Rape Culture (Obvious Trigger Warning)

[Torchship]

Sure, we can pretend that it isn't additionally harmful to focus on the victim-blaming side. And then, after ignoring that really fucking important point, you're right that the two situations look rather similar.

Certainly, and if the statements I quoted actually concerned the (generally objectively) harmful nature of the "victim blamers" approach, then there wouldn't've been any problem. But that's not what you said. You were fundamentally weakening your own argument (and, by extension, a position which I generally agree with) by attacking the opposition through invalid means.

Also, feel free to ignore what Azrael said about this isn't the thread for that. Remember: you're welcome to focus on whatever you want, but at the same time are *not* welcome to derail every existing discussion to turn it into whatever you want.

Urm... where? I've glanced over the last 2 pages, but I can't see anything like that directed at me. Or are you referring to Azreal's general "get back on topic, children" post?

In any event, I don't really see how correcting someone's logic (in as brief and inoffensive a manner as I can) is off-topic. Any conclusions reached by the thread are utterly worthless if they are based on fallacious logic, and hence it is clearly not in the best interests of the thread for such violations to continue. If this where a thread on, say, health care and someone came in and started reductio ad hitleruming their way to victory, would I not be perfectly justified on correcting them in-thread? Should I take it to PM's? I dunno, the forum rules don't seem to cover this.

[Randomizer]

The problem with "don't walk down dark alleys at night" is that neither dark alleys nor night time are inherently dangerous, and the meme just makes me feel like, "Oh no, it's dark!", and I have to shake off this irrational fear. I know nighttime isn't any more dangerous than daylight, people don't suddenly turn evil when the sun goes down (or stop when the sun comes up). I also know that alleyways aren't some magical rape-o land, at least not any more than any other place one could possibly be outside. In fact, when it's night and there's no one around, there's no one around to get raped by either!

The only danger I've felt from being outside alone at night is from hearing that goddamned meme one too many times. How about some useful advice instead of repeating nonsensical memes? :p
-----------
@Vash regarding alternative behaviors for my ex: Well, at this point I never want him to touch me again so there's really nothing he can do to appropriately seduce me so that I'll want it. But! Going back to before I completely hated his guts...

Instead of making it abundantly clear that five minutes between him indicating he wants sex and it going in is just unbearable (which just stresses me out because I'm not getting wet fast enough for him) he could've stopped nagging and just wait for me to say when I want it. Or, better yet, he could've *refused* to give it to me unless I begged for it. That would certainly have turned things around. Feeling like I have to earn it? Oh yeah, baby.

For the groping problem? Just not doing that would be swell. Telling him, numerous times, that it's not ok to grope me without permission didn't work. Arguing with him about it didn't work. Hitting him didn't work (sure he'd stop -that- time, but it wasn't a long term solution to the problem).

...

I should've just decided that the next time he did that I'd call the police. If he wouldn't listen to me maybe he would've listened to the nice man in the uniform. Why the hell didn't I think of that before?

I mean, it was pretty clear cut. I'd be sitting there minding my own business and he'd come up and start groping me, which he'd been explicitly told not to do, I'd say no and he'd keep at it until I'd hit him sufficiently that he realized I wasn't in the mood and I wouldn't change my mind.

But, presuming a guy with half a brain who would actually listen to advice - Saying "Can I feel you up?" and then not doing so unless told "yes", and leaving the person in question alone (and not repeatedly asking) if told "no" would've been a -tremendous- improvement.

[Azrael]

Sure, we can pretend that it isn't additionally harmful to focus on the victim-blaming side. And then, after ignoring that really fucking important point, you're right that the two situations look rather similar.

Certainly, and if the statements I quoted actually concerned the (generally objectively) harmful nature of the "victim blamers" approach, then there wouldn't've been any problem. But that's not what you said. You were fundamentally weakening your own argument (and, by extension, a position which I generally agree with) by attacking the opposition through invalid means.

No, he really wasn't. If a chosen means to address a problem is to repeatedly espouse a mantra only applicable in a tiny portion of relevant cases as if it were a panacea, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with stating the flaws in the method. If people want to keep doing it, they have every right to. And we have every right to keep telling them their approach is flawed.

Honestly, at this point you seem bent on the meta-argument, which isn't a particularly useful discussion.

[gmalivuk]

Also, feel free to ignore what Azrael said about this isn't the thread for that. Remember: you're welcome to focus on whatever you want, but at the same time are *not* welcome to derail every existing discussion to turn it into whatever you want.

Urm... where? I've glanced over the last 2 pages, but I can't see anything like that directed at me.

Sorry, I didn't realize that something had to be directed at *you* for it to nonetheless be relevant. I was referring to this post, where

be aware that in the written and topic-segregated medium we are currently using, sometimes 'whatever it is that you please' really does belongs somewhere else.

And my problem was not with people who expend their efforts giving rape-prevention advice to potential victims. My problem was with it "taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape". The fact that I agree it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on how the issue at hand can be considered a subset of some larger issue in no way logically contradicts the fact that I also think it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on one tiny subset of the issue at hand.

