Ways to lessen the risk of rape

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/789f07e8-49aa-11ee-ae7e-1fff6c8e0528?shareToken=0d97e81f86763060709b5a5106cc7a9b

The idea that any form of precautionary behaviour from women is akin to 'victim blaming' seems like madness to me. A very sensible column from K Stock.

'Someone needs to tell young women what sort of world they live in and how best to defend themselves accordingly — imperfect certainly, but still better than nothing. Contrary to popular belief, this isn’t always the same thing as telling women that if they don’t listen to sensible advice, they have no right to complain about whatever happens next.'

Another detail that I'd never considered is how insulting it is to suggest that it's mothers' responsibility to 'teach sons not to rape'.

I found the article a bit waffley and wasn't sure what she was trying to say.

And would have accepted it was a response to knee jerk reactions to a man commenting on the issue.

But afraid to say this also seems to be influenced by someone who is the mother of sons.

Telling men “to avoid raping” — as the MP critic of Giambruno urged him to do — is all well and good, though in practice is unlikely to deter offenders much.

So that's it then? Men will never change so once again it is up to women to act in the knowledge of that male arrogance, and dare I say enabled by the quote above.

Its like on the thread about Amber Gibson, she was sacrificed to give her brother's issues the priority. And on the thread about another incident of rape of a young woman in Cyprus and what seems to be an increase in very public rapes. Not as the western media likes to present, something that only happens in India, but is now happening in Europe. Or that dippy article about mumsnet in the Guardian, writer runs from mumsnet because it makes her aware that men are a danger.

50+ years since the inception of the WLM and we still cant talk about how the crisis is men.

The Seventh Demand
Passed at the National WLM Conference, Birmingham 19787. Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of violence or sexual coercion regardless of marital status; and an end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and aggression to women.
http://feministarchivenorth.org.uk/?s=Demands

'50+ years since the inception of the WLM and we still cant talk about how the crisis is men.'

This is part of what I mean when I talk about education. Before I met this board I had NO IDEA of the stats on rape. None. To women on here it may seem obvious that 99% of rapes are carried out by men, but this was a shock to me when I first heard it.

The assertion that women are constantly warned about rape is not borne out by my experience.

Evolutionary biology teaches us that in some species female consent is a prerequisite for sex and in others it isn't. And in many species both males and females employ a number of behavioral strategies to ensure that their genes are passed to the next generation united to the genetic material of their choice. Cheating and rape are two such strategies, there are many more.

How much you can and should to apply this to humans - well that's the debate. I personally would argue that both female choice (consent) and male possession of females (and therefore mating "rights") have been found in so many separate cultures that both can be considered historically natural and normal for humans and therefore the result of selective evolutionary pressures. But as our society and laws evolve over the ages so does what is considered natural and normal and other mating strategies (like being a decent bloke and supportive parent and partner) can come to the fore.

It's very feminist to argue that rape is always about power and never about sex. All I can say is that would make humans entirely unique in the animal kingdom and we have a long history of being entirely wrong about our uniqueness and ability to escape biology.

My main issue with the article is that once again it focuses on stranger/opportunity rape. While these happen, and too many of them(one is one too many tbh) the majority of rapes are committed by someone known and/or close to the victim. And she doesn't specify she used rape generally. Do that majority of women who have been raped will still think they could've done something to prevent it. Because if rape can be prevented, why not theirs?

On the other side of this we have all the victims that will not consider it rape/doubt themselves because it doesn't fit the "profile" because it was their OH, or their best friend, or their best friend's brother, or the classmate, or their date or their uncle or their grandad, and no one was drunk, or wearing skimpy clothes, and all the lights were on, and hell they were in their own home.

Why are we only still talking about boozy night out, skimpy clothes, stranger rape?

Why the fuck are we giving sensible advice , that applies to both sexes (like not getting too drunk/watching your drink) only in the context of rape when it comes to women? Why are we still making it their responsibility?

"Other forms of rape have mostly stopped"? I'm not sure what different forms of rape are. I think you mean motivations to commit rape. And they haven't stopped. I think you mean that rape is now considered a crime even when committed by a husband against his wife. And yes, I think men rape their wives to assert power and to inflict violence.

And again "as a result, it happens far less". The ONS say sexual violence is increasing (see link in previous post).

Evolutionary biology teaches us that in some species female consent is a prerequisite for sex and in others it isn't. And in many species both males and females employ a number of behavioral strategies to ensure that their genes are passed to the next generation united to the genetic material of their choice. Cheating and rape are two such strategies, there are many more.

All this may or may not be true about persona relationships.

I thought the article and therefore this thread was about the apparent social collusion in the public sphere that women are targets for men, some of whom aren't drunk and not behaving well. But about the fact that women are not safe, on the streets, in their homes, in public spaces.

It is about the fact that men if not active participants, are silent onlookers to the male class tormenting, frightening, brutalising and raping the female class.

It is now more open and overt than ever.

