Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Rape

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 6:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When presenting logical cases, thoroughness is highly valued; when attempting to reach a large audience, conciseness and potency is highly valued; doing both requires a nuanced balance of the two.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 7:22:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 6:49:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When presenting logical cases, thoroughness is highly valued; when attempting to reach a large audience, conciseness and potency is highly valued; doing both requires a nuanced balance of the two.

"Thoroughness" is a bit euphemistic for repeating oneself over and over, word for word, breaking only to brag about fighting mountain lions.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 7:22:42 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/25/2013 6:49:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When presenting logical cases, thoroughness is highly valued; when attempting to reach a large audience, conciseness and potency is highly valued; doing both requires a nuanced balance of the two.

"Thoroughness" is a bit euphemistic for repeating oneself over and over, word for word, breaking only to brag about fighting mountain lions.

Yeah, you're right.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?
yang.
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 11:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe that while the latter is true, the former is a myth.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 1:03:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 11:25:41 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe that while the latter is true, the former is a myth.

wut.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 1:10:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 7:22:42 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/25/2013 6:49:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When presenting logical cases, thoroughness is highly valued; when attempting to reach a large audience, conciseness and potency is highly valued; doing both requires a nuanced balance of the two.

"Thoroughness" is a bit euphemistic for repeating oneself over and over, word for word, breaking only to brag about fighting mountain lions.

lol
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:22:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 1:03:34 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/25/2013 11:25:41 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe that while the latter is true, the former is a myth.

wut.

I believe that, while drinking too much does, indeed, contribute to a statistical likelihood of rape, "wearing revealing clothes" does not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe Cermank summed it up nicely here.
http://www.debate.org...

The point is, different people will define women as being a "locked door" in different ways. For some people, dressing in jeans means a woman didn't do her due diligence in order to avoid getting raped.

At what point is a woman a locked door? How revealing does she have to dress before the onus is placed on her? How much does she have to drink? Where is the freedom in that? While it may be yoir responsibility to lock your own door, does that mean you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?
yang.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 3:09:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 1:53:17 PM, tulle wrote:
At what point is a woman a locked door? How revealing does she have to dress before the onus is placed on her? How much does she have to drink? Where is the freedom in that? While it may be yoir responsibility to lock your own door, does that mean you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?

You have the freedom not to lock your door, too. "The door was unlocked" is not an accepted defense in a burglary trial.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 4:34:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe Cermank summed it up nicely here.
http://www.debate.org...


The point is, different people will define women as being a "locked door" in different ways.

The Fool: Really, People will define woman and Being a Locked door in different way.
Do you really believe this? Or you are just fooling.

For example if I define a Monkey as a unicorn, that is, as "a horse with one horn an wings. "

Would actual Monkey turn into a Unicorn? Ridiculous, right.
So surely you don't mean anything like that. Fair?

. So it can't be "a woman" herself that is being defined.

Perhaps what you mean is that, people describe, women, and locked door inconsistently?

And we must be describing some aspects right, if we're to have any consistency, and know what anybody means by "woman" or "locked door.." Don't you agree?

For some people, dressing in jeans means a woman didn't do her due diligence in order to avoid getting raped.

The Fool: Really?!? For who does, dressing in jeans, mean "woman didn't do diligence in order to avoid getting Raped?

Are you just making that up, or do actually know such people, and how it means that to them?

For surely, you don't think that when someone uses the term, "women or locked" door, differently, that woman and locked doors become something different.

Tulle: At what point is a woman a locked door?

The Fool: I think it was supposed to be an analogy, in that, it's not intelligent to assume a perfect world, and that, since rape is so bad, especially for women, it would be worth lowering the probability?

tulle:How revealing does she have to dress before the onus is placed on her?

The Fool: I can't help but feel, this question overlaps the first one, which would make it insignificant, if the first one was answered. I did notice that in this one, you "say before the onus is placed on her"
and that earlier, you also said "that "people" define women." in a way, that gives impression that they were actually acted upon. And I can't help but notice that they share similarity in that they're trying to give the impression, by analogy, of woman actually being victimized, In a theoretical context. That is, in a context where it is impossible to actually being victimized.

