To avoid theft, own nothing.
To avoid murder, die now.
David Rajaraman Exactly dude! If I walk into a known dangerous part of town alone and in the dark flashing around my jewellery and waving around $100 bills in my hand, and get robbed - it would be ridiculous to say that my own stupidity had anything at all to do with my chances of getting robbed.
In fact, it's ridiculous that any of us lock our doors at night or when we leave the house. We should just leave our doors and windows wide open all the time. Because we have no responsibility whatsoever in taking reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from the assholes of our society.
Logic level: 9999
In fact, it's ridiculous that any of us lock our doors at night or when we leave the house. We should just leave our doors and windows wide open all the time. Because we have no responsibility whatsoever in taking reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from the assholes of our society.
Logic level: 9999
Mainul Hasan People get robbed in homes with their very closed doors and things taken taken from us where we feel the safest. Victim blaming is not gonna help David
David Rajaraman No mention of victim blaming here. Simply stating that with the knowledge that we live amongst dangerous people, we ought to take precautions to reduce our likelihood of becoming their victims. Being irresponsible is being irresponsible. Lets call it what it is.
That doesn't make the person who failed to lock their door guilty on behalf of the robber. We understand that. We agree that the robber is the one fully guilty and responsible for the *crime* but we still advise everyone to lock their doors at night. It still reduces your chances. No doubt that walking through a prison naked is more likely to get you raped than being properly dressed. What turns you on more? A naked woman or one who's dressed? You are fully responsible for controlling yourself, but the fact is that not everyone in our society can be trusted to.
By your reasoning that people can take no precautions whatsoever for their safety and expect their chances of being attacked to remain the same, we don't need police in our societies either. Victim blaming is only victim blaming if the offender is allowed to run free without consequence - yes it happens. The response to that shouldn't be to start advising everyone that it's reasonable not to take any safety precautions whatsoever.
Go ahead, leave your doors unlocked, put all your valuables out in the open, - it makes no difference to your chances of being robbed, afterall.
That doesn't make the person who failed to lock their door guilty on behalf of the robber. We understand that. We agree that the robber is the one fully guilty and responsible for the *crime* but we still advise everyone to lock their doors at night. It still reduces your chances. No doubt that walking through a prison naked is more likely to get you raped than being properly dressed. What turns you on more? A naked woman or one who's dressed? You are fully responsible for controlling yourself, but the fact is that not everyone in our society can be trusted to.
By your reasoning that people can take no precautions whatsoever for their safety and expect their chances of being attacked to remain the same, we don't need police in our societies either. Victim blaming is only victim blaming if the offender is allowed to run free without consequence - yes it happens. The response to that shouldn't be to start advising everyone that it's reasonable not to take any safety precautions whatsoever.
Go ahead, leave your doors unlocked, put all your valuables out in the open, - it makes no difference to your chances of being robbed, afterall.
Mainul Hasan Dressing modestly should not be one of the precautions. Because locking the doors to a house is not the same as dressing modestly. Maybe it's not the same where you come from but I have seen aplenty offenders running from their due justice.
A fully clothed women will sadly be the victim of harassment if the perpetrator believes he can get away with it.
Advising everyone to lock their doors is a sound advice while telling girls to dress modestly is not. But asking them to take us self defense is and should be the first solution we provide to people that are going to be prone to rape in this clearly dangerous world.
A fully clothed women will sadly be the victim of harassment if the perpetrator believes he can get away with it.
Advising everyone to lock their doors is a sound advice while telling girls to dress modestly is not. But asking them to take us self defense is and should be the first solution we provide to people that are going to be prone to rape in this clearly dangerous world.
David Rajaraman Mainul Hasan I agree that it *shouldn't* be a precaution. But we've already established that we're detached from an ideal society.
Ideally, I *shouldn't* have to remember to lock my doors at night. In fact, women *shouldn't* need to know martial arts and self defense to safely go about their daily activities for the same reason you say they *shouldn't* have to dress modestly.
If we grant that being trained in self defense *should* be advised, then so should anything else which is ONLY applicable in this non-ideal society. On the exact same premise, we should all dress in a way to reduce our chances of becoming victims of crimes.
If the girl is capable of defending herself in any and all scenario's and is perfectly comfortable exposing herself to the risk of being attacked, she has every right to do so. But if she knowingly makes choices and commits to behaviour which puts her at risk, she does all of those things, bearing the risks.
