|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted June 11, 2016 01:46 PM |
|
|
My "you" was also rhetorical. I miss the "on" we have in french, which designs anyone.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Abaddon
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 02:03 PM |
|
Edited by Abaddon at 14:11, 11 Jun 2016.
|
I agree entirely with both artu and Jolly but I also feel like Salamandre has atleast one point
Quote:
The problem is that criminals don't think that way, so you may have to think twice before genuinely believing the world is a place where you are 100% free and safe of your choices and actions.
I have found what you two have been posting to be very informative and I appreciate the thought you put into your reasoning. However I'm having difficulties still not being afraid for friends of mine, my sister or girlfriend when they go out and some of them like to dress in a very revealing fashion which of course is fine and their right and they should not be afraid to dress however they want and go out and drink and have a fun night out but I simply dont trust the guys in the clubs/bars they go to.
And while we can all agree that if a woman were to get raped it is most certainly not her fault, being right however doesn't help you in that situation. She'll still have been raped.
So is it wrong to ask my friends to maybe not go for the top with the plunging neckline no matter how gorgeous she makes it look, simply because I am scared?
I can relate to the Salmandre quote because I feel that despite the two of you being right on the issue, the people who rape don't care about being wrong. A woman is not protected by the fact that if she is raped the person doing it to her is a monster and in the wrong until it goes to court. At which point it will be too late.
Is the trick here to understand that these people would do it regardless of the way the women dressed or the amount of drinks she had? I also don't want to be like "just make sure he rapes someone else and not you simply because you dressed less provocatively/arent as drunk" because that is still horrible, but if the worst were to happen I'd rather have it happen to stranger and not a loved one.
I'm sorry if I'm rambling and this has gotten less than cohesive but you two seem to have your thoughts more together on the matter and I would appreciate your insight.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 02:59 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
No, I say common sense can prevent a lot of unwanted things. I don't say it will address the whole problems; rape, crime and arrogant nitwits screaming in forums will continue to exist.
And I said, you have no point, and you just confirmed it.
"Common sense" isn't something concrete, tangible or defined and depends completely on lots of things - it is different at least for every society.
My common sense says, if I see a girl lying unconscious on the floor, with a guy fondling her or worse, then it's more likely she got drugged than she drank herself into a stupor. That's obviously not what yours says. And I don't think you have a daughter either.
@ Abaddon
It's basically a question of the people the girls hang out with and partying with. The one thing I agree with the likes of Salamander is, that it's a matter of education and information. If children are pampered, as it is done no exhaustively since a couple of decades, because everyone is so afraid of everything that might happen, the only thing you'll have is juveniles who will do anything no matter what not spending any thought on whatever, so the only way to be sure is, bodyguarding them 24/7. Instead, children must learn EARLY about dangers and responsibilities, and in that case they will become more independent and also more thoughtful.
Otherwise there are no guarantees, but imo 2 golden rules:
1) Never drink anything that someone gives you (always make sure you get a drink yourself or watch when it is done), and don't leave a drink unattended (if you did, don't go back, get a new one).
2) Girls who go out should be armed and know how to use their "weapons". Pepper spray is fine. Stronger-minded girls may like a small switchblade. Whatever it is, the rule of thumb is, the girl must feel comfortable with it and must not be afraid to use it in case she is attacked.
There is an underlying idea with 2). A "weapon" - no matter which one - has no place in a purse or bag, but must be carried in a way so that it is easily in reach, that is, on the body. Since you don't want to flash something like that you'll have to wear something that covers it...
There is a lot of research about victim mentality. People who are showing fear - look like they can be cowered easily - are picked as victims while people who are not showing any fear or something like that are not considered as victims because there will likely be "problems". Children must be taught to not be afraid without having a good reason to.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 03:05 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:09, 11 Jun 2016.
|
artu said:
Well, the "you" was rhetorical, not specifically you. However, you say you agree with this: "You go to the bar half naked, skirt barely covering your panties, neckline exposing everything but your nipples and whatever remaining clothes specifically chosen to show the shape of your figure and expect that only well-mannered gentlemen will want to "get acquainted" with you is simply daft. That's not how it works on a basic biological level." And this is simply a polished way of saying "if you dress a certain way, you're asking for it."