You're probably not trying to deceive, but it gives impression that you are highly motivated, to intentionally give a false representation.

Tulle: How much does she have to drink?

The Fool: again, this would overlap, and it seems to strengthen the likeliness that you're not really trying to represent, what's actually being said, but actually pretending to be less intelligent, to strawman the argument.

Perhaps not, but it really looks like it.

Tulle: Where is the freedom in that?

The Fool: The Freedom of how much to Drink? I don't think the topic of freedom, has came up. So far it's been about, reducing the risk of a horrible type of suffering.

Tulle: While it may be yoir responsibility to lock your own door, does that mean you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?

The Fool: Ah, so you really do understand analogies.. I had a feeling you were smarter than you sounded.. Let's see if the old fool here can help you answer your concerns. For I am concerned, about your concern.

Now let's grant that it is true, that you are responsible for locking your own door.
And by this I assume, that you at least mean , (by analogy )
That we have some responsibility, to avoid danger, especially when we have knowledge about how to prevent it.

Is this a fair representation?

But I'm having trouble understanding how your deriving the question,

"does that mean you have the freedom to have a nice home?"

As I don't even know how freedom popped up.
Now I'm probably mistaken, but it appears like you are asking does" having some responsibility to avoid danger" mean [that] you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?

Is not your responsibility to lock your own door, your responsibility to lock your own door?
I doubt you're asking that because that would be so obvious. On the other hand, I don't think it negates having a nice locked home"

And that's the best answer I think I can give you right now, perhaps his foolish, so just take it for what it's worth.. Or at least by analogy.

<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 5:41:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think freedom is implicit in the "shouldn't have to" reaction (though not the "wouldn't help" reaction) to the suggestion that women dress more conservatively in order to avoid rape. Presumably, they don't mean that some rape is okay. What they mean is of course that the costs of rape prevention should be entirely socialized, even as the benefits of the actions that increase the chances of rape (and thus the costs rape prevention) go entirely to the woman (if the utility is comfort or the wealth-signaling variety of "looking nice") or to the woman and her chosen sex partners (if the utility is the body-displaying variety of "looking nice").
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 6:00:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 1:53:17 PM, tulle wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe Cermank summed it up nicely here.
http://www.debate.org...

The point is, different people will define women as being a "locked door" in different ways. For some people, dressing in jeans means a woman didn't do her due diligence in order to avoid getting raped.

At what point is a woman a locked door? How revealing does she have to dress before the onus is placed on her? How much does she have to drink? Where is the freedom in that? While it may be yoir responsibility to lock your own door, does that mean you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that dressing in a certain way or drinking a certain amount results in rape being justified. It's about being smart enough to try to prevent such things. Two different things.

If someone told you that it's stupid to reach into an oven without mitts on, would you take that as them saying that you must wear mitts? You still have the choice, but one choice is clearly the wrong one.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 7:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That was a desperately bad attempt at arguing.

He talks as if women in burqas never get raped. Or as if the only girls that get raped are the ones who wear short skirts. Girls get raped around the world around the clock. Young girls get raped, old women get raped, hell, even men get raped. That's about sexual dominance, which is a more important cause of rape than sexual satiation. I'd like to see where he got his stats from, the entire rape research disagrees with him. When a rape is about sexual satiation, the only way you can effectively prevent yourself is to not look 'appealing'. The problem is, different people have different standards of what is appealing to them.

A women in jeans is more likely to get raped in a place where everyone wears a burqa. That's because everyone there 'presumes' that by wearing jeans, she's acting out of line. Rape IS breaking through a locked door, no matter what the geography is. ' We're not saying a woman wearing short clothes should get raped, it just that she would'. Can he, or anyone for that matter, ENSURE that a women wearing 'conservative' clothes (after you've defined them) would not get raped? Because if it was so, women wouldn't. No, after your dress code is decided after taking into account the collective social conscience, you still have to ensure you don't get raped by not going out late, by not being 'promiscuous'. And that's excatly why it is dangerous. This talibanization of a girls life and her choices is wrong exactly because the premises on which it is based is wrong.