Your reason for suggesting self defense:
1. Knowing self defense doesn't guarantee safety, but reduces chances of becoming a victim.
2. If women know self defense, they are at reduced risk of being victims.
3. Women have every right not to know self defense.
4. Women are only at risk at all of being victims because of the existence of assholes in our society.
5. Ideally, if there were no assholes, there would be no benefit nor need to know self defense, and they could be free to do as they please.
The exact same above works if you simply substitute "dress modestly" for "know self defense".
Touting cliches like "a woman has the right to dress however she wants without being sexually harassed" is about as productive to this discussion as saying "a person has the right to leave his doors and windows wide open without being robbed". Both are equally true - just not compatible with the non-ideal reality of sharing a society with morally depraved people.
Ideally, I *shouldn't* have to remember to lock my doors at night. In fact, women *shouldn't* need to know martial arts and self defense to safely go about their daily activities for the same reason you say they *shouldn't* have to dress modestly.
If we grant that being trained in self defense *should* be advised, then so should anything else which is ONLY applicable in this non-ideal society. On the exact same premise, we should all dress in a way to reduce our chances of becoming victims of crimes.
If the girl is capable of defending herself in any and all scenario's and is perfectly comfortable exposing herself to the risk of being attacked, she has every right to do so. But if she knowingly makes choices and commits to behaviour which puts her at risk, she does all of those things, bearing the risks.
Your reason for suggesting self defense:
1. Knowing self defense doesn't guarantee safety, but reduces chances of becoming a victim.
2. If women know self defense, they are at reduced risk of being victims.
3. Women have every right not to know self defense.
4. Women are only at risk at all of being victims because of the existence of assholes in our society.
5. Ideally, if there were no assholes, there would be no benefit nor need to know self defense, and they could be free to do as they please.
The exact same above works if you simply substitute "dress modestly" for "know self defense".
Touting cliches like "a woman has the right to dress however she wants without being sexually harassed" is about as productive to this discussion as saying "a person has the right to leave his doors and windows wide open without being robbed". Both are equally true - just not compatible with the non-ideal reality of sharing a society with morally depraved people.
Mainul Hasan Seems like we won't be reaching a consensus anytime soon. "Dress modestly" implies that the victim was asking for it or something. It carries that stigma. We should spend more of our productive hours catching these depraved low lives and bringing them to Swift justice. And not making excuses for them .
David Rajaraman What it *implies* is subjective but even if not so, it's a gross misrepresentation of what I said - where I clearly iterated that " the offender is fully guilty and responsible for the crime". Taking precautions against crime doesn't imply an excuse for the offender in any other instance - why does it in this case? At best, you have a rather impressive straw man argument (this is a logical fallacy).
The objective premises for not "dressing modestly" apply equally to other reasonable safety precautions you accept. The argument by way of premises and necessarily following conclusions means you'd have to also accept that it's not advisable to take any other form of safety precaution against any other type of crime or mishap.
Eg: don't lock your doors. You're making excuses for robbers.
Dont wear your seatbelt. You're making excuses for dangerous drivers.
Don't wear shoes in a workshop. You're making excuses for people who leave their tools scattered on the floor.
I'm happy to accept what you're saying as long as you agree with all the other above equivalents on the same premises.
2nd asserting that chasing down criminals and bringing justice to them is mutually exclusive with taking precautions to reduce crime is a false dichotomy at best (another logical fallacy). But the idea itself is preposterous because bringing justice to criminals is a reactive solution after the crime has been committed, not a preventative one except in a far detached and indirect manner.
Educating the masses that they are to exercise self control no matter what a woman is wearing is correct and true. It's not guaranteed to change the minds of every carnal psycho rapist out there. For as long as they exist, any other means of preventative action is advisable.
Agree to disagree but I'd rather employ true premises and their necessarily following conclusions (the definition of a sound argument) than baseless cliches and emotion.
The objective premises for not "dressing modestly" apply equally to other reasonable safety precautions you accept. The argument by way of premises and necessarily following conclusions means you'd have to also accept that it's not advisable to take any other form of safety precaution against any other type of crime or mishap.
Eg: don't lock your doors. You're making excuses for robbers.
Dont wear your seatbelt. You're making excuses for dangerous drivers.
Don't wear shoes in a workshop. You're making excuses for people who leave their tools scattered on the floor.
I'm happy to accept what you're saying as long as you agree with all the other above equivalents on the same premises.
