630 CHED poll asks if rape victims are to blame, 35% prove people are still awful

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If going out on Saturday is considered as risky for a woman as a black person attending a KKK party, what does that say about us as a society?

I never said they were equal. If they were, it would say bad things about us as a society. Still, if you were black (and somehow rather ignorant), you might want to know that attending a KKK party is a risky activity.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think it's as statistically significant a factor as you do.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/

Speaking of bad science, how does surveying men about their attitudes towards consentual sex invalidate data from actual rapes? For instance: men will be more persistent with women who are sober. That's because if she were sloshed, it would be rape. That doesn't mean women who are sloshed are less likely to be raped whatsoever. Honestly, if you want to critique methodology, you need to look at your supporting evidence with the same critical eye that you use for mine.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So baseless speculation then?

Nope. Informed speculation. Do I know with 100% certainty that rapes would decrease in a hypothetical situation where all women were to dress more modestly and never drink? I don't. Perhaps rapists would not be deterred. It's possible, although rather implausible, that women who at higher risk merely shift that risk away from other women, but I think that's unlikely.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Dude, this is victim-blaming plain and simple. Do Sikhs contribute to the racism against them by wearing traditional cultural attire? What exactly should women wear to keep men from raping them?

Sikhs would suffer less anti-Sikh discrimination if they don't wear traditional attire. Should they make that trade? That's not for me to decide. So what should women wear? Whatever they want. But they should be aware of the risks.

Originally Posted by rubecube

See flameswin's picture.

Entirely useless as an explanation of what you meant, so thanks!

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, prove the mitigation. With regards to the original study you posted there's this:

19% is 19%. If you can reduce your odds of a heart attack by 19%, that's mitigation. I never claimed 100% mitigation.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually that is better analogy because rape, like burglary is a crime of opportunity, which proves that the provocative attire thing is a load of crap.

If it's a crime of opportunity, then it stands to reason that there are risk factors you control - you can determine whether or not you are an easy opportunity.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not really. I'm saying what you're doing does more than harm the good because too many people use it as an excuse not to get involved in advocating for broader societal changes. If men are the problem then why are women the ones who have to adjust their behaviour?

If burglars are the problem why are homeowners the ones who have to adjust their behaviour? They don't have to... but they should be aware of the risk factors, not kept in the dark because those who would educate them are labelled as apologists for criminals.

[undercoverbrother]

Somehow I think the video of Patrick Stewart talking about his mother and father would be useful.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

SebC's argument is the actual epitome of why we can't have nice things.

Do you even understand his argument? Because seems like a lot of posters are having trouble comprehending his point. It's not "women who dress provocative deserve to be raped", it's more "walking in Forest Lawn at 1am dressed provocative might give you a better chance of being raped then walking in Tuscany at 1am in a nuns outfit".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Speaking of bad science, how does surveying men about their attitudes towards consentual sex invalidate data from actual rapes? For instance: men will be more persistent with women who are sober. That's because if she were sloshed, it would be rape. That doesn't mean women who are sloshed are less likely to be raped whatsoever. Honestly, if you want to critique methodology, you need to look at your supporting evidence with the same critical eye that you use for mine.

I think self-reporting is a bad methodology in pretty much all circumstances, but I think it would be more appropriate to ask rapists what their motivations were for raping someone than to ask rape victims why they were raped.

Nope. Informed speculation. Do I know with 100% certainty that rapes would decrease in a hypothetical situation where all women were to dress more modestly and never drink? I don't. Perhaps rapists would not be deterred. It's possible, although rather implausible, that women who at higher risk merely shift that risk away from other women, but I think that's unlikely.

You'll have to explain to me how what a woman wears makes her more or less vulnerable to rape. Otherwise I would think that a rapist would look for some other sign of vulnerability.

Sikhs would suffer less anti-Sikh discrimination if they don't wear traditional attire. Should they make that trade? That's not for me to decide. So what should women wear? Whatever they want. But they should be aware of the risks.

