Also, the one point I really really object to still hasn't been addressed. How can you say "Women need to do more to defend themselves." given your stance on rape culture elsewhere? Doesn't that just feed into the idea that without proper defenses in place a woman's sexuality is there for the taking? And even if you don't feel like it is, you have to understand the idea of a woman's imperative to defend herself is not an idea that exists in a vacuum. It's not a novel idea you came up with today. It has a long and extremely fraught history, and even in the present it's used to justify some pretty heinous things. You have to be very, very, very careful when saying something like that. And frankly, you weren't.
I'm not objecting to the idea of self defense, I'm not. What I'm objecting to is the idea that we need to encourage self defense even more than we are now. We're already doing it a lot, to the point that self defense has become the dominant anti-rape message. Defend yourself or be raped. Be careful, or be raped. Dress modestly or be raped. That is THE message on rape. What I'm objecting to is you saying that people aren't being careful enough. And what I'm objecting to is you parroting that idea, and then saying "but it's trueeeeee" without critically examining a lot of the connotations that has become attached to that idea, and without thinking about the extremely sexist way in which that idea has been applied in the past, and without looking at all the other people who come bearing that same message.

I feel like we are coming at this issue from two different perspectives, because from my viewpoint defending yourself from attacks of all kinds-- from slander to murder-- is always primarily an individual responsibility. There are bad people in the world, there are always going to be bad people in the world, and raising awareness that certain actions are bad isn't going to stop bad people from doing them anyway.

So when I see you saying that women shouldn't have to worry about protecting themselves, I see you *discouraging* women from protecting themselves and think that you are doing them a grave disservice.

We, as a society, have a moral responsibility to reduce the number of rapes that occur-- and that does include teaching good men that rape is wrong and teaching good men to shun men that rape. But as much as we are trying to make the world *safer* for women, we can not ever succeed at making the world *safe* for them or for anyone else.

The world is a dangerous place. It's *supposed* to be a dangerous place, and if you truly want to help people, teaching them to survive in a dangerous world must take priority over trying to make the world safer.

I think what Mafialligator is saying is that, yes, women should know how to defend themselves against rape. However, we as a society need to focus more on addressing the root causes of rape - sex as dominance, dominance as masculinity - rather than telling women that they need to equip themselves to fight rape.

Yes, women should know how to defend themselves. Yes, we as a society should encourage self-defense. But that shouldn't be the primary narrative surrounding rape. Instead, we should seek to combat the perceptions that enable and encourage rape. It's not about telling rapists that what they do is wrong - obviously that won't work. It's about changing, over time, our perceptions as a culture about sex and power.

But then the assumption is that those who advocate self-defense as a good thing... somehow don't advocate changing harmful cultural perceptions? I don't see how that logically follows at all.

"Spyman, but you insert yourself into every single debate in which some issue of offensive speech comes up, claiming that it isn't offensive and/or if it is offensive it shouldn't be censored, or that people are hypersensitive and think everything is offensive. I can't count how many times you've made this kind of argument. So if you're not a free speech absolutist, why do you always make this argument? Why do you complain about 'political correctness' any time people say offensive speech should be stopped or that people shouldn't make these kinds of statements? "

Putin you and I have have different theories about how language works. Your notion of language strikes me as much like Newspeak in 1984: that by changing words we can change thoughts. I I don't think language works like that. Hence we always disagree on this topic.

Here is an example of why I am not a free speech absolutist. If someone started a website with the intention of encouraging men to rape women I would say be among the first to say shut it down.

I don't believe rape jokes have any bearing on the incidence of rape.
I think the idea that *all* rapist believe that all men are rapists is nonsense.
I think the idea that rape jokes reinforce this idea is also nonsense.

That said I do find the idea of a facebook page dedicated to rape jokes a bit weird and distasteful. But in isolation rape jokes are no different from any other rude joke. And when telling a joke always consider your audience and that way you can avoid offending people. This is why I don't tell my mother than same jokes as I tell my friends.