You're now going down to JJ's level of arguing just for the sake of repeating how right you are. No, that's not a polished way of saying "you're asking for it" and I'd appreciate if you (and maybe JJ but I still think he's nearly hopeless in that regard so let it be just you) actually put sentences into the context of everything I said instead of singling them out and applying whatever interpretation sounds more favourable to you. I'll put it here for the last time, as unambiguous as I can:
1. A woman can do whatever she wants, dress however she likes, undress wherever and whenever she wants - all within legal boundaries of course (and I don't mean Sharia legal boundaries) - and I have zero objections from social, moral, male, mammal and carbon-based lifeform perspective about that.
2. The law guaranteeing the rights of an individual, no matter how advanced and progressive it is, in the absence of reliable fortune-telling mechanisms, canNOT prevent a crime, including rape, in a vast number of cases, it can only punish it after it has already happened.
3. Combining 1 and 2 together means that a woman can do whatever she wants, etc. but she must rely on something more than her "rights" to avoid becoming a victim of a crime (rape). Given that women are generally weaker and less aggressive than men - nature's fault, I've nothing to do with it - this means that:
- she should try to avoid situation which can put her in danger;
OR!
- she should learn to defend herself and repel the assault in case of danger.
In absolutely no way this all means that it's her fault for getting raped and you should really stop using that as some argument in your favour because nobody here claims anything like that. The rapist is the only one to blame, period. The fault is not up to a dispute. But you and JJ just stop here, omitting the fact that the bad thing has already happened and offer zero suggestions how to prevent it - as I see it you're just inertly protesting against any implication that someone should sometimes restrict in a way his or her behaviour to avoid danger and never exit your "rights and discrimination" framework.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 03:25 PM |
|
|
In these cases it is the men, not the women(I am talking about these hypothetical scenarios brought here where gender is an important factor. "rape culture" does hurt men as well but that's not part of the current discussion), who should be reprimanded. She did nothing wrong, he did. this is where i have my view-point: we should teach men not to rape, not teach women to avoid getting raped. The fact that we have to IS the problem.
But then again, it appears to me we mostly agree on that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 03:40 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:51, 11 Jun 2016.
|
zenofex said:
But you and JJ just stop here, omitting the fact that the bad thing has already happened and offer zero suggestions how to prevent it - as I see it you're just inertly protesting against any implication that someone should sometimes restrict in a way his or her behaviour to avoid danger and never exit your "rights and discrimination" framework.
Actually, we kind of do. Although we also acknowledge that there will never be a "zero crime" society and rape will most probably always be a fact of life, we claim that such crimes will lower down significantly when or if the norms of a society shifts away from the traditional "asking for it" mode and starts to condemn the crime itself in a more unconditional manner. I must remind you that victim blaming by definition, isn't to blame the victim for a criminal act but blaming her for not being cautious or smart enough, to begin with. To try clarifying once more, let me also try that race analogy: Imagine two black people in 1950's America, one is a young idealist fighting for the right to have education in the same schools with white people. The other says to him, "look, even if you get the legal right to enter those schools, most teachers will never be fair to you, the bullies will always pick you during breaks, no matter what you do, you'll always be the black student in their eyes." Now, the one with the second argument is obviously not racist against his own people and to his line of thinking, he's just presenting the plain facts. And in short-term, he may be quite right, he can even be called the one with a common sense. But there are social "facts" of life that can improve, although there will always be racists, that is not the social norm anymore, at least not to the degree he made his point on. I see this as one of those situations. I think the statistics Corribus shared, or the fact that different cultures have different level(s) of progress and crime rates and different ways to deal with those crimes both socially and legally proves that by itself. And since I live in a less progressed country when it comes to victim-blaming, I can see this "crystal clear" compared to you. (And obviously, I'm more reactionary about it.)
@Abaddon
I think this also answers your question. I wont go into individual defense technics but socially, the way to lessen these crimes are making them more unconditionally and overwhelmingly unacceptable to the majority. While this may not stop your psychotic serial raper and the like, it will give second thoughts to many potential offenders that are in-between.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 03:53 PM |
|
|
artu said:
we claim that such crimes will lower down significantly when or if the norms of a society shifts away from the traditional "asking for it" mode and starts to condemn the crime itself in a more unconditional manner.
And this is simply false. USA is probably the society militating the most for equal rights, against sexual harassment and against any form of male vs woman abuse, yet is world wide n°1 in rape percentages. And beyond USA, the top 10 list includes Canada, France, Sweden, UK and Germany. Enough said.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:07, 11 Jun 2016.
|
I haven't checked if US is number one globally, I'll take your word for it. But even if it is, the rape rates are going down on an internal comparison according to the statistics Corribus shared. (And here, they doubled since AKP and its politicians' "women should behave themselves" rhetoric.)
