Rape prevention

[Ovisterra]

Maybe we should learn to defend ourselves, whilest slowly moving our culture away from one that worships violence? The point is that learning to defend yourself will only go so far. One man or woman cannot hold off six men/women no matter how well trained they have been. It just doesn't happen.

First of all, our culture doesn't worship violence, it is in fact far less violent than the culture even a century ago.

Less violent doesn't mean not violent.

[Seperates]

Maybe we should learn to defend ourselves, whilest slowly moving our culture away from one that worships violence? The point is that learning to defend yourself will only go so far. One man or woman cannot hold off six men/women no matter how well trained they have been. It just doesn't happen.

First of all, our culture doesn't worship violence, it is in fact far less violent than the culture even a century ago.
Second of all, nobody said knowing self-defense is something guaranteed to get you out of every situation, that'd be a bald faced lie. It is merely helpful in a subset of them.

N

First of all, I must clarify that I am specifically addressing the United States.
Oh really? You mean the massacres that have happened recently have nothing to do with our country's obsession with the lone herioc gunman? Nor the fact that one in three women are likely to be raped due to the nature that we treat rape? You are really going to argue with the Anthropology major about his own country's culture... Whatever, it's your call.

Our culture a century ago just didn't acknowledge that it happened. They didn't joke about it. They didn't talk about it. While that doesn't mean it didn't happen, that also means that there weren't people who merely accepted it as the status quo merely because it wasn't directly in front of them. We make jokes out of unwanted penetration. That is sick.

That is what I am saying. Self defense is only helpful is a very small subset of cases. It doesn't help when it's a person you know and are supposed to trust (because you subconciously don't want to hurt them, as stupid as it sounds), it doesn't help in gang rape, and it doesn't help if you are drugged and raped.

[Harkonna]

Well, if that's the best you can do...

Have you ever been raped?

You're dismissing what I've said, and demanding/requesting to know whether I have been raped? Wow, you really are a prime example of a blase, generic feminist.

Do you have anything up your sleeve that isn't designed around dismissing the contentions of other people, and marginalizing them? Of course not, because your position is untenable nonsense, and you can only maintain your precarious cognitive dissonance in exactly that manner which you condemn.

So, instead of dismissal, how about you address the points?

Also, whether or not I have been raped is irrelevant to any sort of open discussion of the realities of the society in which we live. As such, I refuse to comment. Try again.

[Ovisterra]

Well, if that's the best you can do...

Have you ever been raped?

You're dismissing what I've said

Like you didn't do the same to them in the previous post.

Not that it makes being dismissive OK or clever, but you can hardly call them out on it.

[Seperates]

Well, if that's the best you can do...

Have you ever been raped?

You're dismissing what I've said, and demanding/requesting to know whether I have been raped? Wow, you really are a prime example of a blase, generic feminist.

Do you have anything up your sleeve that isn't designed around dismissing the contentions of other people, and marginalizing them? Of course not, because your position is untenable nonsense, and you can only maintain your precarious cognitive dissonance in exactly that manner which you condemn.

So, instead of dismissal, how about you address the points?

Also, whether or not I have been raped is irrelevant to any sort of open discussion of the realities of the society in which we live. As such, I refuse to comment. Try again.

What contentions of other people? What is so fucking difficult about "Do not fuck something that has not given it's full and sobered consent to the fucking?"

This is very simple.

[Harkonna]

Like you didn't do the same to them in the previous post.

Not that it makes being dismissive OK or clever, but you can hardly call them out on it.

This was their last post.

So basically what we have here is someone who has never been in a situation where he/she has been raped, telling people who have that they should have defended themselves better, with some misogyny thrown in for good measure?

Get real, indeed.

>contended that x I have never been raped
>declared that I am stating that all persons who have been raped should have defended themselves better
>insinuated that I am a a misogynist

I then stated mockingly;

Aw, that's adorable. You just love to throw your delicious feminist party lines out to demonize other people, don't you.
What I said, was that in order to reduce rapes and other unfortunate events that occur, everyone must be able to defend themselves. Male, female, whatever! I don't care which. If you are not capable of defending yourself mentally and physically, you run a greater risk of being raped, murdered, or otherwise exploited.

