So according to some feminists, this anti-rape ad campaign is sexist

Gabriel O'Brien

New member
Dec 16, 2011
13
0
0
I would just like to point out a few things in this thread.
1. The fact that it says nothing about male rape (because it does happen) is stupid.
2. Being in the military I know this because they give us retarded ammounts of classes on rape and rape prevention and using your reasoning and being proactive, something civilians should ALL EMBRACE.
3. The picture is at best suggestive... It makes their argument a little hard to make considering the first thing every feminist sees is the photo and thats all they need to rage.
4. Not going to lie... we live in a double standard society, in my case say I get drunk and meet a chick who is exactly as wasted as I am. If I have sex with her I AM AT FAULT and will recieve UCMJ action and possible court martial. Depending on the state they have similar regulations and you could get slammed with those as well.
5. What people lack in our USA is foresight and perspective... they play too rough for most people to focus on their point. But if we just sit back and really understand what they mean they have good intentions for sure... planning everything especially where you know alcohol is involved is never a bad idea.
6. They should have given steps in prevention and smart ways to have backup plans and backups for those backup plans. This would make them alot more valid and clear up alot of the confusion.

Okay I guess that ended up being a bit more than a few but in conclusion good intention bad judgement and implimentation. DONT BE STUPID! GO WITH FRIENDS WHO GOT YOUR BACK! RAPE PREVENTION IS JUST AS IMPORTANT ON EVERY LEVEL NOT JUST THE RAPISTS! If you want to help prevent rape hit both fronts while being both respectful and sincere as well as laying it on the line. Rape only happens when the rapist thinks they can get away with it... think about how vulnerable you are and come up with ways to prevent it. I don't rest blame on anyone because this isn't a blame game it's a prevention game and you need thick skin.
 

Pearwood

New member
Mar 24, 2010
1,929
0
0
The phrase "rape culture" disturbs me greatly.

SuperMse said:
Rape is the rapist's fault. Target your ads at them, not the victims.
People already know rape is bad. An ad campaign saying that isn't going to achieve anything, an ad campaign teaching rape awareness might.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
Captain Booyah said:
Oh yeah, of course. It just isn't such an easy task as putting up a few posters and hoping they'll pay attention.
Agreed. I'd hope that if posters were involved, they'd be as part of a wider campaign (much the same with any cause you want to do anything with), not just stuck there so someone can pretend to have done something useful...though, better to light one single candle and all.
 

Brainpalm

New member
Apr 17, 2010
101
0
0
The way I see it, we don't go out and tell sharks not to eat people, instead we tell people to be careful of sharks. We don't tell lions not to eat people, again we tell people to be careful of lions and to pretty much stay the fuck away from them. Same goes for any other dangerous wildlife etc.

It also holds true for rapists, you cant just tell them to not rape people, there is virtually no way that is gonna work. So we tell women (the most likely victims of rape) to take care of themselves, be wary in parties where you don't know many people, don't dress too provocatively, don't take drinks from strangers. And if you take the "don't dress provocatively" thing as an insult, and think it means the victim is to blame for being raped, then you are a moron. Its for your own personal safety, and to help keep you safe by making you aware of some steps that could help to prevent rape. You cant just target these ads at rapists and expect it to stop, you need the possible victims to be aware so they can at least lessen the chances it will happen to them. You honestly cant deny that a lady in a miniskirt and low cut top is more likely to be raped than a lady in jeans and a less revealing top, or a long (past knee length) dress.

Feminists should just stop looking for reasons to be insulted, honestly that's the reason why feminism is laughed at and hated by everyone, if you removed all the nutters, Nazis and extremists, then it would actually be a logical and likely favoured movement. But what would I know? Im a male and thus my opinion is that of a chauvinist male pig who objectifies women.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
Pearwood said:
The phrase "rape culture" disturbs me greatly.
Why? Surely there must be some cultural element to it, unless every rapist was born a rapist and there is nothing that could have stopped them. Society must have played a part in their upbringing, whether by failing to teach then what is and isn't acceptable, by making them feel that the rules don't apply to them or to certain groups, by raising them in an abusive situation where such things are the norm, or something else.

Brainpalm said:
The way I see it, we don't go out and tell sharks not to eat people, instead we tell people to be careful of sharks. We don't tell lions not to eat people, again we tell people to be careful of lions and to pretty much stay the fuck away from them. Same goes for any other dangerous wildlife etc.

It also holds true for rapists, you cant just tell them to not rape people, there is virtually no way that is gonna work.
We have told people they can no longer attack, say, people of different sexuality or race to themselves, and hate crimes of those nature have decreased somewhat. Why should rape be any different?
 

poleboy

New member
May 19, 2008
1,026
0
0
Captain Booyah said:
And how would you even go about teaching this "Don't rape" message? I agree with the sentiment, but normal guys don't need to be told not to rape women. If you are a rapist, then a poster telling you it's bad probably isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Only valid point I've seen so far. A potential rapist isn't going to see this imaginary poster and think "Gee whiz, I was going to rape the shit out of some women tonight, but this excellent campaign sure made me rethink that!" Rape is often a spur-of-the-moment thing, it's not something that involves a whole lot of reflection and consideration. I think they're much better off trying to help women help themselves not get raped. Of course it can be discussed whether the campaign is getting the message across properly or just making things worse, but the idea of ads targeted at potential rapists seem laughable to me. Chances are, if you already view women as sexual objects for your amusement, a couple of posters and a lifted finger isn't going to make a difference.

