*It's a simple question: Is it offensive to suggest one modifies their behaviour due to the existence of criminals?
If by ‘behaviour’ you mean ‘going out in public’ then yes of course it’s offensive*
Is that what I mean? Funny I don't remember saying that at all. Clear the red mist from your eyes and try to actually read what's written.
*In fact it's not even offensive when made in regards to general personal safety, only when it's directed at women. Nobody is getting offended by being told some neighbourhoods or estates are best avoided at night. But when it's suggested that women take sensible precautions, somehow this becomes offensive. Why?
Because when women are literally being killed when having a daytime run it seems that ‘sensible precautions’ mean staying indoors. It’s putting the onus on women to behave in a way that makes sure they don’t get raped - except the ‘behave’ part means ‘doing anything at all’*
Nice job ripping down the strawman you created.
If a copper were to advise a man, 'Don't go into that estate at night,' nobody would have a problem with it. But the same copper telling a woman, 'Don't take that shortcut at night,' would get lambasted for putting the onus on women bla bla.
But there is no fundamental difference whatsoever. In both instances innocent people are being told to modify their own behaviour due to the existence of criminals. So why get het up about the woman being told to take precautions, but not the man?
Question for you: If insurance companies don’t pay out if you haven’t taken the right precautions to protect your goods - for example, if you leave your front door open and get burgled - why don’t the police have this policy for rape? Why do you think that is?
Because - and I'll try to speak slowly so that you might get it - there is a difference between police enforcing law and order, and an insurance company paying out when the victim didn't take all sensible precautions to keep their possessions safe.
In the case of a phone being stolen from a car seat, police would still prosecute the burglar if they were caught. Because as far as the crime is concerned, the fact that the victim could have taken better precautions, doesn't excuse the criminal.
*I'd go so far to say that most people would question why an ordinary bloke wandered into a dangerous estate at night, and we still don't consider that victim blaming.
I hope that if he was raped there’d be nothing but sympathy, and people like you wouldn’t say ‘what was he doing there at night’*
Nice deflection, but wholly disingenuous. If he got mugged, people would question why he wandered into that estate, even though he is perfectly within his rights to do so.
People should have the right to do what they please without fear of criminals, yet we don't find it offensive to advise them how be safe from criminals. Except when it comes to women and rape. Then sensible advice suddenly becomes offensive and patriarchy.