"Yes, women should know how to defend themselves."

@youradhere, if you go back to the previous page of the thread and read the article Mafialligator posted about "Rape Culture" you will find with that very statement you have promoted "rape culture". You are blaming the victim. (And you should be ashamed of yourself.)

"I don't see how that logically follows at all. "

What has logic got to do with it, President Eden? This much too important a topic for logic. Logic = rape culture!

Now you're just trolling spyman. Let's not pretend that our culture does not engage in victim blaming behaviour where rape is concerned. And I don't mean cases like with Viktyr Kormir and I where intentions and meanings got crossed. I mean cases where people have legitimately said "It's your own fault you got raped" in as many words. That's not even some crazy fringe idea. Judges have said that IN RULINGS ON RAPE CASES. The point isn't that no one should ever defend themselves ever. The point is every time you emphasize self defense over any other kind of rape prevention message you're reinforcing a culture which tasks women with protecting their virtue and doesn't task men with not raping people. You might mean well by saying that women should defend themselves, but when you say that, you're not saying it in a cultural vacuum. You're saying it in the context of a culture that already has put almost the entire burden of rape prevention on rape victims and you can't ignore that.

"Your notion of language strikes me as much like Newspeak in 1984: that by changing words we can change thoughts. I I don't think language works like that." - But that is how language works. Think about it. We think in language. I don't know about you, my thoughts are in English, and very occasionally in French. I don't think, free of language. And yes, word use really does change thoughts and opinions. If you do surveys asking people what they think about "conscription" or "the draft" they'll usually say they're against it. Ask them about "national service" and you'll get a much more positive response.
If you survey someone on their opinions about "government handouts" and "entitlements" people are generally pretty anti-welfare state. Ask them about "poverty assistance" and "employment insurance" and suddenly the USA becomes Sweden.
You'd better figure out how language use affects your thoughts, because I guarantee you, companies and political parties all get it, and they're using it to influence the way you think right now.

"... and you can't ignore that."

It's definitely valid that cultural context is important. I wouldn't just utter the mantra "women should take strong precautions to prevent rape" to the average group of Americans, especially men, because in context of male American culture that's not advancing much of anything. If the guys are talking about how women shouldn't dress like such sluts and that it's hard not to objectify "whores" who wear short shorts and makeup or whatever, "women should take necessary precautions" doesn't mean much, because it's just validating the idea that women bring rape on themselves.

But I think there's an important distinction to be made when we talk here, specifically. This is not America. This is webDiplomacy.net. webDiplomacy.net's entire outlook on everything, from politics and philosophy to religion/theology, is MUCH further left than mainstream America. Consequently, there's a serious rejection of a lot of mainstream American cultural and political paradigms. The resultant "culture" is thus very much not American.

Speaking in context of webDiplomacy.net's "culture," then, can we please drop the assumptions that, say, "women should take self-defense precautions against rape" equates to "it's women's jobs to protect their virtue and not men's jobs not to rape"? In the aforementioned group of guys that translates to "not wearing anything 'provocative'", on webDiplomacy.net it means maybe "keep pepper spray and don't take drinks from strangers in the unfortunate and God we ever hope extremely rare case that some asshole actually tries that on you." The former is just shameful no matter how you look at it (seriously, 'provocative' of sexual violence? that's insulting to not only women, who are told they have to subjugate themselves to men's thoughts on what they do, but also men, who are told they're brainless animals guided by nothing but libido); the latter, while also a shame, is a justifiable step in light of the fact that there will, always, be that asshole somewhere, even in a culture much more defensive of women against sexual aggression.

And yes, I can see even then where it sounds like you COULD be saying "it's your fault for taking a spiked drink from strangers/not using pepper spray right," but again, we're in a culture here, on webDiplomacy.net, that understands that giving a victim agency to defend herself does not necessarily mean blaming a victim for failing to prevent her victimization.