It's not a should they, it's should we as a society accept a culture where they have to. I'm asking if you have some suggestions on what clothing women should wear if they want to avoid getting raped because, in my opinion, what constitutes provocative is probably pretty subjective. Honestly, your explanation makes about as much sense as telling women to stay out of the workplace because they'll face less risk of sexual harassment at home.

Entirely useless as an explanation of what you meant, so thanks!

If provocative dress is such a big factor in rape, why are rape statistics virtually similar or in some cases more prominent in countries where women on the whole dress more modestly? Your argument might make sense if the majority of women getting raped were drunk, white girls in mini-skirts but that's not the case.

19% is 19%. If you can reduce your odds of a heart attack by 19%, that's mitigation. I never claimed 100% mitigation.

Sure, if you want to be a heartless dick about it. "Hey, sucks that you got raped, but maybe if you had worn some slacks instead of that skirt you would've had 19% less chance of it happening. Keep that in mind for next time!"

If it's a crime of opportunity, then it stands to reason that there are risk factors you control - you can determine whether or not you are an easy opportunity.

Except everything you're advocating is based on post-hoc speculation.

If burglars are the problem why are homeowners the ones who have to adjust their behaviour? They don't have to... but they should be aware of the risk factors, not kept in the dark because those who would educate them are labelled as apologists for criminals.

You're missing my point. I have no problem with people pointing out the methods that rapists use to attack their targets. Saying watch your drink at a club or try not to let someone isolate you is a lot different than saying "Well you're partially to blame because in my opinion, what you were wearing is pretty slutty."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Do you even understand his argument? Because seems like a lot of posters are having trouble comprehending his point. It's not "women who dress provocative deserve to be raped", it's more "walking in Forest Lawn at 1am dressed provocative might give you a better chance of being raped then walking in Tuscany at 1am in a nuns outfit".

Ignoring the fact that the workplace, the home, etc., are all much riskier places for women than Forest Lawn at 1 AM, what are women who don't have a choice in the matter supposed to do? I'm thinking for instance of a woman who works a night shift, lives in Forest Lawn, and doesn't drive. Is she still partially to blame?

[Yakbutter]

See Wikipedia: Straw man argument ^^

All the guy did was point out a study where one of the risk factors was determined to be "provocative dress".

He is not blaming women for dressing "provocatively", or saying that the victims deserve to be blamed because of their choice of clothes. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that.

[pylon]

I think SebC is getting a bit of a raw deal here.

I don't think he is saying they deserve it. But if a 10/10 super fox in a tiny mini skirt and stilettos knowingly makes the choice to walk past the Rapey McRaperson halfway house. She is far more likely to get attacked than 65 year old blue haired grandma with a front bum. Does she deserve it? Of course not, he isn't saying that. Did she make a bad choice? How could you say she didn't?

It is like going to a Canucks game decked out in Flames gear, and giving double middle fingers to the guy next to you in a Tony Tanti jersey every time the Flames score, and expecting not to have an altercation.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ignoring the fact that the workplace, the home, etc., are all much riskier places for women than Forest Lawn at 1 AM, what are women who don't have a choice in the matter supposed to do? I'm thinking for instance of a woman who works a night shift, lives in Forest Lawn, and doesn't drive. Is she still partially to blame?

Of course not and no one ever said they would be. Funny thing is while I'm not a girl I used to work at the Forest Lawn McDonald's in my teenage years and I used to walk home late at night. Do you think I wasn't aware that there was a possibility I could be mugged? Probably a better chance than another guy getting off his shift at the West Hills McDonald's. That doesn't mean I deserve to be mugged but just the reality of the situation.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Yakbutter

See Wikipedia: Straw man argument ^^

All the guy did was point out a study where one of the risk factors was determined to be "provocative dress".

He is not blaming women for dressing "provocatively", or saying that the victims deserve to be blamed because of their choice of clothes. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that.