Also keep in mind, in more traditional societies, rape is something significantly less reported because women don't want the stigma. The more they are thought they are not to blame, the more they come out about it.
Edit: The sun-glass emoticon is an accident, you can't edit it out.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:11 PM |
|
|
When it comes to amount of cases, it's important to differentiate between assaults and reported assaults. Due to what has been discussed here, most victims (especially men) are afraid of reporting the crime due to the potential ridicule, blaming and the like. that a country has a high number of reported cases is telling of a positive trend as it means the victims comfortable enough in the system to report it without being met with crap. That is a good thing.
In short, more reported cases does not mean more assaults but does mean society takes it more seriously.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:22 PM |
|
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:27 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:29, 11 Jun 2016.
|
kiryu133 said:
this is where i have my view-point: we should teach men not to rape, not teach women to avoid getting raped.
We should not focus on teaching men not to rape — the hallmark of rape-culture activism. Since rape exists because our culture condones and normalizes it, activists say, we can end the epidemic of sexual violence only by teaching boys not to rape.
No one would deny that we should teach boys to respect women. But by and large, this is already happening. By the time men reach college most students have been exposed to 18 years of prevention messages, in one form or another. The vast majority of men absorb these messages and view rape as the horrific crime that it is. So efforts to address rape need to focus on the very small portion of the population that has proven itself immune to years of prevention messages. They should not vilify the average guy.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:37 PM |
|
|
Interesting that we "have to do" that in the so called civilized world.
I lived for 16 years in communist country, where people's rights and freedom are supposed to be inexistent to none, yet I was taught, both at home and at school, to never insist on contradicting old people, as they have more experience, to respect anyone regardless its sex, to kiss women's hands when meet (Lizzy can underline that "good day to a woman" form is "I kiss your hands" in romanian), to give them a seat when at restaurant or other similar areas, to delicately and politely take their raincoat off, to let them pass first etc.
Then I immigrated in France and discovered the advanced civilization, freedom of speech and everything, then saw the difference with being educated. 
But that's to be discussed in another topic.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 04:58 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
We should not focus on teaching men not to rape — the hallmark of rape-culture activism. Since rape exists because our culture condones and normalizes it, activists say, we can end the epidemic of sexual violence only by teaching boys not to rape.
No one would deny that we should teach boys to respect women. But by and large, this is already happening. By the time men reach college most students have been exposed to 18 years of prevention messages, in one form or another. The vast majority of men absorb these messages and view rape as the horrific crime that it is. So efforts to address rape need to focus on the very small portion of the population that has proven itself immune to years of prevention messages. They should not vilify the average guy.
I'm not quite sure I'm following.
I agree that it is better and much of the progressive (at least sweden, pretty sure finland too) western world are doing good efforts. However it's not about what we teach our kids in school as much as what they learn through art and media like movies, shows, cartoons and especially marketing.
As long as cultural expression is reinforcing the current "masculine ideal" boys learn that their value is measured directly in their success to bed women and that's how they start thinking of sexual assault for example. Will sexual assault ever Disappear? Probably not, but that doesn't meant there aren't ways of hindering it.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 05:47 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Actually, we kind of do. Although we also acknowledge that there will never be a "zero crime" society and rape will most probably always be a fact of life, we claim that such crimes will lower down significantly when or if the norms of a society shifts away from the traditional "asking for it" mode and starts to condemn the crime itself in a more unconditional manner.
If you're trying to start some mindset revolution, you're using the wrong tools and you've got the wrong audience. I don't really see how a woman with frivolous behaviour is going to advance that cause either, in any country - most if not all people will perceive her as someone who's trying to draw attention to herself and not to an idea. You should know quite well that major social changes take much more than shouting "Look at me, I'm not afraid of you" against the conservatives who enforce the status quo, especially if you do it just for the heck of it.
Quote:
we should teach men not to rape, not teach women to avoid getting raped.