And let's not forget that rape usually has very little do with sex. It's a demonstration of power, and you might potentially avoid that demonstration if you watch how you treat people, and how they react to you.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
On one hand, I get the "let's not blame the victim" response - there are schools of thought that see this as part of a bigger social problem. On the other hand, I don't think that advising people to take reasonable precautions is blaming the victim.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
this isnt my name said:
Wow... Just wow. If we have any feminists on the forum, I hope to god they dont share her views.
I would hope we're all feminists. These people are just retarded.

OT: The ad's fine, they'd have had more of a case if it had said to not dress a certain way.
 

Brainpalm

New member
Apr 17, 2010
101
0
0
thaluikhain said:
We have told people they can no longer attack, say, people of different sexuality or race to themselves, and hate crimes of those nature have decreased somewhat. Why should rape be any different?
But has that worked? Are there still not hate crimes, attacks etc committed? The answer is No it hasn't worked, and Yes there are. A solution to stopping those sorts of things would be to learn self defense, or to not openly expressing your beliefs in areas where it could land you in trouble. Would you think telling someone those prevention measures is insulting them? Is it making them to blame for being the victim? Or is it merely helpful advice to help prevent an attack from occurring? Most of the people who would commit crimes like rape, or commit hate crimes etc are irrational psychopaths. They wouldn't listen to you telling them not to rape someone, just as a lion would not listen to you telling it not to devour someone. You really cannot reason with people who would harm others in such a horrible way, which is why it makes a lot of sense to at least give the possible victims some information and tips to give them a chance of avoiding the situation or getting away if it does happen.

And we have told people they cant rape others, that is kinda common sense. Re-enforcing that with an ad campaign would do absolutely nothing, in the same way an ad campaign saying something like "Dont murder people as it is bad" would do nothing. Its already an obvious thing, and the people who would consider doing such things would need a lot more than an ad to set them straight. Protecting the victim is of higher concern than trying to change the mind of the rapist/murderer and would be a hell of a lot easier, since changing the mind of the criminal would need like subliminal messaging and other crazy junk.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
Brainpalm said:
But has that worked? Are there still not hate crimes, attacks etc committed? The answer is No it hasn't worked, and Yes there are.
Yes, it has worked. It hasn't totally eradicated hate crimes, but there are less than there used to be.

Brainpalm said:
Most of the people who would commit crimes like rape, or commit hate crimes etc are irrational psychopaths.
No, they aren't. Do you think there are less hate crimes being committed now than in previous years (in the West at least) because there just happen to be less psychopaths around? Likewise, is the higher rape statistics from places like Africa because there just happens to be lots of psychopaths there by complete coincidence?

If hate crimes were mostly committed by psychopaths they'd remain more or less constant across the globe and throughout all time periods.
 

darkfox85

New member
May 6, 2011
141
0
0
Okay. I?ve done it.
It took all night and morning but I?ve read the entire thread.
I feel there is much more to discuss and I hope for reasonable discourse.

My position:
1) The advert of the original poster will ultimately do more harm than good
2) Its never someone?s fault if they get raped. Ever. Not even slightly.

There are some rules and facts that need to be laid down first. Most have already been made but I feel they deserve reiteration:

1) The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knew prior to the assault. There are exceptions, but the psychopathic variety is much rarer. Despite this, the more theatrical and openly terrifying and (depressingly) morally unambiguous psychopathic variety tends to capture the publics imagination and presents to them the only case of rape. This is a gross oversimplification that must be (and is) challenged (and I?m glad to see it?s in this thread.) (The previously mentioned moral ambiguity is the product of our society which many anti-rape campaigners try to draw to our attention to. Unfortunately some posters in this thread seem to throw it back in their faces. It?s my hope to change their minds or be fairly defeated.)

2) The vast majority of rape crimes go unreported. This is confirmed by support groups whose members confess that they don?t report the violation.

3) The conviction rate is very low

I?d also like to remind everyone that we all live in different countries and statistics change depending on source and reliability and when we?re not looking. But the above facts hold true even if the exact percentage is slightly different.

Before I start in earnest, I also want to draw attention to something: A lot of people are using false comparisons between different types of public service announcements to support their argument.

Ads that remind us to wear seatbelts or helmets, or ads that remind us not to drink and drive are not comparable to this rape ad as presented by the OP. These sort of warnings help prevent random accidents of chance which can happen by fate (if you will) not looking upon us favourably. (Similar principles for dangerous wildlife.) Rape is a premeditated (sometimes very briefly premeditated) and deliberate crime, not an accident. Accidents don?t have a perpetrator in the same way that crimes do. (The anti-rape ad of the OP brings with it a lot of damaging conclusions and presuppositions that have already been accurately sniped but I?ll put forward my own wording in time.)

