Why is telling girls to be careful rape apologistic

[sgtkate]

Just curious, how would you feel if she was in Saudi Arabia? Would she be equally within her rights (morally, not legally) to go out wearing a bikini?

 

We aren't talking about legality here so your question is absolutely irrelevant.

[Waldo]

We aren't talking about legality here so your question is absolutely irrelevant.

 

I did say morally, not legally. Did I not make that clear in my post?

[Cyclone]

Just curious, how would you feel if she was in Saudi Arabia? Would she be equally within her rights (morally, not legally) to go out wearing a bikini?

 

Since there's no absolute morality, it's a thing invented by society, the morality of Saudi would say no. Which conflicts with the morality of the yes, where personal freedom is more important than following twisted religious doctrine.

In ancient rome it was morally okay to own slaves, doesn't mean that we think it's okay now though.

So I think that women everywhere should be able to go about naked if they wish, morally speaking. But morals are subjective.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 07:38 ----------

 

I hope you can see the circular reasoning you are using here:

Campaigns put the blame on victims because the put the blame (onus) on victims.

 

 

Your interpretation is a massive assumption based on a false premise though.

 

Campaigns put the blame on victims because they put the onus (not blame) on the victim to avoid getting assaulted.

If your circular argument argument rests on onus meaning blame then we have a definition problem.

 

onus

ˈəʊnəs/Submit

noun

something that is one's duty or responsibility.

 

The campaign puts the responsibility to avoid being assaulted on the potential victim, thus when that responsibility is shirked, the victim is at fault.

[leviathan13]

OK, taking the 'blame' bit out of it for a moment...

 

Ultimately, i am responsible for my own personal safety for most of my time on this planet.

 

Every car should stop at a red light, but i'm aware that their are idiots who don't. As such, i still look both ways when at a crossing. Why? Because i quite enjoy living.

 

If i cross on the green man without looking and a car hits me yes, it's their 'fault', but if i'd taken responsibility for my own safety and taken a second to look, i wouldn't be laid in the middle of the road in pain.

 

I'd rather take precautions where possible, even if it is a slight inconvenience, and try to ensure my safety rather than suffer a trauma and have to blame someone else when it's something i could have helped to possibly avoid.

[Guest makapaka]

Since there's no absolute morality, it's a thing invented by society, the morality of Saudi would say no. Which conflicts with the morality of the yes, where personal freedom is more important than following twisted religious doctrine.

In ancient rome it was morally okay to own slaves, doesn't mean that we think it's okay now though.

So I think that women everywhere should be able to go about naked if they wish, morally speaking. But morals are subjective.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 07:38 ----------

 

 

Campaigns put the blame on victims because they put the onus (not blame) on the victim to avoid getting assaulted.

If your circular argument argument rests on onus meaning blame then we have a definition problem.

 

onus

ˈəʊnəs/Submit

noun

something that is one's duty or responsibility.

 

The campaign puts the responsibility to avoid being assaulted on the potential victim, thus when that responsibility is shirked, the victim is at fault.

 

This isn't correct - you are the one attributing "onus" and then using the definition to justify the argument that the victim is then to blame.

 

You could equally say that the campaign offers "guidance"

 

guidance

 

/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)ns/

 

noun

 

noun: guidance

 

1. advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty, especially as given by someone in authority.

 

It's therefore not the victims duty or responsibility - it's just advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty.

[sgtkate]

I did say morally, not legally. Did I not make that clear in my post?

 

Then in my opinion she'd of course be morally within her rights to wear whatever she wanted, but if that put her in breach of the law then she'd risk prosecution. Moral and legal are not the same thing. I think it's MORALLY fine to walk around naked, but it's illegal.

[Waldo]

Then in my opinion she'd of course be morally within her rights to wear whatever she wanted, but if that put her in breach of the law then she'd risk prosecution. Moral and legal are not the same thing. I think it's MORALLY fine to walk around naked, but it's illegal.

 

I agree, to my mind legal and right / moral, are deffo not the same thing. Also, I'm not sure there's an absolute standard for 'moral'; western moral standards re: suitable dress, probably are at odds with those in Islamic countries (let's not make the thead about religion though!).

 

For my money, it wouldn't be prudent to walk around in a bikini (just as an example) in certain counties; you may consider yourself within your rights to do so, but others around you would surely have a different perspective, and could well land you in hot water.

 

I'm trying to go somewhere with this, that relates to the thread. Stated most simply, I think it's that I emphasise pragmatism over idealism (our own notions of what's right or wrong, and how we think the world should be). Pragmatism is more about, what is going to add to my well being, and keep me from harm.

 

The danger I'm seeing, is women being wholly idealistic and not giving enough consideration to their well being and safety, and so coming to serious harm.