And that idea, I think, is what should be the difference here. Because what's going on here isn't giving agency for blame. It's giving self-determination for defense from aggression. It's not marginalizing women for being victimized; it's empowering women to help them resist attempts to victimize them. And yes, they shouldn't even have to do that much, we should live in a world where this never happens. The advocacy for self-defense is rooted not in the idea that women "should" live in a world where this is necessary, but that they "do," and while society at large should try as hard as it can to reduce that victimization, until we can get there, it would behoove women to take some degree of contingency against the unpleasant state of reality as it is.

I think that's a fair and agreeable position to advocate, as long as it is understood to be in context of webDiplomacy.net's much more progressive culture instead of America's regressive nightmare by comparison. No?

Mafia I might elaborate on the question of language and thoughts a bit later. Right now I'd like to make something quite clear, I would never say women should dress modestly (for their own safety, or for any other reason). I am free with speech and I am free with dress. But I don't think that someone else giving well intentioned advice necessarily means that they endorse the "rape culture" of the kind where "judges let the rapist go free because it was her fault she was wearing tight jeans", which is the argument you have made. Sure there are people who really do think women invite rape (these people are of course morons), but accusing someone of being part of that culture, or supporting that culture because they think it would be safer to dress modestly is wrong.
I also don't think the some one using the word "rape" to mean "pwn" means they endorse rape culture either. It is obvious that the word has multiple meanings (although I only know of this new meaning for the word "rape" from this thread).

Ummm I understand what you're getting at PE, but I think you're giving us at webdiplomacy.net too much credit. And it's dangerous to start thinking "Oh we don't count as part of rape culture! It doesn't mean that when we say it!" That's not up to us to decide, that's up to people who are actually victims of rape culture.

@ spyman - "but accusing someone of being part of that culture, or supporting that culture because they think it would be safer to dress modestly is wrong." - How so? The fact is it simply isn't true that dressing modestly will protect you from rape. So what you're doing here is propagating a false idea that is frequently used to justify rape. Even if you aren't using it to justify rape, by repeating this meme you are increasing its validity in the public eye. How is that not contributing to rape culture?

And the use of rape to mean own or pwn (a small part of my soul died as I wrote that) also isn't an idea that exists independently of the other meaning of rape. The idea of the term equates sexual violence with prowess at other things. It's not as though gamers using the word "rape" just accidentally happened upon the same sequence of sounds which we coincidentally use to describe sexual assault.

@Mafia - How can you say dressing provacatively doesn't encourage rape. Look at the crime statistics involving prostitutes (I mean street walking prostitutes) *as the victims*. Considering their number compared to the non-prostitute female population. They are an extrememly low percentage, yet their percentage of being victims of rape (and especially rape and murder at the same time) are exceptionally high. Why is that? Is it just because they are prostitutes? If they dressed classy and not whorish and handed out business cards would they be less likely to be victims? Or would they still be taken advantage of and raped & killed? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the serial rapists and murderers who have raped & killed prostitutes see the sleazy whorish clothes and that either gets them turned on, or frustrates them because they *can't* get turned on, triggering their mental "rape state".

More research and study needs to be done in the mind of the rapist. We know it's not always (inf act rarely is) about sex and is more about the power/control aspect. But where is the typical balance (and by typical, I'm observing that for some it may be purely power and for others damn near purely the sex).

@Draug -- 100% correct.

Your problem with your argument to the good libs here is that you are exercising logic. For example, if I were to dress up in a business suit and wear some gold chains and then go walking through the ghettos of Detroit past crack houses, I would pretty much expect to be mugged, if not murdered....because I put myself in a dangerous situation an projected an image of someone who has what the mugger is looking for.

Of course a woman who dresses provocatively...ie. LOOK AT MY SEXUAL FEMALE BODY...is going to get the Z*exact* attention she desires: i,e, sexual attention. For most people, this mean a look, maybe a catcall or a whistle. For a rapist, it probably means "come and get me..."

To deny this basic truth is moronic.

