions on the Assange case despite apparently never having done the slightest bit of research on it.

[Saintland]

Then, you took steps to prevent it and still ended up a victim. There's nothing you could have done to prevent it. Just because you take steps to prevent yourself from being a crime victim doesn't mean you won't be a crime victim. It just means you are less likely to be a crime victim. If a crime happens, obviously the criminal is to blame, even if it happened because the victim did not follow common sense crime prevention methods. Its better to avoid being a victim in the first place (if you can) instead of being reckless and then wondering why you became a victim. The real world is not and will never be Utopia.



Is this actually true or is it just something some ideologue made up and people just keep repeating? If so, that means that most women likely have the good sense to stay out of dark alleys and rape is something very rare that is basically a 1-in-a-million risk for most women, which it basically is so that might actually be true. There's not much that can be done to reduce the risk of being raped by somebody you know, other than using good judgment in choosing romantic partners. I'm assuming that the definition of rape being used here is actually rape and not the Swedish definition of rape (consensual sex a woman regrets after the fact, if the Assange case is any indication). Rape is a crime that is fortunately very rare, but whatever is possible should be done to make it more rare (provided that the costs of doing something don't outweigh the benefits and yes, there are always costs to any action in the real world). It would be possible to start convicting men of rape when it is more likely than not (instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but due process exists for a reason (protecting the innocent from being wrongly convicted) and needs to be upheld even if some criminals get away with their crimes (there's a reason why our justice system is based on the idea that it is better that 10 guilty men get away with it than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted). The problem with ideologues in general is that they consider any decent world unacceptable because it is not a Utopia (which can never exist and will never exist). Efforts to create Utopia invariably lead to Dystopia.

Sadly, rape is not truly very rare.

If I recall the statistics for sexual assault hover around 1 in 3 women, and something around 1 in 10 women will be forced into sex without their consent (although actual rape charges and convictions are much rarer than that.)

I'd say the rate of charges and convictions is probably much closer to the actual rate of rapes. Given the absurdly broad definitions of rape and sexual assault that some people use, asking people if they've been sexually assaulted or raped isn't going to produce accurate results. If the justice system decides not to press charges, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and say the alleged crime probably didn't happen. Presumably, they prosecute the cases most likely to result in a conviction and yet there are many cases that still result in acquittals.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Sadly, rape is not truly very rare.

If I recall the statistics for sexual assault hover around 1 in 3 women, and something around 1 in 10 women will be forced into sex without their consent (although actual rape charges and convictions are much rarer than that.)

I'd say the rate of charges and convictions is probably much closer to the actual rate of rapes. Given the absurdly broad definitions of rape and sexual assault that some people use, asking people if they've been sexually assaulted or raped isn't going to produce accurate results. If the justice system decides not to press charges, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and say the alleged crime probably didn't happen. Presumably, they prosecute the cases most likely to result in a conviction and yet there are many cases that still result in acquittals.

Hmmm....

Yeah, no. You're still wrong.

[Person012345]

I'd say the rate of charges and convictions is probably much closer to the actual rate of rapes. Given the absurdly broad definitions of rape and sexual assault that some people use, asking people if they've been sexually assaulted or raped isn't going to produce accurate results. If the justice system decides not to press charges, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and say the alleged crime probably didn't happen. Presumably, they prosecute the cases most likely to result in a conviction and yet there are many cases that still result in acquittals.

And I'd say you're talking a load of crap.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Only 3.6% of rapes in the US occur outside. You are wrong, and your whole post is nothing but assumptions and misogyny.

[The Merchant Republics]

Roommate? Eh, I could conceivably imagine a woman shooting someone like that.

That's because you're an internet tough guy. Go out and kill a person in that sort of situation, then come back and advocate that women should have to do that in order that they not-get-raped.

The entire notion that ordinary women (or men) should have to shoot other people just to feel safe is disgusting.

I'm not happy that you took this quote out of context. In context, this statement was a part of much larger one indicating how it is absolutely understandable that they would be less inclined to do so.

The entire notion that implying a woman should be able to defend herself from rape means anything else than a woman should be able to defend herself from rape, is frankly horrifyingly stupid.

So how about we stop making ugly presumptions of each other, okay?

I mean, gorram it, what kind of insane troll logic is this, "it's so disgusting that we need to shoot people to defend ourselves" therefore we shouldn't let people shoot other people to defend themselves? For goodness sakes, if you need to defend yourself you ought to do it with the most effective form of self-defence.