 

I can also see the other perspectives expressed here, that putting the onus on women to take responsibility for their own well being; is considered victim blaming, and also detracts from condemnation of the rapist.

 

It's not a simple one!

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 13:45 ----------

 

Since there's no absolute morality, it's a thing invented by society, the morality of Saudi would say no. Which conflicts with the morality of the yes, where personal freedom is more important than following twisted religious doctrine.

In ancient rome it was morally okay to own slaves, doesn't mean that we think it's okay now though.

So I think that women everywhere should be able to go about naked if they wish, morally speaking. But morals are subjective.

 

Ah, only just noticed this, yep, I completely see things the same way as you here. I'd make no special dispensation based on gender though, generally, everyone should be free to wear and do whatever they like (so long as it's not causing actual harm to people, or the environment etc). Sometimes, I may consider their choices unwise (may hurt themselves of harm their health etc) but always it comes down to, it's their life, it's thier choice.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Waldo

[Cyclone]

OK, taking the 'blame' bit out of it for a moment...

 

Ultimately, i am responsible for my own personal safety for most of my time on this planet.

 

Every car should stop at a red light, but i'm aware that their are idiots who don't. As such, i still look both ways when at a crossing. Why? Because i quite enjoy living.

 

If i cross on the green man without looking and a car hits me yes, it's their 'fault', but if i'd taken responsibility for my own safety and taken a second to look, i wouldn't be laid in the middle of the road in pain.

 

I'd rather take precautions where possible, even if it is a slight inconvenience, and try to ensure my safety rather than suffer a trauma and have to blame someone else when it's something i could have helped to possibly avoid.

 

If I tell you to look both ways everytime you leave the house then I look like an idiot, because you already know to do that.

If you get hit and I immediately ask if you looked both ways I'm blaming you.

 

In the news today

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sexual-harassment-women-to-blame-angela-lansbury-comments-abuse-misconduct-a8079801.html

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 17:42 ----------

 

Ah, only just noticed this, yep, I completely see things the same way as you here. I'd make no special dispensation based on gender though, generally, everyone should be free to wear and do whatever they like (so long as it's not causing actual harm to people, or the environment etc). Sometimes, I may consider their choices unwise (may hurt themselves of harm their health etc) but always it comes down to, it's their life, it's thier choice.

 

Yes, men should also be free to walk around naked (and cold in the UK).

Only mentioned women because the question was about women in Saudi.

[leviathan13]

If I tell you to look both ways everytime you leave the house then I look like an idiot, because you already know to do that.

If you get hit and I immediately ask if you looked both ways I'm blaming you.

 

In the news today

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sexual-harassment-women-to-blame-angela-lansbury-comments-abuse-misconduct-a8079801.html

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 17:42 ----------

 

 

Yes, men should also be free to walk around naked (and cold in the UK).

Only mentioned women because the question was about women in Saudi.

 

Maybe if she'd worded it differently I would have probably agreed with much of what she said. I feel she does qualify her comments to some degree, but maybe doesn't cover herself in full glory.

 

That being said, she's been on the inside of the business for decades and is probably in a better position to comment on this than you or I. There will be women in power or in business who have used their assets to get where they are today. Is that right? Maybe not, but we use what we have to further ourselves.

 

NO! I'm not saying this is the same as someone suffering actual harassment and that it serves them right. I'm talking purely about those women (and more than likely some men) who have known what they were doing to get ahead. Where the harassment case is concerned, these were quite clearly people who were not happy being in that particular situation.

 

With regards to your first comment:

 

You don't need to tell me to take care because I do. But, my comment was for those who don't learn from mistakes. As someone said (possibly you) if you keep getting drunk and being attacked it's the attackers fault. Yes, but if you took responsibility for your own actions, you would reduce the risk of the attack. As I said, I'd rather modify my behavior slightly instead of suffering an issue and constantly blaming someone else for my suffering.

[Cyclone]

How do you word

 

We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that.

 

differently? To not somehow be blaming the victims? She specifically is saying that the victims MUST take the blame.

 

has told how women should not have to be prepared for the risk of sexual harassment when they make themselves “look attractive”.

So if women are or make an effort to be attractive, they should be 'prepared' for the risk of harassment.

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2017 at 13:26 ----------

 

As I said, I'd rather modify my behavior slightly instead of suffering an issue and constantly blaming someone else for my suffering.

 

Do you think that rape victims keep going out and getting raped, and just "blame someone else"? Is that really what you think?

The fact is that attractiveness, short skirts, cleavage, these are NOT things that cause rape. Facetiously, rapists cause rape. But more accurately, rape or sexual assault is not about attractiveness or even sexual desire, it's about control.