It's not her fault that she got raped if she doesn't mitigate her risk factors, but she did contribute to the likelihood of it happening.

If she contributed to it happening, how is it not partially her fault? The problem I have with the provocative clothing argument is that it's post hoc analysis. How can you prove that a woman who dressed provocatively and got raped wouldn't have gotten raped if she had dressed modestly? It's speculative at best and can have a pretty damaging effect on those who've been victimized.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You'll have to explain to me how what a woman wears makes her more or less vulnerable to rape. Otherwise I would think that a rapist would look for some other sign of vulnerability.

I pointed you to a study that says it's a factor in victim selection. Ergo, if clothing is not a matter of opportunity, but is a factor in victim selection, then victim selection is not 100% opportunity. It's still a risk factor.

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not a should they, it's should we as a society accept a culture where they have to. I'm asking if you have some suggestions on what clothing women should wear if they want to avoid getting raped because, in my opinion, what constitutes provocative is probably pretty subjective. Honestly, your explanation makes about as much sense as telling women to stay out of the workplace because they'll face less risk of sexual harassment at home.

"A culture where they have to" is not acceptable. But it may also be impossible to eradicate anti-Sikh discrimination entirely, so whether or not we find it acceptable that's what we've got.

I assume loose-fitting clothing that doesn't show much skin mitigates the most risk. If you really want the answer, you should do an in-depth study. Good luck getting funding! People like you (and most of our government, apparently), will call you immoral simply for wanting the answer.

Originally Posted by rubecube

If provocative dress is such a big factor in rape, why are rape statistics virtually similar or in some cases more prominent in countries where women on the whole dress more modestly?

Because now you're not controlling for other variables. Who said it was a big factor? I just said it's a factor.

[quote=rubecube]Sure, if you want to be a heartless dick about it. "Hey, sucks that you got raped, but maybe if you had worn some slacks instead of that skirt you would've had 19% less chance of it happening. Keep that in mind for next time!"[/rubecube]Reality is a heartless dick. Facts are facts.

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're missing my point. I have no problem with people pointing out the methods that rapists use to attack their targets. Saying watch your drink at a club or try not to let someone isolate you is a lot different than saying "Well you're partially to blame because in my opinion, what you were wearing is pretty slutty."

Well, I've never said that. If what you wear is a risk factor, then saying "consider what you wear" is really quite similar to saying "watch your drink" (the difference is that not getting to wear revealing clothing is perceived as a higher cost than not leaving drinks unattended).

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ignoring the fact that the workplace, the home, etc., are all much riskier places for women than Forest Lawn at 1 AM, what are women who don't have a choice in the matter supposed to do? I'm thinking for instance of a woman who works a night shift, lives in Forest Lawn, and doesn't drive. Is she still partially to blame?

Here you go again with blame. What's she supposed to do? Make an educated decision between living her life and hoping for the best, or mitigate risk by trying to find a day job, moving, carpooling, etc. It's not blaming her to point out that she's at a higher risk if she doesn't mitigate. Blame implies moral responsibility. Contribution to risk is not blame.

Note: I'm not 100% convinced that clothing is a risk factor. For the most part, I'm assuming that it is, and using it as an example. Substitute alcohol for revealing clothing, and the general principles of what I'm saying still apply.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The problem I have with the provocative clothing argument is that it's post hoc analysis. How can you prove that a woman who dressed provocatively and got raped wouldn't have gotten raped if she had dressed modestly? It's speculative at best and can have a pretty damaging effect on those who've been victimized.

Fair enough, and I agree with that.

Saying "it's a risk factor" and saying "that's why you got raped" are very different things. If you misinterpret the former as the latter, then yes that will be harmful. So let me clarify that I'm saying the former.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by pylon

I don't think he is saying they deserve it. But if a 10/10 super fox in a tiny mini skirt and stilettos knowingly makes the choice to walk past the Rapey McRaperson halfway house. She is far more likely to get attacked than 65 year old blue haired grandma with a front bum. Does she deserve it? Of course not, he isn't saying that. Did she make a bad choice? How could you say she didn't?