If you're saying: "Isn't it awful that sometimes all that stands between a woman and being raped is the barrel of a gun" yes, that's disgusting, I'd quite like it if no one were ever to be raped again. I'd like it if no one ever fired at gun at any other person, nor raised a fist, a knife or club to their fellow man. Wouldn't that be lovely?

However, this insane abuse of logic continually casts people who are advocating women have the means to defend themselves, as imply rape should be a game of "who grabs the pistol first?" is not only intellectually vapid, unfair and wilfully ignorant, it's just plain rude.

I'm sickened by it, I'm disgusted by it. I want to help women, I want to make sure rape doesn't happen ever again, do you? If you did, you should damn well support giving women the ability to defend themselves in addition to addressing the societal causes.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Want to bet? I'm an ape, and my post count proves I discuss things here quite often.

[Ashmoria]

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.

Her boyfriend? Probably not, the best way to prevent that form of rape is ban people who think forcing sex on women is okay from every having a relationship.

Roommate? Eh, I could conceivably imagine a woman shooting someone like that. It crosses the line from where an established sexual relationship becomes violent, to a violent imposition of unwanted sex. Which obviously doesn't make the former any less a rape, it just seems less likely to be aggressively resisted, but being that I have never had sex forced on me by a lover, I'm hardly one to make such a distinction.

A gun, a taser or another similar weapon will not prevent all forms of rape, but it can prevent some. It's likely a woman wouldn't kill someone she knows in that situation, unless she is in fear for her life, but I'd hardly say she wouldn't be justified to do so. But for those who are raped by persons unknown to them, or by causal acquaintances, stalkers, date rapists, a weapon in her hands can save her life.

As for the others, the change has to be more nuanced. It needs to be a change in how men treat and respect women, and how we treat men who do not respect them.

guns are useless for most women facing rape. it would require having your gun at the ready absolutely all the time because she isnt going to be expecting a man that she knows to attack her--if she did she wouldnt go near him.

some women DO keep a gun. real estate agents keep guns in their purses and are ready to use them. women who leave work alone and have to walk alone across a dark parking lot. etc. these women are at extra risk from stranger attack so they take precautions.

those guns do not protect these women from being raped by the next door neighbor who she invited into her home. she isnt going to have her hand on her gun as she reaches into the fridge to get him a beer.

[The Merchant Republics]

I have zero sympathy for any rapist who is maimed or killed in the process of committing rape.

That said, potential victims do not have an obligation to carry weapons, train in self-defense, avoid certain areas, especially not dress a certain way, because rape is always a choice, and rapists always make a conscious choice to harm someone and impose their will on someone.

If certain "prevention" measure would improve the quality of lives of those who have endured rape or are worried they will be raped by making them feel more secure, then they have a right to pursue those. But that should not be the status quo - rapists should stop committing rape. A society where potential victims need to be constantly vigilant and prepared for rapists is a sick society.

Pretty much this.

Exactly my point.

Something clearly is very wrong with our society, all the same, I see no reason why we shouldn't in light of that fact encourage people to be prepared.

People should be free to do what makes them feel safe, while others help to end the underlying dangers it will only contribute to the cause of making our society safer.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Except the two don't exist in a vacuum; there's always society. And society quite often is to blame, for encouraging various anti-social behaviors; failing to address causes of criminal behavior such as poverty, marginalization, and the stigmatization of seeking therapy for mental and emotional problems; insufficiently protecting the victim before the crime and not supporting them after it. Not assigning all blame to the perpetrator does not require blaming the victim, even though sadly it often happens that way.

[Maskrosor]

Then, you took steps to prevent it and still ended up a victim. There's nothing you could have done to prevent it. Just because you take steps to prevent yourself from being a crime victim doesn't mean you won't be a crime victim. It just means you are less likely to be a crime victim. If a crime happens, obviously the criminal is to blame, even if it happened because the victim did not follow common sense crime prevention methods. Its better to avoid being a victim in the first place (if you can) instead of being reckless and then wondering why you became a victim. The real world is not and will never be Utopia.

Define 'being reckless'. And are the definitions same for men? I believe that women should be able to do the same thing as men in public, and that's not Utopia, that's common sense.

Is this actually true or is it just something some ideologue made up and people just keep repeating?

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/st ... -offenders
One of many links. I've heard higher numbers, but still, not many dark ally loonies.