This 'telling girls how to dress' overemphasizes the impact of a promiscuous dress on the rape statistics. Even in this category, rapes happen because a girl looks too appealing. A girl wearing conservative clothes and looking scared and vulnerable is still likely to get raped. A girl wearing promiscuous clothes isn't guaranteed to be raped. As long as we are talking costs and benefits, wearing conservative clothes is the cost the girl would pay in order to avail the benefit that is so weak and hazy and it would do nothing (there is still that ever present threat of getting rape) except creating a societal dichotomy between good and bad girls. The cost is very high as compared to the benefit one would avail.

No one takes offence at the suggestion that we go out with pepper sprays at hand. It's the societal scorn at the way we dress ourselves that elicits discomfort.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 7:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The 'Teach them not to rape' is an argument that happens precisely because the entire social structure is based on patriarchal sh1t. If the society believed that a burglar was just acting on his burglar genes, and there shouldn't be any blame placed on him, and that he was merely tempted by the open door or he would have been a well functioning member of society, you can rest assured that 'Teach burglars not to steal' would have been a legit argument.

Like, does he even realize what he's saying? The entire reason this rape happens is because of the skewed social structure with patriarchal foundations. That's here to stay though, so let's bandaid a problem with MOAR PATRIARCHAL SH1T. That ought to take care of it.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 9:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 7:10:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
The 'Teach them not to rape' is an argument that happens precisely because the entire social structure is based on patriarchal sh1t. If the society believed that a burglar was just acting on his burglar genes, and there shouldn't be any blame placed on him, and that he was merely tempted by the open door or he would have been a well functioning member of society, you can rest assured that 'Teach burglars not to steal' would have been a legit argument.

Do you really believe that the conservative position is that the rapist isn't to blame? On the contrary, the countries with the strictest dress codes also tend to have the harshest penalties for rape. Nor is it helpful to conflate with genetic determinism the observation that social condemnation of rape is insufficient to prevent it. A socialist feminist could make the argument, and back it up with data, that rape has causes in the alienation, anonymity, volatility, unemployment and inequality of capitalism; a radical feminist, on the other hand, could with empathetic embarrassment point out that you're dressing like a slut for the pleasure of men in the first place. But the femininity of a liberal feminist, bourgeois femininity, is too comfortably juvenile to offer an alternative to the conservative call for vigilance else by the suggestion that is too ridiculous to utter and yet has been: "teach them not to rape".
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 8:35:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you're all misunderstanding the point of this. There is no definable point about where a woman is dressed appropriately or not, since this is purely subjective. Some freak might have a foot fetish or a burka fetish or whatever. The point I think Thunderfoot is trying to make is that tulle, you surely know when you're dressed conservatively or not and if you were to dress revealingly, I'm sure you would know it. The alcohol thing too, is not a clear cut line. Thunderfoot isn't trying to draw clear cut lines or suggest that wearing revealing clothing or drinking alcohol makes rapists and sexual criminals any less responsible for their heinous crimes, he is suggesting that these are factors you have control of, just like locking your door (I think a better analogy would be locking your car).
If you leave your car unlocked at the train station with your wallet sitting on the drivers seat, you're increasing the chance that it will be stolen through your own actions. Likewise, if you dress revealingly and drink excessively while out in the streets of insert relevant city here at night, you increase your chance of being raped through your own actions. Now, you can obviously take countermeasures to increase your chance of not being raped (like, in the unlocked car at the station example, I could leave a savage dog in the car or in the drunk girl situation, she could stay with a group of friends and even ensuring there are people who aren't drinking who can take care of the group).
That's the point. It is about risk awareness, not blaming or drawing lines in the sand.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 12:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 9:29:53 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/26/2013 7:10:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
The 'Teach them not to rape' is an argument that happens precisely because the entire social structure is based on patriarchal sh1t. If the society believed that a burglar was just acting on his burglar genes, and there shouldn't be any blame placed on him, and that he was merely tempted by the open door or he would have been a well functioning member of society, you can rest assured that 'Teach burglars not to steal' would have been a legit argument.