In what reality does this happen on a regular basis that isn't out of necessity? This isn't remotely what I'm talking about. What I'm basically saying is that if women don't feel safe enough to go out at night then we need to trying harder to make it safer for them, not telling them to stay in.

It is like going to a Canucks game decked out in Flames gear, and giving double middle fingers to the guy next to you in a Tony Tanti jersey every time the Flames score, and expecting not to have an altercation.

Dude, that's a really brutal analogy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Fair enough, and I agree with that.

Saying "it's a risk factor" and saying "that's why you got raped" are very different things. If you misinterpret the former as the latter, then yes that will be harmful. So let me clarify that I'm saying the former.

Okay, that's fair then. I would tend to warn a female friend if she was travelling to South Africa that it might not be the best idea, so I guess we're on the same page in that regard.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

In what reality does this happen on a regular basis that isn't out of necessity? This isn't remotely what I'm talking about. What I'm basically saying is that if women don't feel safe enough to go out at night then we need to trying harder to make it safer for them, not telling them to stay in.

You will never get rid of predators, some human beings are just wired as sickos, and nothing aside from genetic engineering technology that is likely hundreds of years away, will ever be able to purge the problem, and be able to assure humans are not born with dangerous intentions. You made it clear in another thread about mental illness how such a scenario is Hitleresque, and wrong, so what is the answer? Some people just want to watch the world burn, and no potential punishment or consequences will stop them. The best way to protect yourself in any situation, is to avoid danger in the first place. I am not saying that women should not dress sexy. I don't want to live in a world they don't, it is one of life's sweet little free bonuses as a heterosexual man. But you cannot suggest, that there aren't scenarios, where that same sexiness, desire and lust, hasn't lead to a woman being attacked.

Roll a couple strippers into a house party full of 50 or 60 fall down drunk, hormone raging, 18-22 morons, or even a bachelor party with guys in their 30's, and watch the girls have to defend themselves, and stave off guys pulling their wangs, and trying to feel them up. I've seen it with my own two eyes, and it is uncomfortable as hell, and shocking at what seemingly normal dudes you thought you knew are capable of. Some men just have an animal inside them they cannot contain, especially when booze is involved.

Dude, that's a really brutal analogy.

Is it really? I have been in two altercations at sporting events in 'enemy' territory in my lifetime. One at an Oilers Game in my 20's, one at a Canucks game about 10 years later. And both times the mitigating factor, was simply what I was wearing, a Flames Jersey. Did I cheer a little too loud for locals? Maybe. Was I drunk? No. Did I threaten anyone? No.

I have been physically confronted twice for simply wearing a black/red/yellow shirt, and cheering. Had I worn a plain leather jacket (or acid wash jean jacket to blend in at Rexall), and kept my hands in my lap, I would have never had an issue. Appearances, and actions can 100% play a role in a crime being committed onto someone. Even if it isn't their fault.

I agree with your sentiments that we have to try and protect women from sexual assault and rape. You would have to be insane or evil to not want that. Unfortunately though, it is going to happen no matter what, and no amount of politically correct, liberal mindset is going to stop a sicko, from being a sicko. And as sad as it may seem, sometimes the most simple solution in the here and now, may be for women to avoid certain situations that would be considered high risk.

[Wastedyouth]

Ok. Let's try from a different view point. I work in Iraq, the rules when travelling between sites is I should be wearing a flak jacket and travel in an armoured car. This is a good rule, it is there for my safety. But I don't have to do it, really. I could take a cab, I know there are risks, just the nature of the environment and society I work in.

Now say I take that cab and it gets hit by an IED.

Would you guys not think "what an idiot, why didn't he just take the normal transport?"

Well it's because I chose to accept the risks involved and unfortunately there are predators in the society I live/work in and I paid a terrible consequence.

