In regards to Justhink…Am I a total idiot, or did that tic-tac-toe analogy make no sense?
All sex that’s not prostitution is rape? Er…Color me confused. 
I agree with even sven. If what you are is female, or anything else, then it becomes a lot harder to stay out of a situation like that. Carrying valuables is something you can just decide not to do, but you’re right about not turning off your gender. It’s hard to apologize for just being female.
My pleasure…
Hmmm…Say, you break in my house, steal my stuff and flee. I happen to have a gun. I shot you. Sure, there was no need to kill you, my life wasn’t threatened any more, and I’m still responsible of a homicide. But wouldn’t you say you have some responsability by breaking into my house and stealing my stuff? Or do you think that the burglar, being a victim, shouldn’t be blamed.
Nobody forces the victims to live on stolen lands. They know they are thieves and they know the risks. They nevertheless willingly do it. No way I will exonerate them of any responsability. I recently watched a report about some settlers. I remember in particular this woman who had several little kids, and who was saying she considered herself and her family as on par with Israeli soldiers because they were taking risk to further her god-mandated goal (driving the palestinians out of Heretz Israel). Seems to me she roughly share my opinion. At least if she was only endangering herself. But this pathetic excuse for a mother had no issue with putting her children in harm’s way.
My pleasure…
Hmmm…Say, you break in my house, steal my stuff and flee. I happen to have a gun. I shot you. Sure, there was no need to kill you, my life wasn’t threatened any more, and I’m still responsible of a homicide. But wouldn’t you say you have some responsability by breaking into my house and stealing my stuff? Or do you think that the burglar, being ultimately a victim, shouldn’t be blamed?
Nobody forces the victims to live on stolen lands. They know they are thieves and they know the risks. They nevertheless willingly move there. No way I will exonerate them of any responsability.
I recently watched a report about some settlement. I remember in particular this woman moving in a newly build house who had several little kids, and who was saying she considered herself and her family as on par with Israeli soldiers because they were taking risk to further her god-mandated goal (driving the palestinians out of Heretz Israel). Seems to me she roughly share my opinion. At least if she was only endangering herself. But this pathetic excuse for a mother had no issue with putting her children in harm’s way.
You know… at first I thought you just were some hard up adolescent that had had a little too much emotional sand kicked in his face, and that would explain this asinine paradigm you keep waving around, but I’ve changed my mind. I have determined that you are a troll, determined to crap on any flat surface with the nonsensical glurge of these incompetent, pseudo-deconstructionist arguments you keep pulling out of your ass.
Justhink:
I may recall (or not) that you do not believe (as a male) that sex with females is possible without rape also existing in the same culture, unless prostitution is available instead? Or is it that every act of sex is an act of rape unless it is an act of prostitution instead? Or do you mean that if you’re female and you don’t want to get raped you can’t prevent it except by paying the rapist to have sex with you?
Much to my dismay. Definitely much to my dismay.
I always considered myself pretty paranoid, until I started talking to more women. Most of my friends are guys, so my insistance on carrying pepper spray, having someone walk me home if it was after midnight, and that sort of thing always made me stand out. I just figured I was a little paranoid and listened a little too much to all of my mother’s warnings.
Then I sat down with a group of women and talked about the things that we do and don’t do. I was shocked to hear that one of them never left her house alone after dark, not even to go down the street. Another was scared to wait at bus stops, and yet was also scared of getting on busses if nobody else was on it. Another was afraid when she saw unknown guys in her dormitory hall, and would not venture into common areas (like the restroom) if there was a guy she didn’t know visiting. My best friend hates her roomate, but is too scared to live alone. The majority of women I’ve talked to were far more fearful than I, and far more willing to modify their behavoir to decrease their fear. These were college students, replete with pierced lips, Doc Martens and a good education, not old sheltered biddies.
Not all women live in constant fear, or obey the same set of restrictions. But all women have a sixth sense, drilled in to their heads since they were children, about what places and times they should avoid- which unfortuneatly includes a lot of the outside world, and almost the entire night. It might be hard to see, because we are so used to assumeing that other people are comfortable in the same situations that we are comfortable with. But if you are a guy, chances are that your female friends view night time, urban areas, rural areas, bars, cars and a lot of other places very very differently than you do. Try asking them one day.
Is the fear irrational? To a large degree, yes. We all know that you it’s pretty unlikely to be raped by a stranger. But the fear will continue until people stop having discussions like “Does a woman that ventures outside of her home bear responsibility for rape”.
Does the OP of a thread bear the responsibility of a responder invoking Godwin?