>that they were adorable
>that they were merely repeating party lines I've heard countless times before
>that they were throwing out buzz words like misogyny, and victim blaming in order to demonize others
>I then further clarified my position, after which he completely ignored the clarification

[Harkonna]

What contentions of other people? What is so fucking difficult about "Do not fuck something that has not given it's full and sobered consent to the fucking?"

This is very simple.

Are you implying that I intend to rape others in some snide way? I don't take kindly to that, should that have been your intention. I have a great deal of respect for the bodily sovereignty of others.

I think, you might have misread the post, and conflated 'contentions of others' to be having to do with rape. I was referring to his dismissal of what others (primarily myself) were saying in regards to self defense on the basis that they (presumably) have not been raped.

Here's hoping that clarifies any misunderstandings we might be having.

[Falcania]

Also, whether or not I have been raped is irrelevant to any sort of open discussion of the realities of the society in which we live. As such, I refuse to comment. Try again.

It's not completely irrelevant, because right now, you are demonstrating a fairly profound misunderstanding of the realities of the way rape works.

You are right - "all humans have agency and will of their own".

Yet, what you say we need to do is make people use that agency to defend themselves, and shouldn't rely on others to defend them. But rape is not usually an issue of defence because violence in rape is not a usual component, which is something that you are failing to understand. Hence people questioning whether or not you have been raped. It's perhaps not a hugely compelling line of argument against you, I agree, but neither is it wholly irrelevant.

I would argue that, seeing as "all humans have agency and will of their own", every rapist (being, as they are, human) is using their agency and their will to rape someone. That is the half of this we should be addressing. If it's raining outside, you should protect yourself by putting on a coat, because you cannot say to the cloud, "do not rain". If a person goes around shooting people in the head, we shouldn't say "welp, should have been wearing helmets", because 100% of our resources should be spent on making sure that person stops shooting people in the head, and then stopping other people going around shooting people in the head, and then changing our world so it's not a world where people shoot other people in the head.

[Dazchan]

Well, if that's the best you can do...

Have you ever been raped?

You're dismissing what I've said, and demanding/requesting to know whether I have been raped? Wow, you really are a prime example of a blase, generic feminist.

Your ad homs really are tiresome.

Do you have anything up your sleeve that isn't designed around dismissing the contentions of other people, and marginalizing them? Of course not, because your position is untenable nonsense, and you can only maintain your precarious cognitive dissonance in exactly that manner which you condemn.

Alternatively, I asked a perfectly simple question, to determine your experience in the subject at hand in order to give your opinions an appropriate amount of weighting. Of course, you choose to act all aggressive and dismiss me as a feminist instead of answering my question.

So, instead of dismissal, how about you address the points?

Very well, then.

In March 2004 I narrowly avoided being raped. I had been clubbing in Oxford St with a friend, who I was sharing a hotel with for the nit as we were both out of town. He spiked my drink. The reason I avoided being raped that night was because, by chance, I met someone, who took me out of the club when I started feeling disoriented. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if not for circumstance, I would have been raped. The post I responded to originally stated quite clearly that people need to defend themselves against rape. How, when I was drugged, confused and weak as a kitten, do you suggest I would have defended myself?

Also, whether or not I have been raped is irrelevant to any sort of open discussion of the realities of the society in which we live. As such, I refuse to comment. Try again.

So that's a "no", then?

[Harkonna]

It's not completely irrelevant, because right now, you are demonstrating a fairly profound misunderstanding of the realities of the way rape works.

You are right - "all humans have agency and will of their own".

Yet, what you say we need to do is make people use that agency to defend themselves, and shouldn't rely on others to defend them. But rape is not usually an issue of defence because violence in rape is not a usual component, which is something that you are failing to understand. Hence people questioning whether or not you have been raped. It's perhaps not a hugely compelling line of argument against you, I agree, but neither is it wholly irrelevant.

I would argue that, seeing as "all humans have agency and will of their own", every rapist (being, as they are, human) is using their agency and their will to rape someone. That is the half of this we should be addressing. If it's raining outside, you should protect yourself by putting on a coat, because you cannot say to the cloud, "do not rain". If a person goes around shooting people in the head, we shouldn't say "welp, should have been wearing helmets", because 100% of our resources should be spent on making sure that person stops shooting people in the head, and then stopping other people going around shooting people in the head, and then changing our world so it's not a world where people shoot other people in the head.

