Slutwalks

Originally Posted by BR

Is it a surprise to anyone that Trumpet is on the side of "the rape victims were asking for it?"

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Strawman. No one took that position. No surprise that is the premise of the entire event, however. If the facts don't fit, just make up the facts.

Originally Posted by trumptman

No one else is above such measures. If an officer said to you that seriously if you don't want to be mugged, don't walk through a city park late at night wearing a gold watch, talking on a late model smartphone about how much you just withdrew from the local ATM. You can piss and moan about how unfair it is that you have to think about how criminals might react to you and how you have to be defensive in your own actions rather than free to do whatever you want. Since the world has never been devoid of crime or criminals, it's better to think about them and how not to be victimized rather than screaming that we should never be victimized no matter what actions we undertake. Being protective of your own person isn't assigning blame to someone nor is it judging them. It's called being smart and safe no matter if you are a man or woman.

Originally Posted by trumptman

In other words, you would rather dismiss thought with a strawman than have a discussion. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by trumptman

There would be if the sole determination for the crime of mugging was the word of the person granting consent.

Consent isn't physical evidence. When someone mugs a person, and is caught, they can find the phone, money, gold watch, etc.

When someone declares they've been raped, the only thing that makes it rape is consent. Thus that is what has to be debated in court. I've already noted this and addressed it.

Any time the crime is about a person's state of mind, the only defense it to attack the state of mind. How does one defend themselves without doing that? If you can answer that question you'll have a point from which we can move forward.

For example as I mentioned sexual harassment can be ogling or staring. You have a co-worker declare you stared too long at her or that your gaze reflected ogling from her perspective. Please defend this without in any form or fashion questioning her judgment or state of mind.

You arrive home tonight and find the police at your home. Your wife has suddenly accused you of marital rape. How do you defend yourself while in no form impugning her state of mind or judgement?

In short, if the crime occurs in someone's mind, that is where you must go to defend yourself. For rape or sexual harassment, the crime isn't sex or attention, it is consent or unwanted attention. That is determined by the state of mind. There is no way to defend but to debate that state of mind.

Stare at your alarm clock for a minute. No crime. Have a woman declare you stared at her breasts for a minute. Now there's a crime because of how she felt related to your eyes. This can be true even if your eyes weren't on her breasts. Now defend yourself without dealing with her state of mind, feelings or anything related to her. How do you do it?

Originally Posted by trumptman

The walk aims to raise awareness about the dangers of looking at the victim of sexual assault and blaming them for the crime because of the way they dressed or acted. She said blaming victims could deter future victims from reporting sexual crimes.

That is called a quote. The claim is that being advice to be proactive is victim blaming.

What I'm saying and what you should acknowledge is that the only way to defend against a rape charge is to declare that the woman is lying. Please tell me if there is another way to defend against a rape charge without declaring the accuser to be lying. You've stepped around this issue several times now.

Originally Posted by trumptman

CTV



I've always been puzzled by the reasoning of events and their organizers like the one listed above. Slutwalk protesters are upset because of a word. They are also upset because they were told to be proactive and defensive in their posture and attitudes towards those who would or could harm them.

To me nothing screams deluded, utopian and entitled than the belief that the world and certain parties in it are beyond measures we all have to take.

Everyone can be called a name and negative words and the associations of them can't be taken away by "reclaiming" them. The associations and thoughts will simply move on to different words.

If I created an assholewalk and declared I was going to act like more of an asshole until I've reclaimed the negativity away from the word asshole and disempowered all the parties using the word, it would be seen as ridiculous. Especially when I'd have to start jerkwalks and dickwadwalks in the following months.

Was the use of the word "slut" a poor one by the officer? Perhaps, I guess the officer could have taken the concept and muddled it as so many do by declaring women might be safer in certain circumstances if they don't dress in a provocative or attention grabbing manner, but I'm pretty sure the officer didn't have a speech writer or teleprompter to help out.

I also find it strange to believe that someone doesn't report a crime because someone would use a word about them. The deeper problem is the nature of the crime. Rape involves the concept of consent and if women feel attacked in defense of a crime it is because radical feminism has so muddled the concept of consent and only views consent as a one way street, which by the way these protests also reinforce. When only one party can grant consent, that party is always going to feel attacked in the defense of that crime because to disprove the crime is to call the person alleging it a liar. To solve this you have to have consent be both ways and also have actions and other mitigating factors be involved.