Further, most rape is committed out of ignorance and arrogance of the attacker (not recognising the criminality, violence, or cruelty of their actions.) Coupled with ignorance their minds and hearts are clouded by horniess, booze, delight in macarbre opportunism, pathetic excuse making and sinister rationalisation. In this case the ads that would help prevent rape should be directed at the would-be attackers to prevent committing this ?accident? (this is a crude and even dreadful way to put it, but I think the parallels add up.) Directing anti-rape ads (like the one presented by the OP) at the victim (as opposed to the perpetrator) indirectly suggests the attack is largely the victims fault which is false and unfair. This point is indirectly presented to both potential victims and potential attackers.

Although there are certain precautionary measures against potential attackers (attackers that aren?t ignorant of the gravity of their crimes; unlicensed taxis being one example) the general nature of the type of rape as outlined in the above paragraph can be prevented via better education and encouragement of empathy on the part of the potential attacker. (This sub-point isn?t the only reason why I find the OP?s ad to be misleading and very damaging. There is more coming.)

Some posters here say this demonises men. I don?t understand this point. If you truly understand the nature of rape then this hypothetical ad of education on behalf of the vulnerable is not directed at you.

Other flawed (but admittedly more nuanced) comparisons of cautionary advertisements draw parallels between other crimes. Mugging seems to be a popular choice. These compare a person to walking down a dark street (perhaps in a bad neighbourhood and whilst drunk) and getting mugged and the result of the mugging being to a certain degree the fault of the person being mugged.

Now, crime and criminals are to be avoided, naturally, but a sexual assault (I?d like to hope we?ve all learnt by now) isn?t as simple as the crimes it?s being compared to by certain arguers. There are many different types of rape and many different mentalities behind the both motivation to rape and the understanding of the nature of the crime. Rape is personal violation and it can get very thorny and tricky to decode. Many public ideas towards rape are misconceptions that are attempting to be corrected (and meeting with suspiciously overly-defensive hostility.)

The details of the hypothetical mugging don?t particularly matter since we live in a society where we recognise that mugging is a dreadful thing. Some clever posters in this thread have shrewdly written scripts showing an alternate reality where the details of a mugging do matter and the absurdity of it being the victims fault and all the legal problems that come with it. I feel that this demonstrates that the details and circumstances surrounding the rape (the degree of promiscuity in the victim, the attire of the victim, the degree of drunkenness, etc) shouldn?t be taken into consideration. No one asks to be raped. (One particularly nasty comment tried (I must be honest rather bravely) to bring up the possibility of rape fantasies in the victim. Even if the victim has these fantasies they should not be able to find a rapist unless inside the ?psychopathic sphere.? Besides, literally asking to be raped is an inherent contradiction.)

The circumstances that surround the rape that I mentioned are commonly used by defence lawyers to cast doubt on both the testimony and fault (to blame) of the victim, and are presented to gullible juries as ?evidence.? I hope none of the people who saw this ad and feel that the victim didn?t take the proper precautions aren?t serving on this hypothetical jury. (Further I hope that I might convince just one person to slightly reconsider before they might serve on a jury that might present an awkward rape case.)

But nevertheless the position of my opponents is that the ad acts as a preventative measure and should be respected. Now, Julie Mastrine (the author of the article, whose name hitherto hasn?t been mentioned in this entire thread) admits that although she (correctly) has a problem with this ad, it still means well and she is just making a valid observation. Most of the posters in this thread who support this ad also mean well.

But some seem to be taking advantage of this to launch an attack on feminism. Need I remind anyone that rape is not an entirely feminine issue? There are four possible gender combinations between victim and attacker. But still, the most common rape, is, by far, reported or unreported, a male attacker against a female victim. So, sexual assault is at best a ?mostly? feminist issue. But to those who attack feminism I must remind that feminism is a massive political issue wherein any position taken therein would offend the sensibilities of other feminists. (E.g. egalitarian versus difference versus radical.) Further some of these posters, if given a moment of introspection, would see they inadvertently prove Mastrine?s point.

But now I must introduce a point that no one else has brought up. The reason is obvious, for this is a controversial and razor sharp issue that is urgently overlooked but perhaps deliberately unacknowledged. The point is, rape is natural. I shall type that again. Rape is natural. Animals lack the sophisticated communication of humans and they aren?t bound by laws and philosophies of civilised societies. I could mention lions, dolphins, or ducks. But I think I?ll help my point along faster if I mention rape amongst primates. It seems ?consent? is determined by whether or not the ?animal victim? (if you will) can throw off the unwanted advances of the attacker (although some animals do have group of tribal laws or operate under the thumb of an Alpha, the naturallity of sexual assault is a fact.)

But this is my attack on the cruelty of nature, not on the superiority of civilised society. We?re thankful that we are an animal that?s reached such staggering intelligence and have built mind boggling societies. I?m glad that we can, to a certain extent, hold this violence accountable and are given an option to transcend our animal hardware and at least attempt to protect the innocent. (By the way, has anyone ever thought it odd that it?s the rape victims dignity and honour that?s called into question and is in need of protection yet the attackers dignity and honour seems to be (comparatively speaking) overlooked in the gravity of the crime?)