If so, that means that most women likely have the good sense to stay out of dark alleys and rape is something very rare that is basically a 1-in-a-million risk for most women, which it basically is so that might actually be true. There's not much that can be done to reduce the risk of being raped by somebody you know, other than using good judgment in choosing romantic partners. I'm assuming that the definition of rape being used here is actually rape and not the Swedish definition of rape (consensual sex a woman regrets after the fact, if the Assange case is any indication).

I live in Sweden, and no, the Assange case (which you don't seem to know much about) is not an indication. I think 99.99% of similar cases would have been dismissed.

Rape is a crime that is fortunately very rare, but whatever is possible should be done to make it more rare (provided that the costs of doing something don't outweigh the benefits and yes, there are always costs to any action in the real world).
It would be possible to start convicting men of rape when it is more likely than not (instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but due process exists for a reason (protecting the innocent from being wrongly convicted) and needs to be upheld even if some criminals get away with their crimes (there's a reason why our justice system is based on the idea that it is better that 10 guilty men get away with it than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted). The problem with ideologues in general is that they consider any decent world unacceptable because it is not a Utopia (which can never exist and will never exist). Efforts to create Utopia invariably lead to Dystopia.

I'm not utopian, and I don't have any plans to change the legal system, but due process do also mean that many raped women don't get justice. Just something to think about.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

What gets me is that he admits that ambushes happen and work, yet somehow still thinks guns would help.

[The Merchant Republics]

Her boyfriend? Probably not, the best way to prevent that form of rape is ban people who think forcing sex on women is okay from every having a relationship.

Roommate? Eh, I could conceivably imagine a woman shooting someone like that. It crosses the line from where an established sexual relationship becomes violent, to a violent imposition of unwanted sex. Which obviously doesn't make the former any less a rape, it just seems less likely to be aggressively resisted, but being that I have never had sex forced on me by a lover, I'm hardly one to make such a distinction.

A gun, a taser or another similar weapon will not prevent all forms of rape, but it can prevent some. It's likely a woman wouldn't kill someone she knows in that situation, unless she is in fear for her life, but I'd hardly say she wouldn't be justified to do so. But for those who are raped by persons unknown to them, or by causal acquaintances, stalkers, date rapists, a weapon in her hands can save her life.

As for the others, the change has to be more nuanced. It needs to be a change in how men treat and respect women, and how we treat men who do not respect them.

guns are useless for most women facing rape. it would require having your gun at the ready absolutely all the time because she isnt going to be expecting a man that she knows to attack her--if she did she wouldnt go near him.

some women DO keep a gun. real estate agents keep guns in their purses and are ready to use them. women who leave work alone and have to walk alone across a dark parking lot. etc. these women are at extra risk from stranger attack so they take precautions.

those guns do not protect these women from being raped by the next door neighbor who she invited into her home. she isnt going to have her hand on her gun as she reaches into the fridge to get him a beer.

Yes.

I'm agreeing with you.

Well, not necessarily. Depending on the circumstances, like in the home the presence of a gun can still give her an edge, even if it isn't on her person at the time.

Still, I agree that a great many rapes will not be prevented by women having greater ownership of firearms, for these we must seek more complex solutions, we have to change how the law deals with men who victimize women, and how our society views them, we have to eliminate the notion that drunkeness, revealing clothing or anything else is an invitation to sex, only an invitation to sex should be treated as an invitation to sex, that being in a relationship does not confer you any right to sex with your partner and that you have no right to force your will on any other person. Anything less and we will still have rape.

[Person012345]

That's because you're an internet tough guy. Go out and kill a person in that sort of situation, then come back and advocate that women should have to do that in order that they not-get-raped.

The entire notion that ordinary women (or men) should have to shoot other people just to feel safe is disgusting.

I'm not happy that you took this quote out of context. In context, this statement was a part of much larger one indicating how it is absolutely understandable that they would be less inclined to do so.

The entire notion that implying a woman should be able to defend herself from rape means anything else than a woman should be able to defend herself from rape, is frankly horrifyingly stupid.

So how about we stop making ugly presumptions of each other, okay?

I mean, gorram it, what kind of insane troll logic is this, "it's so disgusting that we need to shoot people to defend ourselves" therefore we shouldn't let people shoot other people to defend themselves? For goodness sakes, if you need to defend yourself you ought to do it with the most effective form of self-defence.

If you're saying: "Isn't it awful that sometimes all that stands between a woman and being raped is the barrel of a gun" yes, that's disgusting, I'd quite like it if no one were ever to be raped again. I'd like it if no one ever fired at gun at any other person, nor raised a fist, a knife or club to their fellow man. Wouldn't that be lovely?