Just as you lock your door at night and fit burglar alarms to lessen the chances of being burgled, it makes sense to take steps to keep yourself safe from sexual assault. However, if you are burgled, whether or not you have extra security, it is always the burglar who is at fault.

Rape is no different. If a woman is wearing a g-string or a nuns habit, it is still the rapist who is at fault for raping not the woman. But a woman wearing very little or is very drunk is certainly an easier victim than a woman who is completely sober and wearing running shoes. In this scenario.

But this is just on type of rape, most rapes are carried out by men known to the victim, and it really wouldn't matter what the victim was wearing or her level of sobriety.

Again I will quote from the research paper linked above "the evidence suggests that rape is a pseudosexual act, motivated primarily by aggression, and not by a desire for sexual gratification". Rape is the act of intentionally penetrating another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis WITHOUT consent to assert power and inflict violence. Rape is not sex. A person's desire to have sex is a desire to have sex and, I'll say it again, rape is NOT sex.

So your advice to "keep yourself safe from sexual assault" is to wear running trainers and be completely sober? And even then I will only be safe from "just on (sic) type of rape". Seems worth it.

st who is at fault for raping not the woman. But a woman wearing very little or is very drunk is certainly an easier victim than a woman who is completely sober and wearing running shoes.

Easier victim. Mysoginistic language.

Not just because the drunk woman in the mini dress might scream and claw ger attackers's eyes out, and the sober woman in running shoes might completely freeze and go with police advice of don't fight it. And various many other scenarios. What you're also saying is make sure he rapes the other girl. And if that other girl is not available? Yeah he'll come for you eventually.

There is no easier victim. There are just victims.

Oh and that fucking analogy always fails because you can't lock your body up. Unless a woman lives alone, never leaves the house, only gets online delivery and never/rarely has contact with men, only then the risk is similar to belongings, protected by a safe, locked doors, burglar alarms etc.

I wish I could've taken parts of my body off and safely hide /lock them somewhere.

'What you're also saying is make sure he rapes the other girl.'

This, I find really offensive. Nobody is saying this. And besides, the implication that women should allow themselves to be raped to avoid 'passing on' the rape to another woman is just horrible.

Now that's a spectacular reach if I've ever seen one. Interesting.

You are assuming that the implication is that "women should allow themselves to be raped to avoid 'passing on' the rape to another woman". I would interpret that differently. The implication is that if a man wants to rape someone, he will rape someone. It doesn't matter what you do or what you don't do to "avoid" being raped - you can't control the fact that this man wants to rape someone and THAT is the issue. Not what the woman does or doesn't do.

Exactly the emphasis should be on men to reduce raping. Women can't prevent men from raping only men can. All women can do is reduce their risk by a miniscule amount but that's an individual risk, the rape would still happen.

I think this is an excellent summary. The idea of a woman's body as a object of transaction is at the core of date rape and sex work (sorry I know some posters don't like the term) in the sense of people going beyond what was agreed. I know it's boring to repeat myself but what I was trying to express upthread was how we need to help women differentiate between their risk of different types of rape. It's no use if you avoid walking past the rowdy pub at closing time or down the unlit street if you don't recognise that the nice man who took you out to dinner at the expensive restaurant thinks he is entitled to sex because he picked up the bill.

A minor point in relation to the originality/quality of the article. It states that Matthew Syed is away so Kathleen Stock may have needed to write it more quickly than she would have chosen in an ideal world or had less control over the topic.

Why does it have to be either or?

Why not do both things?

I don't think "different types of rape" is useful language. There is only one type of rape - there is legal definition. Perhaps better to say rape that can/does occur in different circumstances.

Happy to accept that wording ISpyNoPlumPie

So when someone is scammed, does the scammer try to convince a jury that the person wanted to give them their money with nothing in return, that they consented to freely hand over large sums of cash for nothing and have just changed their mind and accused them of scamming on a whim?

Do you not believe me that rape isn't analogous to most other crimes, in terms of convincing people that a crime actually took place?

That's how it sounds to me.

'Don't try and avoid getting raped; he'll just rape someone else instead'

Making factual information about how to reduce the risk of being a victim of crime is great.

The problem is that we don’t seem to be able to trust women to make use of that information, and for me this is one point where attitudes to men and women dramatically diverge. Both men and women are vulnerable to violent crime, but there is much more of a sense that women ‘should’ avoid risks and that if they don’t it’s because they are stupid or ignorant. It was all over the recent thread about walking in the park after dark. Incomprehension about why someone might take a risk you personally wouldn’t.

There is a paternalistic approach to women and safety, which shades into victim blaming.

Yes, that was your interpretation and it led to you being "really offen[ded]". The interpretation and the offence are yours. There were other ways to interpret what was said.

Can you elaborate? To me it sounds horribly callous and an attempt to shame women who try to take measures to avoid rape.

It is not an attempt to shame women who try to take measures to avoid rape. It is an attempt to free women of responsibility for men’s crimes of rape. It starts with and ends with the perpetrators.

Do you remember the term ‘ slut shaming’ ?
That women who dress a certain way, behave a certain way are somehow seen as deserving of rape ?