The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Gadarene]

Oh please.

If I prepare to defend myself in case a guy tries to attack me, and then he doesn't attack me, what harm comes of it? Absolutely none.

Other than reinforcing a culture where we view every guy as a potential criminal? I mean, I get why you don't care about that, you're operating on self-interest and you're not a man, but others might care about that.

(It's funny how we're not allowed now to tell a single rape joke because that reinforces "rape culture" but treating all men as potential rapists? Nope, no negative consequences from that whatsoever! Social dynamics apparently stop when we're being crappy to men! )

You ever learn how to do a risk assessment? You ask yourself what the likely outcome is, and how likely it is to happen.

Haha, yeah mate, the KKK are all about their risk assessment and OSHA paperwork to justify their fear of them non-whites.

How likely is it that a woman will be raped? During her life, she has a 25% chance. So, quite likely. How serious are the consequences? High to very high. And yet you complain when women try to prepare for dealing with it? Get over yourself.

No, you get over yourself. I've never said once you shouldn't prepare. What I object to is the profiling. Prepare, but do it without that. You do not have the right to defend yourself in any way you see fit without consequences.

 

[Radrook]

Oh please.

If I prepare to defend myself in case a guy tries to attack me, and then he doesn't attack me, what harm comes of it? Absolutely none.

If I don't prepare to defend myself and he does attack me, what harm comes of it? I become another statistic.

You ever learn how to do a risk assessment? You ask yourself what the likely outcome is, and how likely it is to happen.

How likely is it that a woman will be raped? During her life, she has a 25% chance. So, quite likely. How serious are the consequences? High to very high. And yet you complain when women try to prepare for dealing with it? Get over yourself.

Women don't behave as if they are in any special risk. They bicycle down isolated roads, sit calmly in isolated areas near alleys, walk casually down deserted streets.

 

[Gadarene]

So, a question for you all, @KTS, @Paidiske, @Zoii

The leading cause of death for Aussie women is heart disease.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/leading-causes-of-death/

Seeing how death is a worse outcome than rape, and heart disease is a bigger risk for women than rape, and given how utterly and totally afraid you apparently all are of being raped -

How scared are you of heart attacks?

If you are being proportionate about this as you of course insist you are - then you must be scared to Cthulhu-esque levels of heart disease.

Or if you're (presumably) not, are you going to relinquish your faith-based belief that fear and a handful of context-free stats is a reliable metric for evaluating risk and justifying profiling?

 

[Dave-W]

Merriam-Webster defines it as: "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

There's nothing there about it only applying to a person who is penetrated against their will.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rape

Again, nothing there about needing to be penetrated before you are a victim.

Here is the 2013 revised FBI definition, the legal standard for the US:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

The previous definition was this:

The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape

So the legal definition involves penetration BY THE PERP. Your scenario of a woman drugging a guy and then having intercourse with him while unconscious legally is NOT rape. (that assumes that the drugs do not prevent an erection)

 

[Kylie]

It's the other stat you're quoting - that the majority of rapists are men. The CDC stats I unpicked for you earlier would indicate otherwise. A good quantity of rapists are women, but no-one is suggesting profiling them.

Perhaps you could narrow it down for me. The page you linked to had several Excel spreadsheets, and each one had over a dozen pages in it. I'm not going to go searching through all that to find something. Tell me where it is or show me directly.

Um...I know? I never said you did? Try reading what you're responding to? I said profiling, not punishing?

Try living with the threat.

Irrelevant. You have not justified the cutoff point for why a (purported) 90% proportion of rapists being men justifies bigoted profiling of men as I asked. Maybe consider doing so - if you can.

Are you actually saying that I have no reason to be prepared, despite the risks I face as a woman?

The usual response from women when you call them out on their bigotry. "You're a bad man!" Please. I've been accused of way worse for calling out people like you.

I'm sorry, perhaps I need to make myself clear.

I'm calling you a jerk because it seems to me that you are saying that women should not worry about being raped by a man, despite the fact that 1 in 4 women WILL be raped, and 90% of those rapes will be committed by a man.

Ooh, well this is an interesting bit of projection isn't it? I never claimed black people are inherently more criminal, I simply made the same manner of observation about their general criminality that you did about men and rape - namely that black people commit disproportionately more crimes.