But in looking at the natural nature of rape, we also need to take an honest look at normal male sexuality. Yes, NORMAL MALE sexuality. Now I don?t believe that males (gay or straight ? by ?normal? I did not mean sexual orientation) are naturally more horny that female: I think this is an illusion brought on by societal pressures, but males are much less selective about who to chose as a viable mate for reproduction as opposed to females who can only bore one child per nine months. We seem to forget that the purpose of sex is to have children ? not recreation. I wonder if the very concept of ?recreational sex? isn?t all just our minds attempt to trick our bodies into thinking we are improving the chance of our individual genetic survival. Also I don?t think the dolphin arguments apply. I don?t think non-sapient creatures have any concept of recreation. As for homosexuality and lack of reproductive results, they are still capable of reproduction but the body doesn?t necessarily recognise that what they?re doing will not generate offspring.

I sorry if I hurt the feelings of ?masculinists? (if you will) who are so very quick to remind everyone that women can rape (before wetting their lips) but a quick look at both nature and ?civilised? society brings forth uncomfortable facts about who we are, and in understanding our purpose and the nature of out sexuality we can conquer this evil from within. This is how we have reached the level of civilisation that we have (I?m talking about more than just basic human rights) and I think we should keep going. Be honest gentleman, how many of you fear rape on a day-to-day basis? How many women do you think fear it on a day-to-day basis? They?re hardcore and don?t take this threat lightly.

I don?t think rape is entirely about dominance and not sex. There are other ways to assert dominance: physical violence, wealth, social status, shouting loudly etc, but the hypothetical option chosen is sex. Now I?ll admit that there?s not a more thorough way to assert your dominance than by vicious sexual ?bitchification? but therein is the appeal of rape. It?s not dominance. It?s sexual dominance. Cruel gratification is achieved and two birds are killed with one stone.

I mentioned way back that ?rape is [sometimes] committed out of ignorance of the attacker (not recognising the criminality, hostility, or cruelty of their actions.)? It has been stated by wise posters before me that that the act of rape is most often subtle and illusive to the perpetrator (but not the victim.) The potential victim shouldn?t need to hold a red light to stop a rape, but instead to consistently hold a green light to indicate acceptable intercourse. Anything apart from this proverbial ?green light? must be interpreted as a ?red light.? This is the ?education? that I, and many other who have posted in this thread, feel should be on anti-rape warnings rather than blaming the victim.

But I also earlier mentioned that some precautionary measures should be taken yet I also said, as my second position that ?It?s never someone?s fault if they get raped. Ever. Not even slightly.? This is not a contradiction. The precautionary measures as outlined by the ad in question should be directed at avoiding the small minority of the psychopathic variant of rapists who knows full well that what they?re doing is utterly evil (the advice on the OP?s ad needs to be much more specific.) This is the rapist the general public imagines. The prowler in the dark city.

These sub-humans will be with us forever and can only be deterred by more extreme measures. Stronger penalties, better security etc, but these creatures will always exist. The precautions you take as outlined in that ad will only shift the dreadful consequence to someone else. What?s the solution? All of us to never consume alcohol and wear a burqa? I hear the folks that do those things have it even worse.

But what if someone doesn?t take these precautionary measures and falls afoul? Is it their fault? No. Even if naked and smeared with a succulent juice whilst screaming and dancing down the most vicious street of the most lawless nation at the darkest hour of night in mating season. (You think I am being deliberately absurd? No. This comparison is the only fair comparison to some of the utterly deranged burglary comparisons that are being attempted here. The paragraph above is, I think, I fair reflection to ?leaving your front door unlocked and getting your house burgled.? Hell, even using the word ?blame? for these false comparisons is a subtle semantic error.)

Sexual assault can happen almost anywhere. Privacy isn?t even an issue thanks to the bystander effect (bystander apathy/genovese syndrome). The fear and paranoia that resides in the minds of all those to whom sexual assault in a very real threat gets my sympathy and support that others are so quick to attack with knee-jerk vehemence. The victims don?t need the added guilt by sharing responsibility for the violation simply by existing in a bad state at the wrong time. Their weakness. Their failure. Their worthless deservedness for being so fucking stupid! This shift of blame is very subtle, but it is there, and English speakers are some of the worst in the developed world when it comes to this. This just doesn?t compare to getting your car stolen. Do you carry your car with you wherever you go? Do people look at it with hunger? Do you fear to let your guard down when you?re not surrounded only by your very closest friends in any environment?

No one ever truly thinks ?it was my own fault? if they get mugged, and they certainly don?t ?beat themselves up? about it. But even if they do, it doesn?t compare to that feeling of guilt and shame of the rape victim that?s there thanks to ads like this and people like those in this thread who seem to think rape is entirely the result of not taking proper precautions. Its one reason so few victims (victims you may care about because you?re not a ?psycho?) rarely come forward and the very rape culture that Julia Mastrine is talking about is demonstrated.

Let?s not be hypocrites. Let?s not be delusional. Let?s not oversimplify things. Let?s not hyper-sensitively deflect blame from the miniscule possibility of those potentially falsely accused onto demographics that have dealt with this violent attack. What ever happened to sacrifice? Let?s try and hear.

There are people who need this hypothetical poster.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Brawndo said:
While the board may have had good intentions, these ads show that rape culture is alive and well in our society. Alcohol is definitely a huge factor when it comes to sexual assault, but in no circumstances is it ever the victim?s fault. Again we see our culture continuing to teach ?Don?t get raped!? instead of ?Don?t rape.? And instead of teaching people how to make sure they?re properly getting consent from someone they?re hooking up with, our society perpetuates a mindset that makes women feel guilty for a crime committed against them.