Now the hook here is, that same IED could have gone off by my armoured car with my flak jacket on. And I would probably have a much higher rate of survival. I would probably still be injured and possibly mortally, but my chances are better with the safer mode of transport.

This, is what I think about when I hear stories about women and men going out and putting themselves in a position that something bad may happen (rape, stabbed, what have you). It is your choice to put yourself in those situations, there is danger inherent in our lifestyles.

Would it not be better to mitigate those dangers as much as you can?

[cancer man]

Old Chinese proverb:

Rape impossible!
Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down!

[Wastedyouth]

I do want to clarify my comments.

Not all rape cases are the same, of course. I aim my analogy at the situations where there was a possibility of the victim was able to mitigate factors with common sense.
And who knows, even if all those common sense options are taken, something may happen.

Then there are the people who say "well should we all live in fear that we may be raped if we do anything risky?"

To that I say, working in Iraq, there is a chance I could get blown up travelling the country. I understand the risk I am taking, so I mitigate the risks as much as I can.

Which is something I believe everyone should do, men and women.

[RougeUnderoos]

Geez... children getting run over, men getting in fistfights at hockey games, warzones and IED's, short skirts... The world is a dangerous place. You gotta take precautions, and while you are totally not to blame if someone commits a crime against you, you kind of do have yourself to blame sometimes. It's all about precautions.

I know all about precautions. I got mugged once and the son of a bitch hit me in the head with a brick and stole my watch. I'll admit I had a few drinks that night, I was wearing a nice watch, and I walked home alone. I'm not saying it was my fault - obviously I didn't commit any crime and a crime was committed against me by a criminal - but really, I didn't need to be out having drinks, and I have a clock on my phone so I didn't even need to be wearing that watch. Not my fault at all, but if I wasn't wearing that watch, I wouldn't have been mugged, so kind of my fault, I guess. I woke up in the hospital with a concussion and the first thing I thought was "that's it, no more watches for me". I haven't worn a watch since, and I haven't been mugged since, so...

Although, I have heard some left-wing politically correct nonsense about watch theft being more about just being able to tell time, so who knows? Maybe he would have mugged me anyway, even if I was just wearing a digital?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Geez... children getting run over, men getting in fistfights at hockey games, warzones and IED's, short skirts... The world is a dangerous place. You gotta take precautions, and while you are totally not to blame if someone commits a crime against you, you kind of do have yourself to blame sometimes. It's all about precautions.

I know all about precautions. I got mugged once and the son of a bitch hit me in the head with a brick and stole my watch. I'll admit I had a few drinks that night, I was wearing a nice watch, and I walked home alone. I'm not saying it was my fault - obviously I didn't commit any crime and a crime was committed against me by a criminal - but really, I didn't need to be out having drinks, and I have a clock on my phone so I didn't even need to be wearing that watch. Not my fault at all, but if I wasn't wearing that watch, I wouldn't have been mugged, so kind of my fault, I guess. I woke up in the hospital with a concussion and the first thing I thought was "that's it, no more watches for me". I haven't worn a watch since, and I haven't been mugged since, so...

Although, I have heard some left-wing politically correct nonsense about watch theft being more about just being able to tell time, so who knows? Maybe he would have mugged me anyway, even if I was just wearing a digital?

Awesome. Double thanks!

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Do you even understand his argument? Because seems like a lot of posters are having trouble comprehending his point. It's not "women who dress provocative deserve to be raped", it's more "walking in Forest Lawn at 1am dressed provocative might give you a better chance of being raped then walking in Tuscany at 1am in a nuns outfit".

I understand it perfectly. However, if accepted, it will lead to girls wearing more and more conservative clothing. Which is why I said "this is why we can't have nice things". It's getting warmer out, and I think the girls of our fair city should take advantage of that, for, you know, not my vicarious enjoyment or anything, but just because. Yes.

I always found the "asking for it" argument sort of silly - no, girls, don't wear revealing outfits; as men, if we see you dressed like that we quite simply do not have the willpower to resist committing sexual assault. Seriously?