They are called "SEXUAL PREDATORS". I've never seen my cat (a predator) hunt a rock...they can't eat a rock. Likewise, a sexual predator hunts things that tickle his or her sexual desires...i.e. provocatively dressed victims.

When it comes to **crime**, it is no longer about "women's rights" and the asinine argument that "it's not fair that women can't dress provocatively". No shit, Sherlock...of course it isn't fair....that is the nature of crime.

I see what Draugnar and krellin are getting at, but at the same time, I hope y'all recognize the term "provocative" is exactly indicative of what Mafia has been talking about. "Sleazy," "whorish," all derogatory, value-laden terms that don't belong there and, in cultural context, do in fact carry victim-blaming connotations. Why not simply leave it at "revealing," for instance? That's the exact same thing for your argument, but "provocative" necessarily means the woman is "provoking" her attacker, which is victim-blaming. "Sleazy" and "whorish" being denigrating terms, you demote the woman to a less-morally-upright existence when she dresses a certain way (which should have no bearing on her moral compass), and in so doing you legitimize the rapist relative to one who targets a "professionally dressed" woman. (By saying the latter is morally upright and implying the former is not, you put the former in a lower moral class by her clothing, which, on virtue of being in a lower moral class, makes her "more" morally culpable for the consequences.)

All I'm saying is, fellas, watch your wording. The subtleties of English are enormous, and we know their power in conversation. There are words you can choose that don't implicitly subject women to blame. Please take the couple of seconds in conversation (or minutes in posting) to check yourself and use them. A little effort goes a long way.

Now, Mafia:

"Ummm I understand what you're getting at PE, but I think you're giving us at webdiplomacy.net too much credit. And it's dangerous to start thinking "Oh we don't count as part of rape culture! It doesn't mean that when we say it!" That's not up to us to decide, that's up to people who are actually victims of rape culture."

Maybe I am giving us too much credit, but where I know plenty of young men (and hell, young women, that scares me) who eat the victim-blaming crap up hook, line and sinker, I doubt a single person here sincerely believes that or wants to uphold that at all. At worst I think the people who end up arguing from similar positions to victim-blamers simply have poor word choice and inadvertently come across as more denigrating of women as they claim to be.

And while I do see your point about how victims of rape culture carry the ultimate judgment in regards to what qualifies as perpetuating rape culture or not, I don't think it's as all-encompassing as you state it to be. Certainly if such a victim were to appear and lambast me for enabling rape culture, I would take her word very seriously and ask her for ways to improve my behavior. But at the same time, I believe men have quite a lot of agency to determine if they are perpetuating rape culture - and that they must. We can logically judge the meanings of our words and evaluate one another based on what we learn from our experiences with the victims you reference, and we can apply that learning to our behavior. I fear I might be reading too much into what you're saying or otherwise speaking past you here, so tell me if I am and correct me where I am, but I don't think that we lack authority to determine whether our actions perpetuate rape culture.

I will emphasize, though, so the point is not lost, that we certainly lack *priority* over rape culture victims in determining that, so again if such a victim were to critique us, I would take her word and turn the dialogue toward understanding her point of view and apply what she tells us and amend my behavior and recommend others do the same.

Actually yeah, that's a good way of putting it PE we lack priority over rape culture victims. I may have overreached a bit in saying that only rape culture victims can evaluate at all. Thanks for pulling me up short a bit. Obviously you are correct about that.

I suppose what I'm worried about, and what I'm warning against, is getting lax about checking ourselves because we're less problematic than others. I do hear the argument a lot, where people say things like "well I don't have anything against black people so it's not a big deal if I use the n-word" or "well I voted for gay marriage on the last ballot measure, so I can say 'faggot'." I know that's not what you were suggesting, and I'd never accuse you of that sort of thing, but there are people who are prone to thinking like that, (some of them even inhabit these forums), and that kind of thinking can be very damaging.