I think others have pretty much summed up my position: the girls share no part of the legal responsibility for the rapist’s actions. Morally I think they might also be in the clear. Certainly in a perfect world, the girls wouldn’t be afraid to go with a stranger and in a perfect world everyone would act perfectly morally. Wouldn’t that be great?
Now we get into logic. Logically, these girls were idiots. There’s no way to punish them for that.
Personally, I think they’ve been punished enough.
Well I understood settlement lands were purchased from individual arabs as well. Will you exonerate victimized settlers who live on settlements that were purchased?
Let’s say you’re driving down the road and a drunk driver rams into you and you end up in a wheelchair for life. Would we say that you are partially responsible for the accident because you chose to get into the car? How could anyone say that your decision to get into the car was the proximate cause of the accident?
You are comparing apples and oranges. Let me explain.
Victims of rape, while engaging in a risky activity, are not raped by accident. The decision – and it is a decision, not a matter of fate – lies solely with the rapist. Thus, so does the responsibility. Rape is wholly preventable by one individual – the rapist. He decides. It is not an accident. When you make a choice to hurt somebody else, you are fully responsible. A person is not any less morally or legally culpable because their victim wore a miniskirt, or was carrying a lot of cash, or didn’t know methods of self-defense, or had a weapon in their house that was used by an assailant.
It is wise not to take unreasonable risks. Yet, it does not mean you take responsibility for the criminal acts of others simply because you do so. Being foolish is not a crime, nor is it immoral, and rape victims deserve no less sympathy if they acted foolishly (though they would be wise to reconsider their future behavior).
Thus, yes, being raped is morally separate from making bad decisions, just as being the victim of any crime would be.
**
True, but irrelevant. We’re not talking about what’s wise to do; we’re talking about responsibility. The opportunistic criminal is no less morally responsible than the criminal who stalks more wary victims. It is just as wrong to shoot an elderly grandma who is walking alone at night as it is to shoot one who is locked safe at home with a high-tech security system. The victims cannot bear some responsibility without the criminals losing some, and I cannot see how that is ever the case.
Let’s say you’re driving down the road and a drunk driver rams into you and you end up in a wheelchair for life. Would we say that you are partially responsible for the accident because you chose to get into the car? How could anyone say that your decision to get into the car was the proximate cause of the accident?
Let’s say you’re driving down the road and a drunk driver rams into you and you end up in a wheelchair for life. Would we say that you are partially responsible for the accident because you chose to get into the car? How could anyone say that your decision to get into the car was the proximate cause of the accident?
I am pretty hard core on this one.
I think that if a woman invites fifty six guys over to her place for a gang bang, and tells them she likes it rough, and then has sex with fifty five of them, and then tells the fifty sixth guy she wants to stop now, and he has sex with her anyway, he has committed rape. I also think that he should do hard time, for a fairly long sentence for it. I don’t feel sorry for him at all that she led him on, or that he had some reason to expect sex. Tough, she said stop, you didn’t stop, you are a rapist. Go to prison.
Now, I don’t think much of the other fifty five guys, either. But they didn’t commit rape. I don’t think the woman is doing herself any favors with her behavior, but I don’t think she deserves to get raped. And I don’t want anyone to be able to use her behavior as an excuse for rape, either. I don’t think it mitigates the seriousness of the rape at all. If the other fifty five guys encouraged him to do it, that makes them accomplices before the fact, and he still is a rapist. And he should still do hard time.
I would like to live in a world where rape was entirely despised as the act of a coward, and those men who did such a thing were held entirely in contempt. If women raped, I would feel the same. If it were a man being raped, I would feel the same. If it were beating and robbing, I would feel the same. Walking down the street alone late at night is one of my favorite things in the world. I won’t give it up, to make the world a better place for scumbags.
Tris
That’s not really the same.
In this case, I broke into your home and stole your stuff. I committed a crime. By breaking into someone’s house, I KNOW that there is the chance that the person inside will have a gun and shoot me, or call the cops, and I will be arrested. Either way, I am a victim, but I also somewhat DESERVED it, because I did something that immediately led to this outcome, and was fully aware that the outcome was not only possible, but logical.
I would be aware that the possible outcome of getting into a car with guys I didn’t know very well could be rape, but that shouldn’t be the logical outcome.
You are responsible for your own safety.
In the end, you still get raped even if it was 100% the rapist’s fault. Rapists are never going to leave this world and god or no one else but you can prevent it.