So get off your damn high horse of trying to correct our logic for our own good or whatever.

[Torchship]

No, he really wasn't. If a chosen means to address a problem is to repeatedly espouse a mantra only applicable in a tiny portion of relevant cases as if it were a panacea, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with stating the flaws in the method. If people want to keep doing it, they have every right to. And we have every right to keep telling them their approach is flawed.

I agree, pointing out the flaws in the "victim blamers" ideas is a perfectly legitimate passtime, but he didn't do that in the post I quoted. Not a single instance of it. What he did say was "But it is advice that should stop taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape.", which is a concept which I feel strongly violates the statement I quoted a couple of pages ago.

Honestly, at this point you seem bent on the meta-argument, which isn't a particularly useful discussion.

I'm not particularly attached to this argument, and frankly I'm a little sad at how much it's blown out of proportion. I was hoping gmalivuk would either correct me on one or more of my assumptions (as you did when I asked you the same question) or quietly accede and change his argument. I'm quite happy to drop this entire thing if either one of you (being yelled at by mods is scary) wants me to.

So get off your damn high horse of trying to correct our logic for our own good or whatever.

Urm... is correcting someone's logic not a legitimate (and relatively on-topic) passtime in this subforum? Honest question. If someone walked into this thread right now and said "I oppose perpetrator-focused education because that's what Hitler did" would or would not I (and by extension, everyone else) be in the right to correct their crimes against logic in the thread? Should we just let them go at it? Should we PM them? Should we PM a mod? Should we just ignore them? Both the general forum rules and the SB rules say nothing about this issue, so an actual ruling on what's best to do in this situation would be greatly appreciated (so, you know, I know what to do in future situations).

I posted my objections in-thread because I believed it to be the best option. I even thought I was being mostly on-topic, since if the logic presented in the thread is bad, the conclusions reached in the thread will also be bad. If I was wrong then by all means correct me, but I don't see how what I've done is worth such hostility.

And my problem was not with people who expend their efforts giving rape-prevention advice to potential victims. My problem was with it "taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape". The fact that I agree it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on how the issue at hand can be considered a subset of some larger issue in no way logically contradicts the fact that I also think it's wrong to derail an existing discussion by focusing on one tiny subset of the issue at hand.

I wasn't under the impression that this was the thread for discussion of how to stop rape. Is it? Another honest question: this thread has been about everything and anything in the last couple of pages, and the fact that there exists a thread titled "How to stop people from becoming rapists" lead me to believe that that particular niche was well-occupied. Since perpetrator-focused rape-prevention strategies already has its own thread, wouldn't that make this thread open for victim-focused education strategies, which seems to be what people want to talk about? I've seen plenty of other threads be left alone after they've suffered similarly drastic topic-changes in the past on this forum, so I assumed that this was fairly standard practice.

If all of the above assumptions are correct, then yeah, your logic is bad. If not, then not. If any of my assumptions were incorrect, then please correct me.

[Azrael]

I agree, pointing out the flaws in the "victim blamers" ideas is a perfectly legitimate passtime, but he didn't do that in the post I quoted. Not a single instance of it. What he did say was "But it is advice that should stop taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape.", which is a concept which I feel strongly violates the statement I quoted a couple of pages ago.

Alright, via the underlined statement we have agreement on what is 'ok' and that the approach is logically consistent with my previous statement (that you do so enjoy quoting). But, you contend gmal isn't doing that.

However, here's his full quote:

But it is advice that should stop taking center stage in every single discussion of how to stop rape. Because it's fairly obvious, for one, but also because it's not relevant to the vast majority of rapes.

He points out the flaws in the approach in the very same post. And it's not (by far) the first time he (or any one of several other people) have explained that. Often in greater detail. Certainly with notable frequency. Particularly in this thread.

If all of the above assumptions are correct, then yeah, your logic is bad. If not, then not. If any of my assumptions were incorrect, then please correct me.

This isn't about assumptions anymore. It's becoming a discussion about your reading comprehension.

------------------------------------------

And while we're at it, why don't we all leave the meta-discussion about the meta-discussion (the argument about the relevance of your argument with the way someone else is arguing about the specified topic) out of this thread.

[podbaydoor]

Torchship, I have been careful in every single one of my posts on this particular tangent to specify that I don't think "advice to potential victims" should be stopped, banned or diminished. However, I would like it to stop being the very first thing that comes up in every single discussion about rape, and I would like it to stop being used as a shield against doing anything about potential rapists.

[sigsfried]

I want to make it clear I agree with the above I just disagree with statements on the lines of "measures that put any responsibility on potential victims is wrong" simply because in this less than ideal of worlds we sometimes don't have a choice. I used the Peter Suitcliffe case as an example because it is the kind of thing where I think it is appropriate, and yes such events are very rare.

[podbaydoor]

Yes. We get that. Can we, as a community, move on now?