Gees

Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

NO, obviously not equal.
But they should not be entirely dismissed either.

Oh, gosh, sorry we've been spending so much time insisting that they should be entirely dismissed. I can certainly see how that would be frustrating for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, and we've been spending all our time saying women are to blame for being attacked ????

Obviously we have a difference of opinion, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.
So I'll keep telling women I care about to be careful out there because the world is an unforgiving place, and it may keep them from getting assaulted.
You'll keep telling them its not their fault for getting assaulted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be best to knock this thread on the head. It is wise to know when the discussion is deadlocked. Everybody's said their piece and merely reiterating their position.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to male predatory behavior against women, the differences seem to boil down not to opinion, but rather how much you think this behavior is inevitable. I think it can be vastly improved, that men can be raised to respect women more, especially when society as a whole is more aware and aimed in that direction on multiple fronts. That's why I think women in general already do plenty to keep themselves safe, and while I agree there's always room for improvement, the focus needs to move away from more things women can do and onto where it will do the most good, with what men need to do. 

But if you think the "pronged" approach should include a healthier focus on what women should be doing, aren't you saying the male behavior isn't going to change, that boys will be boys, watch out girls? Why shouldn't we put, say, 98% of our effort into the change-what-men-do prong, so we only really need to put 2% into fixing women? Who knows, fix the men and maybe the women are fine as is?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MigL said:

So I'll keep telling women I care about to be careful out there because the world is an unforgiving place, and it may keep them from getting assaulted.

While that is good advice to avoid being attacked in a dark alley at night when the bars are chucking drunks out, it doesn't address the bigger issue, the one that started the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Strange said:

While that is good advice to avoid being attacked in a dark alley at night when the bars are chucking drunks out, it doesn't address the bigger issue, the one that started the thread.

 

That begins at home with the parents. They are the ones instilling the fundamental attitudes. The first branches define the tree.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Phi has an interesting strategy in this discussion, simply treat the opposing argument as part of the "fucking problem", so that you never have to discuss the points being made, I think it is dishonest.

A recent trend, say in the past 15 yrs that phones have built-in cameras, is the penchant of young women ( teenagers even ) to take naked selfies, or even engaged in sexual activities, and send them to young men or boyfriends, in their quest for popularity. Often, when they subsequently break-up, or even while they are still friends, the young man, out of jealousy or an attempt to impress his friends, will redistribute these photos over the internet. These actions have led to suicide in several reported cases.
Even 'stars', such as J Lawrence, K Cuoco and K Upton, have had their cloud accounts compromised and had their pictures, nude or engaged in various sex acts, redistributed over the internet. In this case the motivation is not lust, but greed, as there is financial gain involved, so the cloud account hacking could involve women as the perpetrators.
Now, no-one is suggesting that a crime hasn't been committed by the perpetrators.
But, do you really think young women should not be told this is dumb thing to do ?
Do you think they should not be informed that the 'cloud' is just a server ( in other words, someone else's computer ) ?
Do you think young women should be told that their 'value' is NOT just their physical attributes ?

( do you leave your keys in the ignition of your running car when you go in the store, because if it is stolen, even though you are the victim, some insurance companies will place you at fault )

I don't know what kind of utopian La-La land you live in Phi, but if you think lust, greed, jealousy and vengefulness, the human conditions which lead to these type of crimes can be 100% eradicated, then you're a naïve sap, and I've got a bridge in Brooklynn to sell you.
And if you can't fully eradicate the conditions that lead to these types of crimes, you'd be dumb not to practice some risk management.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now, no-one is suggesting that a crime hasn't been committed by the perpetrators.

 

Oh yes they are.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/revenge-pornography-guidelines-prosecuting-offence-disclosing-private-sexual

 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

While Phi has an interesting strategy in this discussion, simply treat the opposing argument as part of the "fucking problem", so that you never have to discuss the points being made, I think it is dishonest.

It is, at least, equally dishonest to say that the opposing argument is not part of the  ******* problem.

Ignoring that fact doesn't help either

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

( do you leave your keys in the ignition of your running car when you go in the store, because if it is stolen, even though you are the victim, some insurance companies will place you at fault )

And, since that's part of the terms that you signed up to, they are allowed to do that.

However the police and courts will still prosecute the thief for theft because, it's really still their fault that they stole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked three questions in my post, John.
I readily concede the points you make, but I'd like you ( and Phi ) to answer those questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MigL said:

But, do you really think young women should not be told this is dumb thing to do ?

 

I already answered that, albeit in more general terms.

