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'.

not recommend any young woman to do the same

I think Kathleen Stock's article was not just written in response to the 'cancellation' of Georgia Meloni's partner - but also a response to the things you are not supposed to say to feminists without provoking fury. What are the issues we are not supposed to be able to discuss freely and honestly.

Yes. Berating women for thinking wrongly or saying the wrong thing on this subject - that doesn't help.

This is emotive; triggering territory. But hectoring/deriding/lecturing women that they're doing/thinking/talking/feeling wrong about their own experiences really isn't addressing the issue.

It's a subject we need to talk about more. Talk about legislation, prosecution, prevention/education in men, but also about red flags, danger signals etc.

Someone asked upthread if any of the 'safety advice' has ever struck anyone as useful and yes, it really has. Read the relationships board on here and I bloody wish someone had pointed out all the red flags in abusive men when I was younger.

Someone said that women have 'safety' drummed into them from childhood - is that still really the case? IME that approach seems to have been largely abandoned in favour of noting that 'most abuse happens within families/relationships' and an apparent acceptance that there is therefore nothing girls/women could or should do to help keep safe. At least, I've had that response several times when discussing safety awareness.

I don't see why that means we don't also teach children to take sensible precautions, respect boundaries, learn about consent, safety, etc.

I do take the point that 'don't drink so much you're incapacitated' or 'avoid rough areas at night' is unisex advice - that's fine and fair enough.

Why is this logic never applied to any other kind of crime. Nobody ever called out articles on how not to get scammed as victim blaming. Nor does anyone care when police urge people not to leave their valuables in plain sight. And the list goes on.

It's not victim blaming to recognise that as much as we try to 'educate men', there will always be a criminal element, and it's prudent to take precautions not to fall victim.

they rape because of a culture which presents the female body as a consumable object

LadyHester

Nail on head

The portrayal of women and our bodies as akin to property is so well ingrained that comparisons to locking doors and wearing seatbelts in order to protect ourselves are always trotted out.

Because, uniquely, women are regarded as complicit in rape. Because the patriarchy casts men as desiring agents and women as desirable objects, the woman bears responsibility for making herself irresistibly desirable. As though a £50 note lay on the pavement shouting ‘Pick me!’
And because in the Western romantic tradition men like to cast themselves as helpless victims of feminine allure.

Read the relationships board on here and I bloody wish someone had pointed out all the red flags in abusive men when I was younger.

I think this is the key, being aware of the 'tricks' (for want of a better word). Being aware of Pick Up Artist techniques, all of that, made it a bit clearer exactly what a proportion of men want, and that they don't care if you consent to it or not.

KS article is quite 'mild' and I'm not really sure what 'advice' she is giving other than 'be realistic when making risk evaluations'. She's not telling anyone not to drink, and it is true that being drunk in a bar full of blokes probably makes you more vulnerable than if you weren't drunk - opportunists abound- but she expressly says "Yet it is rapists who are responsible for their crimes. No matter how intoxicated nor scantily dressed a victim, it is not her fault."
If you think you will be more vulnerable, you can think about whether there are mitigating actions you can take, like agreeing with your friends to keep an eye on each other, covering your drink, etc.

Again, like covid - some people thought the 'cost' of wearing a mask was so great that they didn't care if they put children on a cancer ward at risk of death. Or more likely, they had a very flawed risk evaluation strategy which essentially told them 'it won't happen and if it does it won't be my fault'.

Why is this logic never applied to any other kind of crime.

Rape is a fairly distinctive - perhaps unique - crime, in that the thing that occurs (sex) is feasibly something that people might consent to, but also something awful if you don't. So there is less burden of proof needed that 'sex occurred' but much more on consent, which up until fairly recently has been literally treated as a joke in much of popular culture, and is incredibly hard to prove.

This is precisely why many people's "default" scenario of rape is a stranger jumping out, rather than being done by a chancer you know who won't let you go.

That quote is silly. The female body as a consumable object to men is biology. It's a natural animalistic instinct.

On the contrary, it's culture that gives us the concept of consent, and that women are people in their own right. It's culture that made us realise women don't exist for the pleasure of men, not the other way around.

‘That quote is silly. The female body as a consumable object to men is biology. It's a natural animalistic instinct.’

Wtaf?

Because the patriarchy casts men as desiring agents and women as desirable objects

Again, this isn't patriarchy but biology. You could put babies on a desert island with zero human interaction, and when they hit puberty the boys would start to desire the girls.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with generalised comments teaching women about possible dangers out there. It's not a woman's fault if she gets sexually assaulted, but knowing the scenarios where it's more likely, might help her stay safe on the first place.

Yep, because as we know man can't be expected to control themselves.

Offensive to men and women. Good job 👏

Rape is conscious violence, an exercise in power, sadism, and cruelty.

Even extreme evolutionary biology surely doesn't suggest that all men are rapists unless taught not to be?!

Men don't need to be taught to desire women. It's not a cultural thing.

Rape isn't just 'desire'. It's violence. Sadism.

What are the precautions to not fall victim to rape?

Do these precautions to not fall victim to rape work? What is the evidence to show this?

Whose freedoms are curtailed when these precautions are observed? What impact does this have?

Who is responsible when the precautions are not observed and the crime is committed?

It's not always all of the above. In fact I think it's usually not much more than a sex-drive motivated crime.

Men have a drive to have sex. Without the concept of taking someone else's wishes and feelings into account, men would behave no different than dogs.

It's only because we are human that we can understand the concept of not hurting others. And the more our concept of consent evolves - thanks to culture - the lower the rape statistics.

@AbraKedavra... quit whilst your behind...

"The female body as a consumable object to men is biology" (my emphasis)

"You could put babies on a desert island with zero human interaction, and when they hit puberty the boys would start to desire the girls" and desire = rape???

Going back to my original point, you can ask all these questions about for example being scammed. Yet nobody has a problem with an article how to avoid being scammed.

What would stop them? Naturalistic morals only go so far. The rest is education. Which is why we educate out children to take others' feelings into account. Without that education, the natural instinct of mankind is to be selfish and grabby.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00021369.1988.11005977?journalCode=rjfs18 "It is concluded that the majority of rapists are motivated by an aggression incorporating power, acceptance of violence, revenge and anger".

Why are sexual offences increasing? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022#:~:text=The%20volume%20of%20sexual%20offences,offences%2C%20compared%20with%20the%20previous

Well, no.

So men have a drive to have sex but women don’t? Men desire women but women don’t desire men? And this is somehow biology?
Female orgasm? Clitoris?
Okaaaaaay

Even if the first article was right - and I have my serious doubts - that would be because other forms of rape have mostly stopped. Do you think a man having sex with his wife regardless of her wishes 100 or 500 years ago, did it because of anger and all the other bollocks? It was because he wanted sex and he was (in his mind) entitled to get it.

Nowadays we classified that as rape, and we educate about consent. As a result, it happens far less.

Are you seriously comparing the sex drives on men in general to that of women in general?