If you are male, laying on your back, and a female partner straddles, you kisses you, grabs your penis and guides it into her vagina, has she become a rapist? She didn't verbally ask for permission before doing this. Did you become a rapist because even though she initiated the action and engaged in the actual manipulation of physical body parts, you didn't ask her before she did it. If she feels remorse and accuses you a day later of rape, can she invalidate your entire defense declaring you are merely trying to label her a slut.

If a cop warned that I ought not walk through a park late at night, especially with flashy jewelry, watches or cellphone, is he merely blaming the victim and being an insensitive clod? Will I feel like I ought not report the crime due to being warned to being defensive or if someone called me a negative name for not being defensive?

Screaming that you are above reality and demanding everyone protect you from reality is a type of paternalism. Paternalism in the name of equality is much of what feminism and many other grievance groups have been practicing for decades. It becomes less about attitudes and beliefs and becomes about money and programs which over time have become unaffordable. There is also never any way to declare success and have them end. They become a permanent entitlement.

Originally Posted by trumptman

...what the officer said wasn't number one.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Find the quote.

"I've been told I'm not supposed to say this," said Michael Sanguinetti, "however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

Originally Posted by MJ1970

And this is the point isn't it.

Here's the generic statement:

"X should avoid Y in order not to be victimized."

Granted, this is a bit sloppy and should have been worded more carefully by saying to "reduce the chances of being victimized ." Be that as it may, I think we understand what was meant. Well...some do.

Let's take the exact statements and translate into something different but similar:

X = any person
Y = walking in a dangerous part of town and displaying their valuables prominently

"Any person should avoid walking in a dangerous part of town and displaying their valuables prominently in order not to be victimized."

Now let's try the others:

If they avoided walking in a dangerous part of town and displaying their valuables prominently then they might not have been victimized.

It's partly their fault they were victimized because they were walking in a dangerous part of town and displaying their valuables prominently.

Originally Posted by tonton

Exactly. So there's no difference there.

But...

Everyone who is mugged will report it. Whether they think the perp will get caught or not. For one thing it tells the authorities that that part of town needs to be patrolled better.

If the perp scratched their arm when mugging them, and they believe they have DNA, they will go to the authorities with that information.

But a woman who is raped may have plenty of DNA evidence. She may have physical evidence of the rape. But she is afraid of going to court and being called a slut and a liar, so she doesn't report it.

Take away the fear of being called a slut, and the situation improves, even if just slightly.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I agree that women dressing provocatively could attract the attention of a rapist and lead him to target her.

But I also agree that the moment the rapist initiates aggression against the woman, he is 100% responsible for his own actions.

It's like the Giffords shooting. Regardless of any external triggers that may have caused him to flip out, Jared Laughner is 100% responsible for his own actions. He initiated the aggression. Yet so many were (and are) so willing to accuse Sarah Palin of being an accessory to murder for publishing a political map with crosshairs on it, claiming that's what he acted on.

Are people 100% responsible for their own actions, or aren't they?

Originally Posted by trumptman

The part about which I'll say that your analogy is less clear is that a rapist is going to rape. At best the clothing amounts to painting a target on your back rather than making the rapist look harder for their victim. It in no form excuses the rapist but good defense is just that, attempting to limit the chances something will happen to you.

Just like if you don't want to be mugged, don't travel alone, don't look like a tourist, don't wander into dark areas, etc.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I don't think anyone is claiming that the rapist is not responsible for their own actions. But there does seem to be an effort to eliminate any responsibility on the part of the victim for making less-wise and less-safe actions that may have increased their probability of victimization.

It's sorta like a person who smokes...falls asleep smoking in bed (or someone who regularly burns lots of candles in their home)...burns down the house not accepting any responsibility at all and merely blaming the cigarette companies for making a flammable product and for the house builder for building a house that burns...etc.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Well yes, dressing provocatively is unwise and potentially dangerous, as is smoking in bed.

But where the 2 cases differ is that the smoker burned down his own house through his stupidity - there was no aggression from another person involved.

Her poor choices may have made her a target, but the rape victim did not initiate aggression against anyone. She did not rape herself.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

But I think we both ultimately agree, here: the victim and rapist should both be held responsible for their own actions...the rape victim for poor choice in attire, and the rapist for committing the rape.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Take away who calling them this? If you won't say who is alleging it, then how can it possibly be prevented?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Those are straight up logical leaps. It is pure non sequitur. Each time you slightly alter the statement and declare they are all the same. They do not follow at all.