I'll just do this little note thing here, to see if I can give you an idea of how I'm perceiving your argument.

> you first state that I am expressing a profound failure to realize how rape works (what kind of rape? violent, or circumventory, ie, drugs)
>you then state that defense is irrelevant, as rape (most rape?) is generally through more coercive means. You then state that this is why questions of 'have you ever been raped' come up. Instead of demanding 'have you even been raped,' wouldn't it be more appropriate to state the aforementioned information? 'Have you ever been raped' implies that anyone who hasn't been raped has a meaningless opinion. It is akin to saying 'you can't have an opinion on gun laws, you're not a gun owner/you've never been shot,' etc.
>you then mention that we should focus entirely on the half of rape which is the agency of the aggressor, being used to neuter the agency of the victim.
>you mention the following; If it's raining outside, you should protect yourself by putting on a coat, because you cannot say to the cloud, "do not rain",
>and then conflate it with; If a person goes around shooting people in the head, we shouldn't say "welp, should have been wearing helmets" in an attempt to make the idea of taking precautions on the part of the potential victim seem absurd. This is a particularly dishonest tactic.
>You state that 100% of our resources, in the case of one shooting others in the head, should be focused on making sure that people are not able to/stopping others from shooting others in the head. This is another dishonest tactic on your part, as there are multiple forms of 'stopping' people from shooting innocent people in the head. (Such as), making people aware of the dangers that they potentially face, and advising people to carry firearms with which to defend themselves. Or, requiring firearms training, or mental health checks for people purchasing firearms. Or, imposing legislation which deters gun violence by imposing stringent penalties on murderers, etc.

To be honest, I do think that we should be working towards a world in which people don't rape each other, nor go around shooting people in the head. In the meantime, however, we can reduce the risks we face in the day to day by learning to defend ourselves against being murdered, raped, and shot in the head. To fail to take steps to ensure your own safety, does put you at risk- and although any harm that befalls you is completely wrong and indeed, not your fault, you should still be aware of the level of risk you run.

[Harkonna]

Your ad homs really are tiresome.

Alternatively, I asked a perfectly simple question, to determine your experience in the subject at hand in order to give your opinions an appropriate amount of weighting. Of course, you choose to act all aggressive and dismiss me as a feminist instead of answering my question.

Very well, then.

In March 2004 I narrowly avoided being raped. I had been clubbing in Oxford St with a friend, who I was sharing a hotel with for the nit as we were both out of town. He spiked my drink. The reason I avoided being raped that night was because, by chance, I met someone, who took me out of the club when I started feeling disoriented. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if not for circumstance, I would have been raped. The post I responded to originally stated quite clearly that people need to defend themselves against rape. How, when I was drugged, confused and weak as a kitten, do you suggest I would have defended myself?


So that's a "no", then?

That'd be a "I refuse to answer, as it is both none of your business, and irrelevant to the conversation," Dazchan.

As for your experience, it's unfortunate that you suffered such a breach of trust such as that. No one should have to suffer such a grievous breach of their own rights, at the hands of someone you're supposed to trust. I know how that feels. Obviously, I have no way of confirming your story, nor how incapacitated you were, but I will take your account at face value.

In that event self defense would have been meaningless. Quick wits (or whatever was left of them), and access to a phone, however, would have been ideal. A quick 911 call, or having other friends with you (perhaps someone you trusted more, or a family member) might have helped.

Admittedly, there are some circumstances in which there simply is nothing that can be done. It's a risk everyone runs regardless of who they are, or how slight. The best thing you can do is learn from it and move on, and try to make sure it doesn't happen to others.

As an afternote;

>You state that the post you first responded to stated that "The post I responded to originally stated quite clearly that people need to defend themselves against rape."
>The rape you experienced isn't the type that can be defended against in a physical manner, but rather one that must be guarded against through contingency. Of course, any contingency can be broken through, or fail to be enacted properly, so, obviously this is one that is much more difficult to dissuade, especially when it comes to people you trust.
>The type of rape that I was referring to involved violent rape, not raping via drugs, and similar. Perhaps you should have asked for a clarification, or I should have been more specific.

[Gravlen]

Who or what is the "average rapist"?

