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.