Wearing a miniskirt and hanging out in bad neighbourhoods is stupid and IRRESPONSIBLE. Yes it wasn’t her fault, but it still happened and could have been prevented had she not been there. It’s the cold reality, but I take responisbiliy for my property by locking it up and keeping valuables hidden because I accept the facts theives will try to rip me off either way and there’s nothing I can do to change THEIR minds, but I can change MY OWN.
Articulate questions, thank you. This undoubtedly has cultural aspects linked to it. There are varieties of non-westernized societies (including pre-westernized societies or untampered stone-age societies) that can and do operate with a different set of norms. Some of these societies, as mentioned on the other thread about superiority/inferiority, are Matriarchal.
Example:
I recall hearing about an aborigonie society that gave all property ownership to females. One morning, the male may find all of his stuff thrown outside the ‘tent’, and it was clear that he was ‘divorced’ and had to seek somewhere else to live. The society operated as such (aparently from what I recall); that the act of throwing men in and out barely draw an emotion between either of the genders. There was a fundamental honor and understanding that incongruency is nothing personal; it just IS. You shrug your shoulders and aknowledge that its not your position to CONVINCE someone of your worth. The word ‘convince’ in caps, is a very key aspect of westernized courtship. (I would imagine in these tight nit societies, that a very well constructed constitution of determination made everything relatively self-explanitory for all those involved).
These types of societies also do not possess murder rates or suicide rates, and have barely abstracted nudity as a resource (some of them have not extracted it as a resource at all). They are, from our standpoint; primitive, non-capitolistic, and have not recieved much selective pressure at all during the course of history (generally resulting from an isolated area of abundance).
To return more precisiely to your question, and hopefully remaining in something vaguely close to the OP…
When personality enters the picture, cognitive age enters the picture. I do not suggest by any means that all females are exactly alike in demading personality evidence for sex, just that the trait is so abundant; the likelyhood of a non-rape scenario (psychic rape against consent - because of the vast difference of cognitive ages) is miniscule to non-existant. Why is this?
Well… not all people are created equal. The personality encryption may work well for a portion of society. However, like all ‘Western’ definitions of achievement (what we strive for), personality/behavior ALSO happen to be a commodities. Those who are geniuses of this commodity (resource mapping and abstraction), COLLAPSE the inherent value of the personality in relation to the person. If you place your value on your opinions, thoughts, gestures etc… you’re putty.
What I was trying to convey (albeit, not well) in the tic-tac-toe metaphor, is that those who understand personality structures at levels of abstraction and predictive power (lightyears beyond what the general population holds), understand that females are attracted to personality SIMULATIONS/ILLUSIONS, yet they demand some degree of transparency. The problem is that their cognitions are too young to grasp the relativism of personalities that lie behind the simulations - they cannot have transparency, even more; they unwittingly de-select it by the types of evidence they reward with anything from sex, to laughter, to a simple smile.
What is most important in the tic-tac-toe articulation, is that the person who has never played the game before is REQUIRED to play the same exact moves as the one who has memorized the entire sequence of the game (in order to win). Now look at these ggeneralized personality statements one can utilize for a charisma over-lay after winning ‘tic-tac-toe’:
“I’ve played a little tic-tac-toe in my day” smiles
“I seem to be really good at these types of games.”
“I have never played this before in my life.”
To over-lay some masculinity and humor, one might add:
“You suck at this game!”
or:
“I dunno dude, whatever; you just suck - I mean what more is there to say?” shrug smile turn away and engage with someone else"
A really good general capture would be along the lines of: “You’re such a tweaker, name.” strong eye contact while saying this with a look of knowing epiphany It is more important that phrases like these be used, than to have anything in the grey matter to back them up.
These are very viscous counter-intelligence routines, the last, being the most lethal one I constructed for this post. A person should most certainly commit suicide before uttering this phrase in the general population.
These are standard english algorythms applying for the most common denominator. There are many different forms of english in America! Depending on the relative sophistication of the crowd, all that need be changed is the expressions/gestures, rhythms volumes and intonations.
The point!! The sayings presented here seem like innocuous enough conversation (excepting the last one which scrambles the pattern seeking mechanism of the brain); and for those who haven’t transcended personality, there is ‘nothing’ to critisize here. If one does raise objection; a counter-intelligence cuop can be run!
Only from those who get to decide whether or not to use these, is there a moral dilema. Sincery is very cheap to simulate; it is a LUXURY of cognitive youth, ignorance and sociopaths. Since women require these types of counter-intelligence routines to be uttered for behavioral ‘consent’, those who are most dispised are those who simulate them, as opposed to being lucky enough to be dumb and ignorant enough to believe that this is who they are. To become visible to the female radar however, they must BOTH do the same exact thing (one does it by chance (autonomous indentured system processing), the other by knowledge). This is becoming far to long already to describe why these examples have a negative existential value; and why a few of them actually demand the suicide of its user, in order for them to be running at command level.