However, this insane abuse of logic continually casts people who are advocating women have the means to defend themselves, as imply rape should be a game of "who grabs the pistol first?" is not only intellectually vapid, unfair and wilfully ignorant, it's just plain rude.

I'm sickened by it, I'm disgusted by it. I want to help women, I want to make sure rape doesn't happen ever again, do you? If you did, you should damn well support giving women the ability to defend themselves in addition to addressing the societal causes.

No, you miss the point. By suggesting that women should so this, that they should protect themselves from rape, this takes the heat off of everyone else doing things to combat the rape culture. I mean, why bother when women have guns and can just shoot the offender. It's not even worth talking about it. It goes without saying that if a woman has a gun, she can kill a rapist. Well done, are women too stupid that they can't figure this out for themselves? Well thanks for telling them. By talking about it like you are, you're implying that they have some responsibility to do so if they don't want to be raped. Lets not talk about how women can defend themselves if they have the tools because that's fucking obvious. Rather, lets talk about ways that rape can be reduced outside of forcing every day people to take the law, and other people's lives, into their own hands.

Telling women to buy a gun is not helpful.

Edit: Note this isn't aimed at you specifically, I apologise if you aren't arguing that women should defend themselves etc.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

And why wouldn't open carry of a firearm still be effective in most cases? The intimidation factor would be a primary force in protecting the gun owner.

Do you carry your gun in a holster at your waist while inside your own house?

[Individuality-ness]

Preventing rape?

You teach people about what consent is.

You tell them to always ask before initiating ANY sexual activity. To not initiate sexual activity if the person's unconscious, seriously drunk, or otherwise unable to give consent. That "no" means no, but silence does not equate to "yes". Teach them that it's only okay if that person says "yes, I want it" on their own free, conscious will - that a "yes" answer when he or she is under coercion, blackmail, bribery, and the like is not consent but rape. That it's attractive, even more so, when you KNOW that the other person wants it.

You teach them that sex without consent is not okay and never will be.

You ask your friends who are bragging about banging that hot chick the night before whether she said "yes". You show disapproval, not respect, if your friend admits to having sex with someone who was unable to give consent.

You teach them to not make it seem like it's the victim's fault.

You don't shame someone or call them a liar, a slut, a whore, a pussy, that that person was asking for it, if someone says "I was raped, I was sexually assaulted". That one's first words to hearing that something like that happened to someone is "I'm sorry, what can I do to help?", not "You shouldn't have worn that, you should have fought back harder, you should have kept an eye on your drink, you shouldn't have gone out with that person, ...".

You teach them that rape is not something to hide under the bed, under the covers, but to be brought out to the open, in order to discuss, to open communication, and to teach people that victims will not be shamed for being sexually assaulted or raped.

You teach rapists that what they're doing is NOT okay, and that you will not tolerate it in any way, shape, or form.

You can't prevent all rape, but at least make people aware that it's not okay. Teach them that consent is required and what it means, and one will go far.

And if it happens, you don't shame them or tell the victims that they should have done x, but accept that it happened to them and ask them what you can do to help them now.

[/thread]

[Ashmoria]

guns are useless for most women facing rape. it would require having your gun at the ready absolutely all the time because she isnt going to be expecting a man that she knows to attack her--if she did she wouldnt go near him.

some women DO keep a gun. real estate agents keep guns in their purses and are ready to use them. women who leave work alone and have to walk alone across a dark parking lot. etc. these women are at extra risk from stranger attack so they take precautions.

those guns do not protect these women from being raped by the next door neighbor who she invited into her home. she isnt going to have her hand on her gun as she reaches into the fridge to get him a beer.

Yes.

I'm agreeing with you.

Well, not necessarily. Depending on the circumstances, like in the home the presence of a gun can still give her an edge, even if it isn't on her person at the time.

Still, I agree that a great many rapes will not be prevented by women having greater ownership of firearms, for these we must seek more complex solutions, we have to change how the law deals with men who victimize women, and how our society views them, we have to eliminate the notion that drunkeness, revealing clothing or anything else is an invitation to sex, only an invitation to sex should be treated as an invitation to sex, that being in a relationship does not confer you any right to sex with your partner and that you have no right to force your will on any other person. Anything less and we will still have rape.

ok but having a gun is not a no-danger solution. having a gun in the house means that someone can get shot accidentally, that the kids can find the gun and shoot it. that your partner can shoot you in anger, that you can try to defend yourself against rape and end up shot to death.

getting a gun is not good advice for many many women. those who might benefit from a gun already have one.