...

It's not "blaming the victim" to teach women rape awareness and prevention anymore than telling people to lock their doors and buy an alarm is blaming the victim of a burglary. Rape, like murder, theft, or any other crime, will never go away completely, so it is important for young women to learn how to protect themselves.
Agreed. These ads aren't going to "convince" people not to rape, because those people are not reasonable people. There has probably never been a single rapist who, being of sound mind, was confronted with this information and say, "Wait, what? Illegal, you say? And immoral? Shit-in-a-hat -- I had no idea! Oh, certainly, I'll stop right away!"

However, "crusading" against campaigns like this one do major damage. By saying, "It's wrong to tell people what they can do to help prevent this crime," you're telling people there is nothing they can do.

What's wrong with telling a woman, "Because there are rapists out there, it might not be a good idea to drink heavily in public and go home with a stranger?" If she's raped, sure, it's still the rapist's fault. But if she takes the advice and doesn't get drunk and go home with him, she wouldn't be raped at all. Isn't that a better outcome than just catching the rapist?

Seriously, this is the same as protesting against "Women's Self Defense" classes, because they put too much responsibility on the woman to fight off the attacker, rather than putting the responsibility on Rapists to go to "Don't Attack Women" classes. Why should she have to do anything, right? It's preposterous.

But it's a symptom of our complete inability to separate the concept of fault from the concept of responsibility. To use your own analogy, if someone walks into my house and steals my stuff, my insurance won't cover me if I tell them I had no door locks. What, does that mean it's my fault[/i] my house got robbed?

No. It means it was my responsibility to do the simple things that could have prevented it. Sure, the police have a responsibility to try to find the guy -- but they only have that responsibility because I didn't fulfill my responsibility to take preventative steps.

Let's say I'm at a crosswalk, and I have the green crossing light, and I just step out into the road without looking. And let's say I get hit. Yes, the car who hit me is at fault. Is that supposed to be a consolation to me while I'm dead? While it is 100% true that he shouldn't have hit me, it's also 100% true that I should have checked before crossing, too.

It's not either/or. Just because I'm not at fault doesn't mean I don't have any responsibilities for prevention.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
darkfox85 said:
Okay. I?ve done it.
It took all night and morning but I?ve read the entire thread.
I feel there is much more to discuss and I hope for reasonable discourse.

My position:
1) The advert of the original poster will ultimately do more harm than good
2) Its never someone?s fault if they get raped. Ever. Not even slightly.

There are some rules and facts that need to be laid down first. Most have already been made but I feel they deserve reiteration:

1) The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knew prior to the assault. There are exceptions, but the psychopathic variety is much rarer. Despite this, the more theatrical and openly terrifying and (depressingly) morally unambiguous psychopathic variety tends to capture the publics imagination and presents to them the only case of rape. This is a gross oversimplification that must be (and is) challenged (and I?m glad to see it?s in this thread.) (The previously mentioned moral ambiguity is the product of our society which many anti-rape campaigners try to draw to our attention to. Unfortunately some posters in this thread seem to throw it back in their faces. It?s my hope to change their minds or be fairly defeated.)

2) The vast majority of rape crimes go unreported. This is confirmed by support groups whose members confess that they don?t report the violation.

3) The conviction rate is very low

I?d also like to remind everyone that we all live in different countries and statistics change depending on source and reliability and when we?re not looking. But the above facts hold true even if the exact percentage is slightly different.

Before I start in earnest, I also want to draw attention to something: A lot of people are using false comparisons between different types of public service announcements to support their argument.

Ads that remind us to wear seatbelts or helmets, or ads that remind us not to drink and drive are not comparable to this rape ad as presented by the OP. These sort of warnings help prevent random accidents of chance which can happen by fate (if you will) not looking upon us favourably. (Similar principles for dangerous wildlife.) Rape is a premeditated (sometimes very briefly premeditated) and deliberate crime, not an accident. Accidents don?t have a perpetrator in the same way that crimes do. (The anti-rape ad of the OP brings with it a lot of damaging conclusions and presuppositions that have already been accurately sniped but I?ll put forward my own wording in time.)

Further, most rape is committed out of ignorance and arrogance of the attacker (not recognising the criminality, violence, or cruelty of their actions.) Coupled with ignorance their minds and hearts are clouded by horniess, booze, delight in macarbre opportunism, pathetic excuse making and sinister rationalisation. In this case the ads that would help prevent rape should be directed at the would-be attackers to prevent committing this ?accident? (this is a crude and even dreadful way to put it, but I think the parallels add up.) Directing anti-rape ads (like the one presented by the OP) at the victim (as opposed to the perpetrator) indirectly suggests the attack is largely the victims fault which is false and unfair. This point is indirectly presented to both potential victims and potential attackers.

Although there are certain precautionary measures against potential attackers (attackers that aren?t ignorant of the gravity of their crimes; unlicensed taxis being one example) the general nature of the type of rape as outlined in the above paragraph can be prevented via better education and encouragement of empathy on the part of the potential attacker. (This sub-point isn?t the only reason why I find the OP?s ad to be misleading and very damaging. There is more coming.)