You see, bull**** like this makes much of what you say unreadable. You assume what, that all men are potential rapists by default and specifically need to be taught not to rape? It is absolutely sufficient to teach boys to respect girls (and by the way it's also good to teach girls to respect boys in a similar way) - you give them the basics, they'll connect the dots. Trying to imply guilt, like there's a monster hiding inside each man that must be kept on a leash via specialized education will give you exactly the opposite results.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 06:01 PM |
|
|
please don't put words in my mouth because that's not what i was saying at all.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 06:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:18, 11 Jun 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
If you're trying to start some mindset revolution, you're using the wrong tools and you've got the wrong audience. I don't really see how a woman with frivolous behaviour is going to advance that cause either, in any country - most if not all people will perceive her as someone who's trying to draw attention to herself and not to an idea. You should know quite well that major social changes take much more than shouting "Look at me, I'm not afraid of you" against the conservatives who enforce the status quo, especially if you do it just for the heck of it.
A woman does not become some hopeless social activist because she dresses the way she wants or acts suggestive. She can simply do it because she wants to, which is the de facto case most of the times. We're not talking about wearing a mini-skirt in Afghanistan and marching straight to Taliban headquarters. If she does such things and gets raped, she should face no victim-blaming. Especially not from the law enforcement or the press or "the social media." Not doing that isn't exactly stocking rifles in the basement for a revolution, it's just a simple daily behavior. A behavior any of us can be a part of. Less people writing things such as "basically condemn the rape but also the encouragement" is a good enough start.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 06:44 PM |
|
|
I'll try to explain it again, so everyone understands this:
Quote:
I don't really see how a woman with frivolous behaviour is going to advance that cause either, in any country.
What is the problem with this sentence? Answer: the phrase "frivolous behavior", because it involves a moral judgement, and one that isn't even well-defined.
The problem with "mindsets" starts right there - using language that is INAPPROPRIATE because it judges.
What makes this important is that we have a history of thousands of years of oppression of one half of humanity by the other. It's a 50/50 thing, with defectors on both sides. (I, for example, am a defector to the female side, simply because I'm convinced the child-bearing half of our race is better suited to make decisions with regared to our future than the fighting side, although I know that a certain adventure lust and aggressiveness is necessary. On the other hand I consider all convinced believing muslim women aS defectors to the male side, because this religion is a disgrace for them [not that others are a lot better in that regard, mind you].)
Now, I do NOT think that negative indoctrination as in "thou shalt not" works.
Instead, it's fairly obvious that doing everything possible to ban, outlaw and get rid of rape not only is good for women in general, it's also pretty good for men in general, because the safer and the more comfortable women feel in general and the more we keep THEIR interests in mind with regard of child-bearing, protection from rape and protection from moral judgement a la "frivolous behavior", the more sex MEN will have, and the better it will be.
It IS that simple. Take your time, think about it. If you want to live a joyful life as a man with good sex, honest relationships, informed partner choice and everything else that will lead to a happy life instead of an unhappy one, you want them to be everything they can be (just as you) without moral prejudice.
I mean, most men, if not every man, likes it "snowty" - which just means "unrestrained". On the other hand, if that is considered immoral you get this kind of double moral, where men pay for unrestrained sex on one hand and have a respectable wife (or a couple of them) at home being the vessels for their offspring.
In other words: every man should protect every woman's right to behave the same way as men. It's in his own interest.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 06:48 PM |
|
|
|
All right Captain Liberty, you won. I'm out of here.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2016 05:48 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 17:53, 17 Jun 2016.
|
Distribution of Blood Types
I found the conclusion pretty revealing:
Quote:
"These patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called "racial" traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into "races." Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.
The more we study the precise details of human variation, the more we understand how complex are the patterns. They cannot be easily summarized or understood. Yet, this hard-earned scientific knowledge is generally ignored in most countries because of more demanding social and political concerns. As a result, discrimination based on presumed "racial" groups still continues. It is important to keep in mind that this "racial" classification often has more to do with cultural and historical distinctions than it does with biology. In a very real sense, "race" is a distinction that is created by culture not biology."
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 20, 2016 11:45 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:46, 20 Jun 2016.
|
Yes, that's quite common knowledge these days. It's not that we don't have racial traits, we do, but where as cultural habits of old used to think of race as something like this:
Biologically, it's more like this:
There's no telling who's who in a monoblock way. Where as cultures used to give (mostly pejorative) names to hybrids, considering them the exception, the fact is, it is the biological norm. Some Euroasians even have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA in them. And since Genom Project revealed what it revealed, it's quite a common "roast" to bring in a racist supremacist and read him his own lab results: White supremacist finds out he is part African.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