@Mafia - I agree about the use of the word and taking it lightly. I was just disagreeing with saying that encouraging a woman to be aware of her surroundings and her attire is blaming the victim. It isn't the rapist is *always* to blame. But there are things a woman can do to minimize her risk exposure, like *not* walking down that dark alley at 2 AM doing the walk of shame home in a tight miniskirt and low cut top still buzzed from the booze she downed before going home with that guy she met earlier that evening. It's about using common sense and being aware of your surroundings. In her case, she should take the walk of shame to a *cab* she had called and waited for inside the apartment building entrance.

It isn't blaming the victim to say she should take measures to mitigate her risk.

If someone crosses a street without bothering to look and gets run down by a drunk driver or joy riding kid, is it blaming them to say they should have at least looked first? We all take measures to mitigate our exposure to risk every day. I don't turn right on red unless I've checked to see it is clear. I don't operate my riding mower or gas trimmer/hedger without noise reducing earmuffs, long clothes, and steel toes boots. I don't cut boards with any of my saws without the safety guard in place and I wait until the blade has completely stopped if I need to get anything away from it.

That should be "It isn't. The rapist is *always* to blame."

"How so? The fact is it simply isn't true that dressing modestly will protect you from rape. So what you're doing here is propagating a false idea that is frequently used to justify rape."

I never said modestly protects your rape. So I am not propogating anything. I said that someone else advising is not endorsing rape. It is no more an endorsement of rape than a home security system is an endorsement of buglary, or third party car insuance is an endorsement of reckless driving.

typo... I never said *dressing modestly protects you from rape

Nothing will necessarily protect any woman from rape completely. But dressing less revealingly combined with being aware of your surroundings and making wise decisions regarding the route home and the time of night *will* mitigate and manage the risk. To say otherwise (despite the unbacked up claims that dress makes no difference, citation please) is disingenuous. I suggest you look at the number of prostitutes raped per populace versus the number of average Jane's and then tell me that you feel, without a doubt, the rapists don't get off on the clothes and don't take advatage of the opportunities presented by the environment and time of day or night. they may be driven by a variety of primal and psychological urges, but they aren't just grabbing any regular person in broad daylight on main street in front of Starbucks and raping them right there. The stalk and hunt and choose prey they feel are the least likely to get the caught and the weakest victim of the bunch, just like a wild animal. Why? Because rapists essentially *are* wild animals, so you use primitive hunter instincts and techniques and a woman should be encouraged to take every measure possible to counter those techniques. It doesn't lessen the blame or assign any to the victims. But it does reduce the likelyhood they will become a victim.

I'll clarify that point further. Whether dressing modestly protects you from rape, or not, has no bearing on whether advising modest dress is an endorsement of rape. Propogating a false idea is not an endorsement of rape. What you are doing is distorting a message because you enjoy feeling self-righteous.

You know it's possible to be sexist without meaning to, and these last few posts from Draug and spyman are literally making me so angry I can't formulate a coherent reply. Thank god I have krellin muted because if he were posting here and I read it I might flip out. Someone else please take this. I literally just cannot cope with this sexist, victim blaming, slut shaming bullshit anymore. It's clear I'm not getting through to anyone, so I'm out.

When did Mafialligator turn into a South Park parody? Has his account been taken over by Matt Stone and Trey Parker? Someone should tell the mods.

I am not a south park parody. You know there are some people who actually care about stuff like this, and maybe it wouldn't kill you to try and think about an issue in the world in a way you hadn't considered it before, instead of just sitting there trying endlessly to justify the things you already believe, and just dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Just kidding Mafia. I really am thinking it over. I have assessed the facts and I have come to conclusion than you. But your passion is commendable. We just don't agree, At least you care.

.… a *different conclusion

Another massively erect penis of logic thrust deeply into the minds of the undesiring opposition by spyman!

"Take it all, bitches! Take all my logic, right into your unwilling orifices! I'm going to give it to you rough and I don't care if it hurts."

Spyman you should know better than to force yourself on people like that.

lol you crack me up YJ. But seriously, stop excuses for rapists, mmkay?