Some posters here say this demonises men. I don?t understand this point. If you truly understand the nature of rape then this hypothetical ad of education on behalf of the vulnerable is not directed at you.

Other flawed (but admittedly more nuanced) comparisons of cautionary advertisements draw parallels between other crimes. Mugging seems to be a popular choice. These compare a person to walking down a dark street (perhaps in a bad neighbourhood and whilst drunk) and getting mugged and the result of the mugging being to a certain degree the fault of the person being mugged.

Now, crime and criminals are to be avoided, naturally, but a sexual assault (I?d like to hope we?ve all learnt by now) isn?t as simple as the crimes it?s being compared to by certain arguers. There are many different types of rape and many different mentalities behind the both motivation to rape and the understanding of the nature of the crime. Rape is personal violation and it can get very thorny and tricky to decode. Many public ideas towards rape are misconceptions that are attempting to be corrected (and meeting with suspiciously overly-defensive hostility.)

The details of the hypothetical mugging don?t particularly matter since we live in a society where we recognise that mugging is a dreadful thing. Some clever posters in this thread have shrewdly written scripts showing an alternate reality where the details of a mugging do matter and the absurdity of it being the victims fault and all the legal problems that come with it. I feel that this demonstrates that the details and circumstances surrounding the rape (the degree of promiscuity in the victim, the attire of the victim, the degree of drunkenness, etc) shouldn?t be taken into consideration. No one asks to be raped. (One particularly nasty comment tried (I must be honest rather bravely) to bring up the possibility of rape fantasies in the victim. Even if the victim has these fantasies they should not be able to find a rapist unless inside the ?psychopathic sphere.? Besides, literally asking to be raped is an inherent contradiction.)

The circumstances that surround the rape that I mentioned are commonly used by defence lawyers to cast doubt on both the testimony and fault (to blame) of the victim, and are presented to gullible juries as ?evidence.? I hope none of the people who saw this ad and feel that the victim didn?t take the proper precautions aren?t serving on this hypothetical jury. (Further I hope that I might convince just one person to slightly reconsider before they might serve on a jury that might present an awkward rape case.)

But nevertheless the position of my opponents is that the ad acts as a preventative measure and should be respected. Now, Julie Mastrine (the author of the article, whose name hitherto hasn?t been mentioned in this entire thread) admits that although she (correctly) has a problem with this ad, it still means well and she is just making a valid observation. Most of the posters in this thread who support this ad also mean well.

But some seem to be taking advantage of this to launch an attack on feminism. Need I remind anyone that rape is not an entirely feminine issue? There are four possible gender combinations between victim and attacker. But still, the most common rape, is, by far, reported or unreported, a male attacker against a female victim. So, sexual assault is at best a ?mostly? feminist issue. But to those who attack feminism I must remind that feminism is a massive political issue wherein any position taken therein would offend the sensibilities of other feminists. (E.g. egalitarian versus difference versus radical.) Further some of these posters, if given a moment of introspection, would see they inadvertently prove Mastrine?s point.

But now I must introduce a point that no one else has brought up. The reason is obvious, for this is a controversial and razor sharp issue that is urgently overlooked but perhaps deliberately unacknowledged. The point is, rape is natural. I shall type that again. Rape is natural. Animals lack the sophisticated communication of humans and they aren?t bound by laws and philosophies of civilised societies. I could mention lions, dolphins, or ducks. But I think I?ll help my point along faster if I mention rape amongst primates. It seems ?consent? is determined by whether or not the ?animal victim? (if you will) can throw off the unwanted advances of the attacker (although some animals do have group of tribal laws or operate under the thumb of an Alpha, the naturallity of sexual assault is a fact.)

But this is my attack on the cruelty of nature, not on the superiority of civilised society. We?re thankful that we are an animal that?s reached such staggering intelligence and have built mind boggling societies. I?m glad that we can, to a certain extent, hold this violence accountable and are given an option to transcend our animal hardware and at least attempt to protect the innocent. (By the way, has anyone ever thought it odd that it?s the rape victims dignity and honour that?s called into question and is in need of protection yet the attackers dignity and honour seems to be (comparatively speaking) overlooked in the gravity of the crime?)

But in looking at the natural nature of rape, we also need to take an honest look at normal male sexuality. Yes, NORMAL MALE sexuality. Now I don?t believe that males (gay or straight ? by ?normal? I did not mean sexual orientation) are naturally more horny that female: I think this is an illusion brought on by societal pressures, but males are much less selective about who to chose as a viable mate for reproduction as opposed to females who can only bore one child per nine months. We seem to forget that the purpose of sex is to have children ? not recreation. I wonder if the very concept of ?recreational sex? isn?t all just our minds attempt to trick our bodies into thinking we are improving the chance of our individual genetic survival. Also I don?t think the dolphin arguments apply. I don?t think non-sapient creatures have any concept of recreation. As for homosexuality and lack of reproductive results, they are still capable of reproduction but the body doesn?t necessarily recognise that what they?re doing will not generate offspring.