Do you really believe that the conservative position is that the rapist isn't to blame? On the contrary, the countries with the strictest dress codes also tend to have the harshest penalties for rape.

That is actually the best example of the point I'm making. Countries with strictest dress codes ALSO have the strictest punishment for the rape victims. Their rapist can be flogged and whatnot, conditional to the fact that you prove that the women didn't initiate the conversation/ contact/ moved into his 'field' first. To prove the rape had happened, they need four men to testify. The man is blamed *only* if he raped a respectable woman. That is what at stake here.

Nor is it helpful to conflate with genetic determinism the observation that social condemnation of rape is insufficient to prevent it. A socialist feminist could make the argument, and back it up with data, that rape has causes in the alienation, anonymity, volatility, unemployment and inequality of capitalism; a radical feminist, on the other hand, could with empathetic embarrassment point out that you're dressing like a slut for the pleasure of men in the first place. But the femininity of a liberal feminist, bourgeois femininity, is too comfortably juvenile to offer an alternative to the conservative call for vigilance else by the suggestion that is too ridiculous to utter and yet has been: "teach them not to rape".

Of course. There are various strands of why this occurs. if anyone goes on about respectability of women, or why some women are inviting the rapist by dressing inappropriately, there is a basic flaw in the logic there. This 'teach them not to rape' is a rebuttal to that flawed argument.

But again, it is here that we need to clarify that promiscuous dressing has an extremely low stake in the entirety of rape statistics. Most of the rapes occur due to skewed power structures, and the line of reasoning adopted by the video has a very detrimental impact on the very basis of this problem. This is dangerous.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 1:11:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2013 12:28:45 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/26/2013 9:29:53 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/26/2013 7:10:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
The 'Teach them not to rape' is an argument that happens precisely because the entire social structure is based on patriarchal sh1t. If the society believed that a burglar was just acting on his burglar genes, and there shouldn't be any blame placed on him, and that he was merely tempted by the open door or he would have been a well functioning member of society, you can rest assured that 'Teach burglars not to steal' would have been a legit argument.

Do you really believe that the conservative position is that the rapist isn't to blame? On the contrary, the countries with the strictest dress codes also tend to have the harshest penalties for rape.

That is actually the best example of the point I'm making. Countries with strictest dress codes ALSO have the strictest punishment for the rape victims. Their rapist can be flogged and whatnot, conditional to the fact that you prove that the women didn't initiate the conversation/ contact/ moved into his 'field' first. To prove the rape had happened, they need four men to testify. The man is blamed *only* if he raped a respectable woman. That is what at stake here.

Nor is it helpful to conflate with genetic determinism the observation that social condemnation of rape is insufficient to prevent it. A socialist feminist could make the argument, and back it up with data, that rape has causes in the alienation, anonymity, volatility, unemployment and inequality of capitalism; a radical feminist, on the other hand, could with empathetic embarrassment point out that you're dressing like a slut for the pleasure of men in the first place. But the femininity of a liberal feminist, bourgeois femininity, is too comfortably juvenile to offer an alternative to the conservative call for vigilance else by the suggestion that is too ridiculous to utter and yet has been: "teach them not to rape".

Of course. There are various strands of why this occurs. if anyone goes on about respectability of women, or why some women are inviting the rapist by dressing inappropriately, there is a basic flaw in the logic there. This 'teach them not to rape' is a rebuttal to that flawed argument.

But again, it is here that we need to clarify that promiscuous dressing has an extremely low stake in the entirety of rape statistics. Most of the rapes occur due to skewed power structures, and the line of reasoning adopted by the video has a very detrimental impact on the very basis of this problem. This is dangerous.