Wow you are a piece of work, aren't you?

So according to you, black people commit more crimes, but they are not more criminal.

Care to explain how that works?

So given that you took the same sort of statement you made about men but directed at black people as a claim that black people are inherently more criminal, that would suggest you think men are inherently more rapist than women.

If men are not inherently more rapist than women are, why are the vast majority of rapists men?

 

[Gadarene]

And how many things like this did he get? Because I'm betting that what he got was only a small percentage of what the women got?

He gets death threats regularly by his own admission.

But I see the goalposts are moving again - first it was "men don't get this!" Now, it's "Fine ok men get this but NOT AS MUCH"

Read the Pew report I linked you previously yet?

 

[Gadarene]

Here is the 2013 revised FBI definition, the legal standard for the US:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

The previous definition was this:

The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape

So the legal definition involves penetration BY THE PERP.

I love how sacrosanct a definition redefined three years ago is to you

 

[Jack of Spades]

The feeling is entirely mutual, madam, I assure you.

I worship you, British people.

 

[Dave-W]

I love how sacrosanct a definition redefined three years ago is to you

Not by me - by the whole law enforcement establishment in the US.

 

[Kylie]

Other than reinforcing a culture where we view every guy as a potential criminal? I mean, I get why you don't care about that, you're operating on self-interest and you're not a man, but others might care about that.

You lock your front door when you go out?

Haha, yeah mate, the KKK are all about their risk assessment and OSHA paperwork to justify their fear of them non-whites.

Oh please.

Those groups are trying to exert power over those they oppress. I'm not aware of any woman who wants to see guys as potential rapists because they want to oppress men, and if any woman does, then she's crazy.

No, you get over yourself. I've never said once you shouldn't prepare. What I object to is the profiling. Prepare, but do it without that. You do not have the right to defend yourself in any way you see fit without consequences.

Then you tell me, when should I prepare? When the guy first lunges at me? When exactly should I prepare?

 

[Kylie]

Women don't behave as if they are in any special risk. They bicycle down isolated roads, sit calmly in isolated areas near alleys, walk casually down deserted streets.

Yes, because a woman shouldn't be allowed to do those things. She shouldn't be allowed to drink either, because we all know it's the drunk women who get raped! No talking to strange men either!

Do you hear yourself?

 

[Kylie]

So, a question for you all, @KTS, @Paidiske, @Zoii

The leading cause of death for Aussie women is heart disease.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/leading-causes-of-death/

Seeing how death is a worse outcome than rape, and heart disease is a bigger risk for women than rape, and given how utterly and totally afraid you apparently all are of being raped -

How scared are you of heart attacks?

If you are being proportionate about this as you of course insist you are - then you must be scared to Cthulhu-esque levels of heart disease.

Or if you're (presumably) not, are you going to relinquish your faith-based belief that fear and a handful of context-free stats is a reliable metric for evaluating risk and justifying profiling?

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], are you actually comparing an intentional act by another person to a heart attack?

REALLY? That's gotta be the most stupid and ludicrous argument I've ever heard!

But you better believe that if I had a 1 in 4 chance of getting a heart attack, and that heart attack had a 90% chance of being caused by a particular thing, you better believe that I would be constantly prepared to protect myself from that thing.

 

[Kylie]

Here is the 2013 revised FBI definition, the legal standard for the US:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

The previous definition was this:

The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape

So the legal definition involves penetration BY THE PERP. Your scenario of a woman drugging a guy and then having intercourse with him while unconscious legally is NOT rape. (that assumes that the drugs do not prevent an erection)

Which, as I said, is absolutely stupid.

 

[Gadarene]

Perhaps you could narrow it down for me. The page you linked to had several Excel spreadsheets, and each one had over a dozen pages in it. I'm not going to go searching through all that to find something. Tell me where it is or show me directly.

That might be the ONS stats you're referring to, not the CDC NCVS study - which you linked. I am referring to the CDC stats as I said.

Did you read your own sources, by any chance?

Try living with the threat.

That's the thing, KTS - I do. As a male I am more at risk of violence in my country. And I have already posted my experience of being assaulted, where I could have ended up blinded, permanently disabled or dead, given the weapons my assailants were using, so I am not going to have any truck with any suggestion of the notion that rape is somehow uniquely horrible.