I sorry if I hurt the feelings of ?masculinists? (if you will) who are so very quick to remind everyone that women can rape (before wetting their lips) but a quick look at both nature and ?civilised? society brings forth uncomfortable facts about who we are, and in understanding our purpose and the nature of out sexuality we can conquer this evil from within. This is how we have reached the level of civilisation that we have (I?m talking about more than just basic human rights) and I think we should keep going. Be honest gentleman, how many of you fear rape on a day-to-day basis? How many women do you think fear it on a day-to-day basis? They?re hardcore and don?t take this threat lightly.

I don?t think rape is entirely about dominance and not sex. There are other ways to assert dominance: physical violence, wealth, social status, shouting loudly etc, but the hypothetical option chosen is sex. Now I?ll admit that there?s not a more thorough way to assert your dominance than by vicious sexual ?bitchification? but therein is the appeal of rape. It?s not dominance. It?s sexual dominance. Cruel gratification is achieved and two birds are killed with one stone.

I mentioned way back that ?rape is [sometimes] committed out of ignorance of the attacker (not recognising the criminality, hostility, or cruelty of their actions.)? It has been stated by wise posters before me that that the act of rape is most often subtle and illusive to the perpetrator (but not the victim.) The potential victim shouldn?t need to hold a red light to stop a rape, but instead to consistently hold a green light to indicate acceptable intercourse. Anything apart from this proverbial ?green light? must be interpreted as a ?red light.? This is the ?education? that I, and many other who have posted in this thread, feel should be on anti-rape warnings rather than blaming the victim.

But I also earlier mentioned that some precautionary measures should be taken yet I also said, as my second position that ?It?s never someone?s fault if they get raped. Ever. Not even slightly.? This is not a contradiction. The precautionary measures as outlined by the ad in question should be directed at avoiding the small minority of the psychopathic variant of rapists who knows full well that what they?re doing is utterly evil (the advice on the OP?s ad needs to be much more specific.) This is the rapist the general public imagines. The prowler in the dark city.

These sub-humans will be with us forever and can only be deterred by more extreme measures. Stronger penalties, better security etc, but these creatures will always exist. The precautions you take as outlined in that ad will only shift the dreadful consequence to someone else. What?s the solution? All of us to never consume alcohol and wear a burqa? I hear the folks that do those things have it even worse.

But what if someone doesn?t take these precautionary measures and falls afoul? Is it their fault? No. Even if naked and smeared with a succulent juice whilst screaming and dancing down the most vicious street of the most lawless nation at the darkest hour of night in mating season. (You think I am being deliberately absurd? No. This comparison is the only fair comparison to some of the utterly deranged burglary comparisons that are being attempted here. The paragraph above is, I think, I fair reflection to ?leaving your front door unlocked and getting your house burgled.? Hell, even using the word ?blame? for these false comparisons is a subtle semantic error.)

Sexual assault can happen almost anywhere. Privacy isn?t even an issue thanks to the bystander effect (bystander apathy/genovese syndrome). The fear and paranoia that resides in the minds of all those to whom sexual assault in a very real threat gets my sympathy and support that others are so quick to attack with knee-jerk vehemence. The victims don?t need the added guilt by sharing responsibility for the violation simply by existing in a bad state at the wrong time. Their weakness. Their failure. Their worthless deservedness for being so fucking stupid! This shift of blame is very subtle, but it is there, and English speakers are some of the worst in the developed world when it comes to this. This just doesn?t compare to getting your car stolen. Do you carry your car with you wherever you go? Do people look at it with hunger? Do you fear to let your guard down when you?re not surrounded only by your very closest friends in any environment?

No one ever truly thinks ?it was my own fault? if they get mugged, and they certainly don?t ?beat themselves up? about it. But even if they do, it doesn?t compare to that feeling of guilt and shame of the rape victim that?s there thanks to ads like this and people like those in this thread who seem to think rape is entirely the result of not taking proper precautions. Its one reason so few victims (victims you may care about because you?re not a ?psycho?) rarely come forward and the very rape culture that Julia Mastrine is talking about is demonstrated.

Let?s not be hypocrites. Let?s not be delusional. Let?s not oversimplify things. Let?s not hyper-sensitively deflect blame from the miniscule possibility of those potentially falsely accused onto demographics that have dealt with this violent attack. What ever happened to sacrifice? Let?s try and hear.

There are people who need this hypothetical poster.
Well said there, you raise a number of important points.
 

Dr Snakeman

New member
Apr 2, 2010
1,611
0
0
Well, that's stupid. The only problem with this ad is, as someone previously stated, the sexual imagery. Associating arousal with rape via advertisement is kind of messed up.

Also, this guy.
RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
And ya know what? FUCK THE TERM RAPE CULTURE! ITS A BULL SHIT IDEA THAT IS SEXIST TO MEN! It is a belief that claims all men want to rape women and do so to a point that exceeds petty theft, murder, car accidents, and consensual sex. Anyone that believes "rape culture" is a thing alive and well in our society has none of my respect and all of my scorn. Not every man is a rapist waiting for his chance. If i gave two damns about what people thought of me then when i was walking home from the library today i would have been offended when the two girls jogging clutched for their pepper-spray as they crossed to the other side of the street. Its a stupid belief and forces you to live in fear. Its self imposed terrorism, its sexist, and its wrong.
I'm pretty fed up with the made-up terms that the modern feminist movement has started using, too. "Slut shaming". "Rape culture". It's all a load of hooey.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
To all the people calling this an instance of victim blaming: Do you think it is a good idea to lock your door to prevent home invasion? If I advise people to lock their door as a preventative measure against home invasion is it victim blaming?
 