I found the profile:

http://budokan.wcart.net/WomenSelfDefen ... rofile.htm

So since the rapist profile you found doesn't fit with the idea that they necessarily expect a female to be an easy target... Now what?

[Freiheit Reich]

I found the profile:

http://budokan.wcart.net/WomenSelfDefen ... rofile.htm

So since the rapist profile you found doesn't fit with the idea that they necessarily expect a female to be an easy target... Now what?

The rapist is stronger than expected, I was surprised. OK maybe he expects her to fight. However, self-defense can't hurt. Actually I learned in school a woman should fight. Scratching the man can get valuable DNA evidence which can help catch the man. Fighting and getting raped beats not fighting and getting raped. Also, giving the man some pain may make him reconsider raping again (except for the sadists in the profile mentioned-they will always rape-even in prison).

If self defense gives her a 20% better chance to escaping than why not teach her self-defense. Good not just for rape prevention but also theft.

[ThirdPrizeYoureFired]

So since the rapist profile you found doesn't fit with the idea that they necessarily expect a female to be an easy target... Now what?

The rapist is stronger than expected, I was surprised. OK maybe he expects her to fight. However, self-defense can't hurt. Actually I learned in school a woman should fight. Scratching the man can get valuable DNA evidence which can help catch the man. Fighting and getting raped beats not fighting and getting raped. Also, giving the man some pain may make him reconsider raping again (except for the sadists in the profile mentioned-they will always rape-even in prison).

If self defense gives her a 20% better chance to escaping than why not teach her self-defense. Good not just for rape prevention but also theft.

You know, up until a year ago, I would have agreed. However, six months before my rape happened I ended up dangerously close to a stranger rape scenario. I was leaving a club and a guy followed me out and pinned me up against a van. Up until that point I always figured I could fight back, I know self defense and I know to be aware of my surroundings. The thing is, the type of person who will pin a stranger up against a van is as aware of their squishy bits as the victim is and what means the victim has to defend themselves. I remember very clearly being surprised at having exactly zero targets. Having pepperspray or even a gun wouldn't have helped. Even if I'd had them in my hands at the time, the way he grabbed me would have made them useless.

Who cares about DNA evidence under the fingernails when the rapist is about to leave a whole lot of DNA evidence behind? Someone violently raping a stranger is hardly likely to stop what they're doing long enough to put a condom on (I'm sure you can come up with a million to one scenario when this will happen, but that's not even going to be close to the average).

Add to that the fact that fighting back can make a rapist more violent and some rapists in fact get off on it makes the blanket "people should always fight back" even more absurd. Some people don't fight back who should have, others fight back and are dead because they did. We assess situations and make the best choice we can. Why do you assume people don't?

[Condunum]

You realize that you just said that raping a monor is not rape unless they're pre-pubescent, right?

Consensual sex with a 'minor' is not raped if it is not forced and she passed puberty. This is the standard in many countries. In Bangladesh 13 year olds are getting married. Same in many African and Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps we need a age limit though of 15 or 16 to make it easier. A 16 year old knows her body and can decide if she wants sex. A 11 year old is not ready for such a decision, biologically she is also not ready.

You orobably shouldnt say its not statutory rape for the reason you gave, as that encompasses all sex with a minor who is under the age of consent.

[Xathranaar]

About half of all women who get raped are under 18, in point of fact.

Now let's be serious, telling the vulnerable in our society that they shouldn't be vulnerable is the sort of ridiculously stupid behavior that would get a French Monarch deposed.

It is rumoured that unlike the corrupted form peddled by the historians, the real words of Marie Antoinette when confronted with the plight or revolting starving peasants were "Let them eat lead!"

Much like how Elizabeth I the first actually claimed to have the Spark of Optimus Prime at the Spanish invasion.

[Xathranaar]

About half of all women who get raped are under 18, in point of fact.

Now let's be serious, telling the vulnerable in our society that they shouldn't be vulnerable is the sort of ridiculously stupid behavior that would get a French Monarch deposed.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that people under the age of 18 were incapable of defending themselves. Telling the vulnerable that they should work towards not being vulnerable, to avoid exploitation is the only way we can move forward. People are not INHERENTLY vulnerable. These are physical states and mindsets that can be overcome.

Oh, sorry! I almost forgot. You're contending that women and girls are incapable of defending themselves, and that moving to equalize their ability to defend themselves with that of men is 'ridiculously stupid.' How telling.