2nd asserting that chasing down criminals and bringing justice to them is mutually exclusive with taking precautions to reduce crime is a false dichotomy at best (another logical fallacy). But the idea itself is preposterous because bringing justice to criminals is a reactive solution after the crime has been committed, not a preventative one except in a far detached and indirect manner.
Educating the masses that they are to exercise self control no matter what a woman is wearing is correct and true. It's not guaranteed to change the minds of every carnal psycho rapist out there. For as long as they exist, any other means of preventative action is advisable.
Agree to disagree but I'd rather employ true premises and their necessarily following conclusions (the definition of a sound argument) than baseless cliches and emotion.
Mainul Hasan you keep comparing modest dressing to the locking of doors of a house. while it is more akin to putting a blanket over your face if you are alone in your home, a false sense of security. a lot of cases of rape involve the victims being inebriated and victim being alone and outside. in the pursuit of risk reduction, more prudent precautions will be if you go out drinking go in a large enough group and self defense lessons which will help you keep your calm in stressful situations. chasing down the criminals is a reactive solution i agree because we cannot eradicate rape completely, there still will be cases commited by depraved souls. but showing that swift justice awaits anyone who commits such a heinous crime might hope to deter future assailants. and also help victims because they can have some sense of assurance that their pain will not go unnoticed.
i totally agree with you on the fact that educating the masses is necessary.
but i sincerely have to disagree with the fact that dressing modestly will have any impact on risk reduction.
maybe you dont imply that when you are saying it. but when when a lot of people say it means they shoildnt have been out and about flaunting their sexuality. i see the picture of a lollypop covered by ants where another "covered" lollypop remains ant free pop up in my newsfeed after a couple of days. people that are sharing them are clearly implying the one where the victim is partially at fault.
i totally agree with you on the fact that educating the masses is necessary.
but i sincerely have to disagree with the fact that dressing modestly will have any impact on risk reduction.
maybe you dont imply that when you are saying it. but when when a lot of people say it means they shoildnt have been out and about flaunting their sexuality. i see the picture of a lollypop covered by ants where another "covered" lollypop remains ant free pop up in my newsfeed after a couple of days. people that are sharing them are clearly implying the one where the victim is partially at fault.
David Rajaraman Is there *objective* experimental data or statistical studies to support the claim that a person is no less likely whatsoever to be a rape victim if dressed modestly? Note: we are talking about likelihood, not absolute guaranteed prevention.
Perceived sexual desirability IS one of many potential factors which can influence a rapist. Not saying it's the only one. Just because rapes have occurred in the absence of this factor doesn't mean that it is never a factor. That would be like saying a flat battery can have nothing to do with failure to start because there are also cars which fail to start despite having a good battery.
There IS experiment data (and your own personal anecdotal data, I'm sure) to support the notion that a persons clothing influences the sexual arousal of observers.
In light of the above, the claim is unsubstantiated and intuitively false.
Only one question is necessary to put this to rest:
Does the clothing of a possible victim have any effect whatsoever on their *perceived sexual desirability* to their attacker?
the answer is obvious from the FACT that clothing influencing the perceived sexual desirability of people is precisely how almost the entire marketing industry functions.
Let us not ignore facts, data, psychology, science and sociology for the sake of promoting a feel-good slogan.
Let us, instead, attack rape culture and condemn victim blaming, without suppressing honest knowledge and science, and legitimate sensible safety information.
Perceived sexual desirability IS one of many potential factors which can influence a rapist. Not saying it's the only one. Just because rapes have occurred in the absence of this factor doesn't mean that it is never a factor. That would be like saying a flat battery can have nothing to do with failure to start because there are also cars which fail to start despite having a good battery.
There IS experiment data (and your own personal anecdotal data, I'm sure) to support the notion that a persons clothing influences the sexual arousal of observers.
In light of the above, the claim is unsubstantiated and intuitively false.
Only one question is necessary to put this to rest:
Does the clothing of a possible victim have any effect whatsoever on their *perceived sexual desirability* to their attacker?
the answer is obvious from the FACT that clothing influencing the perceived sexual desirability of people is precisely how almost the entire marketing industry functions.
Let us not ignore facts, data, psychology, science and sociology for the sake of promoting a feel-good slogan.
Let us, instead, attack rape culture and condemn victim blaming, without suppressing honest knowledge and science, and legitimate sensible safety information.