Brainpalm

New member
Apr 17, 2010
101
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Brainpalm said:
But has that worked? Are there still not hate crimes, attacks etc committed? The answer is No it hasn't worked, and Yes there are.
Yes, it has worked. It hasn't totally eradicated hate crimes, but there are less than there used to be.

Brainpalm said:
Most of the people who would commit crimes like rape, or commit hate crimes etc are irrational psychopaths.
No, they aren't. Do you think there are less hate crimes being committed now than in previous years (in the West at least) because there just happen to be less psychopaths around? Likewise, is the higher rape statistics from places like Africa because there just happens to be lots of psychopaths there by complete coincidence?

If hate crimes were mostly committed by psychopaths they'd remain more or less constant across the globe and throughout all time periods.
Im talking more about the serious hate crimes, Like attacking someone within an inch of their life because of their race/beliefs, or murder because of race/beliefs. Not just discrimination and shit like that. These are committed by nutters. However there was a time not long ago when such behaviour to other races was more accepted, but those times have changed, hence the drop in hate crime occurrence. And there has been a lot of other factors that have lowered hate crime occurrence, it wasn't exactly advertising that changed it. Rape has pretty much never been accepted. (at least not in recent times ie the past 100 years) and thus it is quite a different scenario. And you pretty much need to be a nutter to want to murder someone, especially on such facetious grounds as their skin colour or which god they think is real etc. And also, most people don't give a fuck what you tell them, there are still many homophobic and racist people who would rough up an ethnic or homosexual, and walk off with a clear conscience. So telling people not to commit hate crimes hasn't really done much, its more been the general progression of society towards acceptance, and tolerance, so that the majority of people aren't bigoted or racist. And this was caused more by the actions of certain people fighting and standing up for their rights, not them whining about being discriminated against.

The number of crimes would not remain constant, by that logic there would be the same/similar number of psychopaths, spread over the country throughout all of time? It is also a difference in values etc of the society. And how people are brought up. In Africa the lifestyle would be very different which is why there are more rapists.

Now i assume you understand this, and you're just taking what i say out of context for no real good reason. I didn't say every rapist was a psychopath, but a lot of them are. And pretty much all of them are somehow messed up in the head, even if its just slightly. I really don't even get what you're trying to say with your argument? Do you disagree with what ive said? Is there a major flaw within my words? Do you think telling people not to rape others would lessen the rates of rape? But you don't think that helping women defend themselves against rapists would? Rape is a very seriously different thing to hate crimes, you cant fairly relate the two anyway.

Same deal kinda goes for murderers, (still different to rape though) would you rather support a campaign that tries to tell people that killing each other is bad, or support a campaign trying to warn people the dangers of walking the streets alone at night, and that recommends they take up a self defense course, notify friends/family if youre going out alone at night and give them an ETA so they know that if they dont hear from you by the ETA they should contact the police, and to carry pepper spray or another non lethal defensive item with them if they aren't comfortable being alone, as well as other tips? I know which one I'd support.
 

James Crook

New member
Jul 15, 2011
546
0
0
Feminism is like misogyny, but the other way around... androgyny?
Anyways, I rest my case that parity should be the standard.
 

Thespian

New member
Sep 11, 2010
1,407
0
0
SuperMse said:
I fail to see why you guys are responding so vehemently against this. Is it because someone said the magic f word? No, not that one, the other one. Because this ad campaign is victim blaming at its best. It's telling women to avoid getting raped as opposed to telling men not to rape. It's making them the problem, not the rapists. That's wrong. Why make this ad as opposed to making ads saying "Don't get drunk and take advantage of women, ya prick." I mean, imagine if you were raped while drunk and then someone said it was your fault. How would you respond? All you were doing was having a typical fun night out. It's the rapists fault for raping you, not the other way around. Yes, you should always take precautions to protect yourself, but isn't always walking around in fear of rape counterproductive to having a fun night out? Should you not party on the grounds that you might be raped, just like you shouldn't drive a car in case a drunk driver hits you? Of course not.

Rape is the rapist's fault. Target your ads at them, not the victims.
I understand your position and obviously it doesn't matter if a girl is walking down a dark alleyway stark naked throwing back shots with "Please Rape Me" tattoo'd on her back, if no consent is given then it's always 100% the Rapist's fault, no question.

However, that doesn't mean you can't do anything to lessen the chances of your victimhood.

Think of it like pick-pocketing. When in airports or tourist areas, there are often signs that say "Beware Pick-Pocketers" and advise you to keep your phone or wallet hidden or in a chest pocket.

That doesn't mean it's anyone's fault if their position is stolen. And likewise, you never see a sign that says "Don't take things that don't belong to you!" because it's pretty obvious that a thief knows that their actions are socially unacceptable.

Not that rape is equatable to pick-pocketing, and obviously in the case of rape it's your dignity and security being stolen, not your blackberry, et cetera...