Elaborate on this please.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/27/2013 1:11:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/27/2013 12:28:45 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/26/2013 9:29:53 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/26/2013 7:10:57 PM, Cermank wrote:
The 'Teach them not to rape' is an argument that happens precisely because the entire social structure is based on patriarchal sh1t. If the society believed that a burglar was just acting on his burglar genes, and there shouldn't be any blame placed on him, and that he was merely tempted by the open door or he would have been a well functioning member of society, you can rest assured that 'Teach burglars not to steal' would have been a legit argument.

Do you really believe that the conservative position is that the rapist isn't to blame? On the contrary, the countries with the strictest dress codes also tend to have the harshest penalties for rape.

That is actually the best example of the point I'm making. Countries with strictest dress codes ALSO have the strictest punishment for the rape victims. Their rapist can be flogged and whatnot, conditional to the fact that you prove that the women didn't initiate the conversation/ contact/ moved into his 'field' first. To prove the rape had happened, they need four men to testify. The man is blamed *only* if he raped a respectable woman. That is what at stake here.

Nor is it helpful to conflate with genetic determinism the observation that social condemnation of rape is insufficient to prevent it. A socialist feminist could make the argument, and back it up with data, that rape has causes in the alienation, anonymity, volatility, unemployment and inequality of capitalism; a radical feminist, on the other hand, could with empathetic embarrassment point out that you're dressing like a slut for the pleasure of men in the first place. But the femininity of a liberal feminist, bourgeois femininity, is too comfortably juvenile to offer an alternative to the conservative call for vigilance else by the suggestion that is too ridiculous to utter and yet has been: "teach them not to rape".

Of course. There are various strands of why this occurs. if anyone goes on about respectability of women, or why some women are inviting the rapist by dressing inappropriately, there is a basic flaw in the logic there. This 'teach them not to rape' is a rebuttal to that flawed argument.

But again, it is here that we need to clarify that promiscuous dressing has an extremely low stake in the entirety of rape statistics. Most of the rapes occur due to skewed power structures, and the line of reasoning adopted by the video has a very detrimental impact on the very basis of this problem. This is dangerous.

Elaborate on this please.

The reasons of rape vary from sexual satiation to extension of 'dominance' over the weaker sex. Even while the rape is happening because the man want to sexually satisfy himself, there is a power structure at play- a man believes he *can* sexually satisfy himself by overpowering a girl, because he has a sort of social dominance over her. Most of the rapists don't really think what they are doing is wrong (unless they are not in control of their senses), they rationalize their behavior to the extent they are okay with it.

Usually, while talking about rapists, people try to conjure the image of a devil not going by the societal rules, which is severely misleading. A rapist isn't an anomaly of the society, it is the product of society, the product of these societal structures that plague every walk and facet of the normal life. And it is talk like this, boxing those skewed structures that is detrimental to the fight.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 1:53:17 PM, tulle wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:37:07 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 9/25/2013 10:05:58 PM, tulle wrote:
My site blocker only let me watch about a minute and a half before I was locked out. The problem with what he's said so far is how do you define when a girl is a "locked door"?

That analogy is supposed to be about risk prevention, i.e. wearing revealing clothes and drinking too much (which are objectively more likely to lead to sexual assault) are akin to leaving your window open. It's about appearing as prey to predators.

I believe Cermank summed it up nicely here.
http://www.debate.org...

The point is, different people will define women as being a "locked door" in different ways. For some people, dressing in jeans means a woman didn't do her due diligence in order to avoid getting raped.

At what point is a woman a locked door? How revealing does she have to dress before the onus is placed on her? How much does she have to drink? Where is the freedom in that? While it may be yoir responsibility to lock your own door, does that mean you don't have the freedom to have a nice home?

You've completely missed the point. This isn't about victim blaming. Nobody is saying that women should be required to do certain things to prevent rape, that's their choice. The message is that there are things women can do to minimize their risk, and to say that that's victim blaming is harmful to women.