Get real.

No I'm saying that you are ridiculously naive when it comes to the form most rape takes. The perpetuation of this back alley nonsense helps no one. Most rapists know their victims and are trusted (to a greater or lesser extent) by them. The rape usually comes as a surprise, and happens when they are not in a position to defend themselves. Often the rapists are family members, or otherwise in a position of power or authority over the victim.

And, of course, there is the general stupidity of the, "defend yourself" advice. Anyone who knows anything about crime knows that if you are being mugged, you give the mugger what he wants, and resist as little as possible. Bank employees are instructed to under no circumstance attempt to stop a robbery in progress themselves. If a burglar is breaking into your house, most cops will tell you to try and escape through another exit if possible (or stay put and lock the door, especially if they're already inside.) And the reason this sort of advice is given by people in the know, is that fighting back is how people get themselves needlessly and pointlessly killed.

The only responsible advice is, "do what you have to to survive, everything else is secondary."

[Freiheit Reich]

[spoiler]

Consensual sex with a 'minor' is not raped if it is not forced and she passed puberty. This is the standard in many countries. In Bangladesh 13 year olds are getting married. Same in many African and Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps we need a age limit though of 15 or 16 to make it easier. A 16 year old knows her body and can decide if she wants sex. A 11 year old is not ready for such a decision, biologically she is also not ready.

You orobably shouldnt say its not statutory rape for the reason you gave, as that encompasses all sex with a minor who is under the age of consent.

[/spoiler]

Statatory rape is a bad term because when you hear 'rape' it automatically makes you think of an evil man forcing himself on a female. Rape is an ugly word and should only apply to forced sex crimes.

The rules on sex with a minor are ridiculous. Just because a woman is 16 does not mean she is an innocent princess. Plenty of 16 year old females are into drugs, smoking, drinking, and sex. They have passed puberty and if they kill a person they will likely be tried as an adult meaning the court says they are sometimes adults (if convenient for the court).

[Maskrosor]

Statatory rape is a bad term because when you hear 'rape' it automatically makes you think of an evil man forcing himself on a female. Rape is an ugly word and should only apply to forced sex crimes.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

[Big Jim P]

Consensual sex with a 'minor' is not raped if it is not forced and she passed puberty. This is the standard in many countries. In Bangladesh 13 year olds are getting married. Same in many African and Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps we need a age limit though of 15 or 16 to make it easier. A 16 year old knows her body and can decide if she wants sex. A 11 year old is not ready for such a decision, biologically she is also not ready.

You orobably shouldnt say its not statutory rape for the reason you gave, as that encompasses all sex with a minor who is under the age of consent.

There is a big difference however between consensual sex with a minor (statutory rape) and violent forced sex with a minor (actual rape).

[Neo Art]

You orobably shouldnt say its not statutory rape for the reason you gave, as that encompasses all sex with a minor who is under the age of consent.

There is a big difference however between consensual sex with a minor (statutory rape) and violent forced sex with a minor (actual rape).

Indeed, she can't get pregnant from the ACTUAL rape, amirite Tod?

[Big Jim P]

There is a big difference however between consensual sex with a minor (statutory rape) and violent forced sex with a minor (actual rape).

Indeed, she can't get pregnant from the ACTUAL rape, amirite Tod?

Funny. Actually one is a violent assault, the other is not. BIG difference

[Condunum]

Indeed, she can't get pregnant from the ACTUAL rape, amirite Tod?

Funny. Actually one is a violent assault, the other is not. BIG difference

No there isn't. IIRC, it's statutory rape regardless of the circumstances if it's a minor.

[Big Jim P]

Funny. Actually one is a violent assault, the other is not. BIG difference

No there isn't. IIRC, it's statutory rape regardless of the circumstances if it's a minor.

Of course it is. There is still a big difference between a violent sexual assault and something that is merely illegal.

[Individuality-ness]

No there isn't. IIRC, it's statutory rape regardless of the circumstances if it's a minor.

Of course it is. There is still a big difference between a violent sexual assault and something that is merely illegal.

Well yeah, one of them can involve more physical scars, both of them can lead to emotional scars, depending on the circumstances.

(This is not me trying to get back into debate after two days without Internet, nope! )