On 1/9/2018 at 4:56 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

On 1/9/2018 at 4:51 PM, Raider5678 said:

That by saying women should not stop current precautions,

As far as I can tell, nobody said that.
If you think they did, please quote where they did so.

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you think they should not be informed that the 'cloud' is just a server ( in other words, someone else's computer ) ?

I think that everyone, male or female, young or old should  be educated in the basics of cybersecurity. I don't see how it's very relevant to the thread.

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you think young women should be told that their 'value' is NOT just their physical attributes ?

Yes, and , once again, I think that everyone should be told that.

 

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we agree.
The problem is the crimes committed by the perpetrators.
But there are things that can be done to minimize risks for the victims.

Do we still need to go on about this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Then we agree.
The problem is the crimes committed by the perpetrators.
But there are things that can be done to minimize risks for the victims.

 

No one has suggested otherwise... 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Do we still need to go on about this ?

Not if you concede that when the victim doesn't follow "the advice" it's still not their fault.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

Then we agree.
The problem is the crimes committed by the perpetrators.
But there are things that can be done to minimize risks for the victims.

Do we still need to go on about this ?

It depends.

Has everyone  got to grips with the fact that, if the victim does not do those things, the attack is still entirely the attacker's fault, and not even slightly the victims fault?

And, as a corollary of that does everyone understand that there is no justification anywhere in the legal process for:

Asking about the victim's history

Asking what the victim was wearing 

Asking if the victim had been drinking

and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can go back several pages, and haven't found any instances of blaming the victim for their history, attire or level of intoxication, or any other attribute, on my part.
( and although Zapatos has long quit this impossible discussion, I can vouch that he did not either ).

So we can agree that its never the victim's fault, but that risk mitigation should be considered because there will always be people intent on doing harm to others.
And I ( and others ) are not the bad guys for suggesting this.

Wow, we could have saved about 10 pages of aggravation, and some name calling ( and I apologise for my part in that, you're anything but a sap, Phi )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MigL said:

haven't found any instances of blaming the victim for their history, attire or level of intoxication, or any other attribute

The concern is, despite otherwise good intentions, it becomes implicit when you focus on risk mitigation instead of assaultive behavior.

It’s why we don’t focus on the person who was hit by a soup can when someone else at the grocery store threw it at him...saying he shouldn’t’ve shopped there or gone down that aisle with someone else in it. 

It’s why we don’t tell a person they shouldn’t have built a house on their street after some arsonist sets it on fire.

This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women are involved. You’re treating women differently. That’s why some of us are saying this perpetuates the problem and needs to change.

Edited by iNow
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, iNow said:

The concern is, despite otherwise good intentions, it becomes implicit when you focus on risk mitigation instead of assaultive behavior.

It’s why we don’t focus on the person who was hit by a soup can when someone else at the grocery store threw it at him...saying he shouldn’t’ve shopped there or gone down that aisle with someone else in it. 

It’s why we don’t tell a person they shouldn’t have built a house on their street after some arsonist sets it on fire.

This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women are involved. You’re treating women differently. That’s why some of us are saying this perpetuates the problem and needs to change.

No it doesn't. Being black, being gay , being transgender, etc and in the wrong  place etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

No it doesn't. Being black, being gay , being transgender, etc and in the wrong  place etc.

In fairness, I think this response only further reinforces my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women are involved. You’re treating women differently. That’s why some of us are saying this perpetuates the problem and needs to change.

You've made a blanket statement and it's wrong. A black person in a white racist area needs to practice risk mitigation and all the other people that have minority features or behaviours.

 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

In fairness, I think this response only further reinforces my point.

In fairness to who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to clarify: It shows you’re treating them differently... than a white person... straight person... whatever. 

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You've made a blanket statement and it's wrong.

I understand that’s your opinion. I respect your right to hold it, but let’s not pretend it’s some unassailable fact. It’s not as if I said 2 + 3 = corn flakes. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

No it doesn't. Being black, being gay , being transgender, etc and in the wrong  place etc.

Which is why you sometimes hear of women being described as the biggest minority in the world.

There are a number of groups of people who are generally denied the opportunity to exercise authority- simplistically, they are "persecuted".

The fact that other groups suffer similarly to women still doesn't mean you should focus on "what women (or blacks or gays or whatever) can do to avoid getting attacked".

So, yes, strictly speaking iNow was careless with his wording when he said this

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women are involved.

If, on the other hand, he had said "This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women or members of other persecuted/ pressed groups are involved." he would have been much more nearly perfectly correct.

And the fact is that such "sloppy use of language" is commonplace- even in scientific discussion. It's understandable in a a thread about women that he mentioned them alone.

