An informal poll about attitudes - REVISED

[unixronin]

Caution:  May be inflammatory.

Just for the sake of possibly-morbid curiosity:  I direct you to this article that perspicuity pointed out to me elsewhere.  Please go and read it.  Particularly the beginning.

Now, please answer only one poll.  First up, asking my readers of the feminine persuasion here:

[Poll #1472271]

For my chromosomally heterogeneous readers, I offer the following alternate poll with your own seven eight choices:

[Poll #1472272]

My personal feeling is that if you regard every male as a probable rapist lacking only the opportunity, I want some way to know in advance, because if the very first thought that goes through a woman's head is, "Is that man going to try to rape me?", I don't even want to start a conversation.  I find the whole attitude insulting, to say the least.  It's way too high a disadvantage to start out having to first of all convince someone that you're not planning to rape or murder them, and if I knew in advance that I was going to be up against that, I'd move on immediately to talk to someone saner.  I don't know how people who approach the world with that kind of level of fear every day can even function, but I do believe that it's not my responsibility to walk on eggshells everywhere I go, just to avoid triggering someone else's paranoia.

(Heh.  I just discovered I have to answer both polls to be able to see the results of my own poll.  Pretty obviously, so does everyone else.  Please note I am RESUBMITTING to add a "Just show me the results" entry to each poll.  If you already voted, this means your vote will be lost.  Feel free to vote again.  We apologize for the confusion.)

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Partly, I know that the risk ratio of drivers who are simply inattentive or unobservant is more like one in two or one in three than, say, one in a hundred or a thousand. And in that situation, specific malice is not required — a moment's inattention is all it takes. You know that as well as I do. From the other side, when I'm driving a car and I see a cyclist or motorcyclist, I know he or she has due cause for caution, and I allow extra room. If at all possible, I won't pass a cyclist until I have room to swing wide, for example.

This doesn't — IMHO — really transfer to the question of rape/assault/robbery, because you don't just accidentally rape someone because your attention wandered for a moment. (Potential South Park treatments aside. "BAD cock! ...Sorry about that.")

[ariyanakylstram.livejournal.com]

actually, given all the commentary there's been about how rape is usually not due to strangers, but acquaintances or even friends...

for the record, I *am* part of the statistic.

and the person responsible was one of my lovers at the time, who assumed everything was OK when it wasn't, and who, if he'd been paying better attention, probably would never have gone there.

so your attention argument rather falls flat with me.

that's why they call is "date rape".

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

actually, given all the commentary there's been about how rape is usually not due to strangers, but acquaintances or even friends...

Yuip, someone else poited that out. It's not just that she's crossed the line into paranoia, the people she's paranoid about aren't even the main threat.

for the record, I *am* part of the statistic.

and the person responsible was one of my lovers at the time, who assumed everything was OK when it wasn't, and who, if he'd been paying better attention, probably would never have gone there.

OK, that's not quite what I meant. I don't wish to sound insensitive or belittle it at all, but extending "caution among strangers on the street" to date rape by a current lover is just a totally different situation, to the point that I don't think you can take anything from one and meaningfully apply it to the other, beyond the concept that no means no and stop means stop. (And at that, frankly, there's the "no means no, except when it means 'yes but persuade me more first'" trap. And women wonder why men are sometimes confused.) I particularly shy away from anything involving the term "date rape" because as currently widely defined in practice, if a woman consents at the time but changes her mind later, it retroactively becomes date rape. That way lies madness.

Let me ask you this, if I might: Do you think it was his intent to rape you?


I would put it this way: I fully agree that it is possible to commit "date rape" through a misunderstanding of intent or a failure of communication, certainly. But outside of that, I do not think it is possible to commit rape, date or otherwise, by accident. Regardless of the motivation behind the act, it's a pretty difficult act to commit without direct intention to do so, especially if the other party is actively resisting. Just like a gun doesn't leap up off the table on its own and randomly shoot someone without someone's finger being on the trigger, a cock doesn't just spring out of some guy's pants and rape a passing woman because its owner wasn't paying attention for a moment. It requires intent and direct conscious action on the part of its owner.

This is what I meant about the infeasibility of rape-via-momentary-inattention. It just doesn't work that way. (Hell, many rapists don't succeed when actively trying and using violence to aid the attempt.)

[ariyanakylstram.livejournal.com]

I am not going to discuss this any further. It is completely out of line for you to dissect that experience.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to dissect anyone's experience. But I point out that you brought it up.

Now you say it's out of bounds to discuss your own point? Then perhaps you shouldn't have introduced it into the discussion.