And here's the thing you obviously can't handle, KTS.

Despite all of that, I am not even remotely as scared as you.

You can let go of that fear, you know. You don't have to let it take you over.

Are you actually saying that I have no reason to be prepared, despite the risks I face as a woman?

Seriously, are you actually...reading...what I'm saying?

I'm saying preparation is fine. Profiling is not. Not all forms of preparation are a good idea.

What I was asking you there is for you to provide an objective justification for how a 90% alleged prevalence of male rapists makes it ok to profile men, whereas in similar situations with other demographics, it's bigotry.

Your special pleading is giving a Christian apologist a run for their money.

I'm calling you a jerk because it seems to me that you are saying that women should not worry about being raped by a man, despite the fact that 1 in 4 women WILL be raped, and 90% of those rapes will be committed by a man.

No, I'm asking you to be consistent or at least make some attempt to justify your stance other than "but look how often men rape!"

Wow you are a piece of work, aren't you?

So according to you, black people commit more crimes, but they are not more criminal.

Care to explain how that works?

.....

If men are not inherently more rapist than women are, why are the vast majority of rapists men?

Wait, seriously?

Socialisation.

Due to poverty disparity as a result of, say, America's institutionally racist history, more black people in the US are in poverty, and poverty generally pushes the crime rate up. Simply pointing out that black people disproportionately commit more crimes is not equivalent to a statement that black people are inherently more criminal.

Similarly, men are socialised into society's sanctioned roles involving violence and simultaneously expected to be the sexual initiator and sexually successful. This on its own could produce a greater tendency for men to be rapists, but that doesn't make it a tendency inherent to men. We also, let's not forget, have a blind spot as a society for female rapists, which itself will encourage them as they can get away with it easier. That will also create an artefact in the statistics that make it seem as if men are so disproportionately rapists.

 

[Gadarene]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], are you actually comparing an intentional act by another person to a heart attack?

REALLY? That's gotta be the most stupid and ludicrous argument I've ever heard!

But you better believe that if I had a 1 in 4 chance of getting a heart attack, and that heart attack had a 90% chance of being caused by a particular thing, you better believe that I would be constantly prepared to protect myself from that thing.

What's the issue here?

Death is worse than rape, yes?

And a heart disease is something you can protect yourself against, like you can a rapist, yes?

I'm simply pointing out the odds. That's what you've been claiming all along is the rationale for it being ok to profile men, you and your risk assessment paperwork.

Now suddenly, the problem is that rape is an intentional act done by someone else. The goalposts have moved again, which is to be expected when someone holds an idea with such a shaky foundation.

 

[Gadarene]

I worship you, British people.

*tips tophat*

 

[Kylie]

Here is the 2013 revised FBI definition, the legal standard for the US:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

...

So the legal definition involves penetration BY THE PERP. Your scenario of a woman drugging a guy and then having intercourse with him while unconscious legally is NOT rape. (that assumes that the drugs do not prevent an erection)

Actually, you could argue that it does not state that the ATTACKER must be the one doing the penetrating, so it could also include a man being stimulated against his will so that a woman can force him to penetrate her.

 

[Kylie]

What's the issue here?

Death is worse than rape, yes?

And a heart disease is something you can protect yourself against, like you can a rapist, yes?

I'm simply pointing out the odds. That's what you've been claiming all along is the rationale for it being ok to profile men, you and your risk assessment paperwork.

Now suddenly, the problem is that rape is an intentional act done by someone else. The goalposts have moved again, which is to be expected when someone holds an idea with such a shaky foundation.

It is painfully obvious that if you can protect yourself against something bad, you will.

You're being a jerk, and I am blocking you.

 

[Armoured]

And rightly so, given the FBI definition of the word.

This might come as a shock, but not everyone use's the FBI's definition.

 

[Armoured]

Perhaps.

But I hope you don't think that when I say I prepare myself that I'm like getting into a stance like a baseball player about to swing. Because that's just silly.

It's a nuanced issue. I'm not trying to be silly, but do you see my point? Where is the line between "sensible precaution" and "offensive bigotry"?