So, in fairness to iNow, I think your comment really does reinforce his broader point.

Edited by John Cuthber
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, yes, strictly speaking iNow was careless with his wording when he said this

2 hours ago, iNow said:

This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women are involved.

If, on the other hand, he had said "This victim risk mitigation response only happens when assaults on women or members of other persecuted/ pressed groups are involved." he would have been much more nearly perfectly correct.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't know what kind of utopian La-La land you live in Phi, but if you think lust, greed, jealousy and vengefulness, the human conditions which lead to these type of crimes can be 100% eradicated, then you're a naïve sap, and I've got a bridge in Brooklynn to sell you.
And if you can't fully eradicate the conditions that lead to these types of crimes, you'd be dumb not to practice some risk management.

Strawman in yellow, red herring/false dilemma in red (not sure why wanting to be better assumes full eradication is required). It also shows, once again, that you assume "some risk management" is NOT BEING DONE CURRENTLY (and again, that's just insulting). For some reason you can't understand why focusing on the 90% DOES NOT MEAN we ignore the 10%. Please stop assuming this.

The media these days does a horribly fantastic job of making all sides of an issue seem equal (which we know they're NOT), and the seeming controversy keeps more people generating more ad revenue. You've already agreed that our two-prong approach should focus more on ways to fix how men treat women. What should the split be? 90-10? 75-25? Remember, women are already doing the vast majority of the risk management. It's worked very poorly for them, and also lets bad boys be bad boys. Good guys should be focused on stopping bad boys, imo, instead of resenting women for falling prey to them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You've made a blanket statement and it's wrong. A black person in a white racist area needs to practice risk mitigation and all the other people that have minority features or behaviours.

1

The difference is the attackers will be prosecuted and their defense won't be about their behaviour, however reckless it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The difference is the attackers will be prosecuted and their defense won't be about their behaviour, however reckless it is.

In addition, prosecution will be conducted (or more likely conducted) than in other cases, in which reckless behaviour may or may not be involved. That is what the thread was going on about since ca. page 2. I.e. in statistics in Canada, UK and US show ~2-3 times higher persecution rate of assault vs sexual assault (again, not conviction) and some detailed studies showed that that at least part of it can be traced back to morality judgement of the victim by law enforcement. That being said, in some areas law enforcement have acted on these studies and are trying to implement means to mitigate these biases. Future studies will show whether they are effective or not.

In other words, talking about risk mitigation in itself may be fine, but it is not an equivalent issue considering that a) victim behaviour disproportionately affect prosecution rates compared to similar crimes (and this does include e.g. intoxication, promiscuity but also age), b) may not be effective in most situation other than general awareness that applies to all situations and c) it may disproportionately affect conviction rates (though there are other factors negatively affecting it).

It is one of the situations where the argument is made that these are two sides of a coin, whereas in truth one argument is at best tangential and at worst actual part of the problem (i.e. when it affects prosecution and/or conviction rates disproportionately). Perhaps a good way to think about it is that this thread is about sexual assault actually having happened, because if it doesn't (either due to absence of perpetrator or to some successful mitigation strategies, whether it being not being alone or carrying an anti-rapist stone) the discussion of consequences becomes rather moot. And once it has happened the mitigation strategies or lack thereof, should not be part of the further legal procedure (and again, there are no good objective ways with which one can protect oneself reliably other than avoiding encounters with potential perpetrators).

I will also say that the original OP was on a different topic entirely and tried to make the case that sexual assault cases are actually women using their bodies to exchange for favour and power. Thus, the whole discussion was from the onset framed in a way that suggests that sexual harassment and potentially assault are something that the victims were willingly part of (which would violate the very definition of the terms, obviously).   If one wants to discuss what risk mitigation techniques are there and their efficacy and implementation (or lack thereof) it is better done in a different context if one really wants to avoid the notion that it is only being discussed in order to shift blame. As I mentioned (repeatedly), context matters.

It is also interesting to note that earlier studies on sexual violence have much focused on victim characteristics as risk factors. But for the most part they were not terribly predictive and most factors are not behavior based, except drug abuse. Other factors including being sexually abused as child or being young are not typically factors that can be controlled. Protective functions, at least on the high level, tend to on community and societal level, rather than on the individual ones (and again, most perpetrators are known to the victim)

On the other hand many factors are known that are associated with perpetration of sexual violence, including  empathic deficits, hyper-masculinity, but also drug abuse. However, as mentioned many many times, it does seem odd that the focus again in this thread is all about the behavior of the victim, rather than that of the perpetrator. To me, that would be the true two sides of a coin issue.

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now