-Justhink
“”"“You know… at first I thought you just were some hard up adolescent that had had a little too much emotional sand kicked in his face, and that would explain this asinine paradigm you keep waving around, but I’ve changed my mind. I have determined that you are a troll, determined to crap on any flat surface with the nonsensical glurge of these incompetent, pseudo-deconstructionist arguments you keep pulling out of your ass.”""""
This type of language is referred to as player language. It will get guys laid.
-Justhink
Bravo m’boy, you applied yourself coughed out a jargon-less sentence summarizing your entire position. I knew you could do it! Now go play in traffic.
When one does anything, they run risks. It’s perfectly correct to point this out.
However, it isn’t an excuse for someone else’s deliberate an criminal actions. A rapist is not in the least justified by the fact that their victim undertook a risky behavior by making their job easier for them. It is perfectly reasonable to say that someone took a stupid risk, AND to morally blame the person that undertook immoral behavior that comprimised the price of that risk.
—I would be aware that the possible outcome of getting into a car with guys I didn’t know very well could be rape, but that shouldn’t be the logical outcome.—
I don’t see the difference (besides, perhaps, degree) between the theif who gets shot, and the girl who gets into a car with sketchy guys and gets raped. Regardless of whether one activity is criminal or not, both are risky actions. Both are logical (though I’m nto really sure what you mean by logical: did you mean “inevitable,” in which case neither outcome was such?), and both are possible. Sure, you might not be positive that the guys were rapists, but the theif also wasn’t positive that the owner would be home, catch him in the act, and shoot him.
The point of understanding these risks is not to blame the victim morally, but to understand the possible consequences so as to best make informed decisions beforehand. Afterwards, it’s too late to do anything more about taking or not taking the risk.
Moral blame is an entirely different issue: in the theif’s case he should be moraly blamed for theiving (though that doesn’t alleviate the homeowner of responsibility), and in the woman’s case she did nothing at all wrong to anyone.
I don’t think anyone “deserves” anything unless they explicitly contracted to get or be given it. The theif doesn’t deserve to get shot, and the woman doesn’t deserve to be raped. We might justifiably be more sympathetic to the actions of the homeowner than to the rapists, however, but that would require some story about the person in question.
>> Gee Sailor, I never thought of it that way.
even sven, there are bad people out there and just arguing “but it shouldn’t be like that” does not change things. You are free to take whatever risks you want and nobody is going to stop you.
>> Walking down the street with valuables is something that you do. Being a woman is something that you are. The two situations are not at all analagous.
Being a white guy is something that I am. Walking some parts of town with a wallet full of cash is something I can choose to do or choose not to do. The chances that I may be mugged are increased by the fact that I am white and look like I may not be able to defend myself. I can diminish my chances of becoming a victim by staying home and watching reruns of Leave it to Beaver
Being a woman is something that you are. Going to a motel room with a guy you just met on the street is something you can choose to do or choose not to do. The chances that you may be raped are increased by the fact that you are a woman and that you look like you may not be able to defend yourself. You can diminish your chances of becoming a victim by staying home and watching reruns of Leave it to Beaver.
>> I refuse to listen to an argument stateing that I am doomed to a life of fear and restrictions because I was born with a vagina. And I really really refuse to listen to your “arguments” that you live with the same sense of fear and restriction as a woman. You very cleary don’t. You insult 52% of the human population by claiming that you do.
I live with a reasonably small sense of fear and restriction just like anyone intelligent enough to recognise the real risks you face. I manage the risks I face and choose a relatively safe lifestyle which does mean i do not get to do everything I would like to do. OTOH, I enjoy what I do and I do not live a life of “fear and restriction” just as most women in developed countries don’t either. Your claiming victimhood does not gain any sympathy from me. Sorry.
None of my girlfriends has ever lived a life of “fear and restriction”. They lived quite happily accepting that there are limitations we need to accept to be reasonably safe. They were not paranoid about their safety and they lived reasonably safe lives.
>> But the fear will continue until people stop having discussions like “Does a woman that ventures outside of her home bear responsibility for rape”.
Stopping the discussion does nothing to change things. Even if we all agreed 100% that women bear absolutely no responsibilty for choosing to do certain things, that would change nothing as far as their risk of becoming victims of rape. It would just make you feel good for a while. I am more interested in real safety.