A way to avoid being raped?

[Burning ghost]

We could then ask other questions like this.

Example :

I take a DVD player out of a shop and go home with it to watch a movie with me friends. The next day I return to the shop and place the DVD player back on the shelf.

Did I steal the DVD player or borrow it?

If I confess what I did afterwards amd the shop owner is angry and I offer a compensation to the shop owner then was it "wrong"?

The dynamic here is twofold. We have the "law" and the ethical situation. If in my eyes I did not view this as theft and simply didn't think to ask the shop owner prior to "borrowing" the DVD player then I am not ethically wrong but certainlt morally irresponsible and inconsiderate. Once I understand the anger of the shop owner and offer compensation I correct my unconscious misdeed. I am not "ethically" wrong, but I have been "morally" irresponsible? The law and ethics are separate yet related to each other.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

The way to avoid being raped is not to be in a situation where the potential rapist thinks they can get away with it.

Unfortunately you are most likely to be raped in your own home by someone you know and trust. And currently nearly all rapists get away with it, it's a good bet.

So the answer seems to lie in making reporting and prosecution much much more effective. There are sensible ways to go about this, offering $20 isn't one of them.

Gertie, your first sentence is interesting. However, it acknowledges the existence of rapists. If you manage to live in a world where there are no rapists, then you are more likely to find it easy to avoid being raped.

For this reason, I find suspect the strategy of avoidance of the rapists as an important and effective means of avoiding being raped. You even suggest that the strategy you outline fails in major ways in your second sentence.

Neither do I believe that it is up to the justice system to make it more scary for the rapist to rape you. There were times when the penalty for rape involved mutilations and I am unaware of any evidence that such penalties were effective. Furthermore, with the new US president, (one of his former wives claimed he raped her once) you shouldn't really expect that he will appoint judges that will favor going after rapists and so, you would need to change the mindset of a whole population so that they start electing female politician before you can get what you think will work for potential rape victims. It sounds hopeless to me.

Finally, you mention that offering $20 wasn't a sensible way to go about this but I didn't suggest that. I suggested that she asks for $20 and not that she offers a $20. So you apparently haven't understood what I'm suggesting.

Let me provide a few analogies to try and better illustrate my point. If a rabid bat bites you and you wait until you get a fever, then it is too late, you will die from your infection. At least, this is how it used to be. Now there is a new way to avoid death against this disease: After giving you the needed serum with the antibodies, doctors will induce you into a coma. Apparently, getting into a coma is a defense against rabies. Without your coma, you wouldn't survive long enough for your body's immune system to get the better against the disease. But under coma, you can survive longer allowing your body to win the battle against the disease and then the doctors bring you out of your coma and you are cured.

The point of this story is that not all defenses that work for the well being of a potential victim involve getting rid of the offending agent. Sometimes strengthening the victim or even removing from the victim essential things for a short period (such as consciousness in this case) can make a difference between life and death.

Now I'm wondering if a similar type of defense couldn't help a rape victim and if this would be a valid defense. I'm just being imaginative here, for the well-being of all. I think women in general deserve better than only the type of strategy that you suggest to avoid getting raped.

I wonder if it is better for a woman to be somewhat forced into becoming a whore than if she is forced into becoming a rape victim. I wonder about the psychological burden for each instance. I understand that it would be an abusive question to ask a woman if she would prefer to become a whore or a rape victim, but when the plane is going down and you have the chance to land either on an open field or on a cliff, what would be most advisable?

Some men would argue that all women are whore and I think it speaks a lot more to what they think of men (all johns). So if a woman can be thought of as a whore while not being one, she can most likely act like one without being one as well. This way, a woman may get out unscathed of what another woman would call the worse event of her life. There may be no way for a woman to avoid being with a man whom she discovers is into rape behavior but there may be a way for women to shrug it off in such a way that it becomes to her as if it never occurred.

Yes, of course, this is what the rapist wants. He wants her to think it never occurred so she does and says nothing and can move on to trying to rape another. The thing is, although not too badly hurt by the interaction with the guy who is into rape behavior, the surviving woman will know about him and can still flag him. But she can't flag him as rapist, but only as having attempted rape, even if sex occurred. Which leads to the question of whether there should be such a charge as attempted rape in the legal books, for women who can't be raped because they agree to all sex. Might such a law may be useful in deterring rape?

[Burning ghost]

... Er ....

What sort of impact would this have on society? Normalisation of "rape" as merely the right of men to use women as whores? Would society then begin to view "rape" as taking the DVD player from the shop without paying? Can I go "rape" a woman and if caught decide to pay her later or be charged for theft?

You certianly have a bizarre way of looking at things.

[LuckyR]

We could then ask other questions like this.

Example :

I take a DVD player out of a shop and go home with it to watch a movie with me friends. The next day I return to the shop and place the DVD player back on the shelf.

Did I steal the DVD player or borrow it?

If I confess what I did afterwards amd the shop owner is angry and I offer a compensation to the shop owner then was it "wrong"?

The dynamic here is twofold. We have the "law" and the ethical situation. If in my eyes I did not view this as theft and simply didn't think to ask the shop owner prior to "borrowing" the DVD player then I am not ethically wrong but certainlt morally irresponsible and inconsiderate. Once I understand the anger of the shop owner and offer compensation I correct my unconscious misdeed. I am not "ethically" wrong, but I have been "morally" irresponsible? The law and ethics are separate yet related to each other.

Thank you for using a more neutral (as opposed to needlessly inflammatory) example to make Empiricist's "point".

Others have observed correctly that this thread is essentially a word definition game, not a real "problem" that needs a solution.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

... Er ....

What sort of impact would this have on society? Normalisation of "rape" as merely the right of men to use women as whores?

I have never heard of the right of men to use women as whores. It seems to me that your thoughts are occupied (preoccupied?) by weird concepts.

It seems to me that if women were less reliant on violent armed impersonators that provide them with the illusion that they are keeping them safe from rape, then we'd be moving toward a better world. I think that the presence of lots of whores in our worlds is likely a natural reaction to the presence of so many rapists. And I see as a rape opportunity system a system in which armed impersonators are supposed to protect women from rape and keep them safe.

If all women were to get together and decide that they are all whores and do it only for money, it would make men generally miserable to the point where the males would begin to care about the character of other males and to ensure that no male is a rapist so that the women don't feel they have to act as whores.

Would society then begin to view "rape" as taking the DVD player from the shop without paying? Can I go "rape" a woman and if caught decide to pay her later or be charged for theft?

You certianly have a bizarre way of looking at things.

The way you have to look at things above is indeed bizarre and it really is your own interpretation of what I'm saying. The idea that women are comparable to objects being used for one's pleasure is perhaps not a bizarre thought but it certainly isn't the kind of thought that I entertain myself. I'm of the opinion that the turning of a woman into an object suggests narcissistic tendencies. How do you evaluate yourself in this regard, if I may ask?

Thank you for using a more neutral (as opposed to needlessly inflammatory) example to make Empiricist's "point".

Others have observed correctly that this thread is essentially a word definition game, not a real "problem" that needs a solution.

LuckyR, I looked back on the thread and found no one but you that describes this thread the way you are now doing. Do you mean to say that rape or rape defense mechanism aren't worth discussing?
I don't think comparing women to object is appropriate in the sense you suggest. If this thread is too hot for you, may I suggest you limit yourself to the "Safe Space" Thread?

[Burning ghost]

Seriously? I am the one with weird concepts? What are you actually trying to achieve here?

Look at what you are saying in the OP. I asked if you were thinking of it as a way to deter the would be rapist ... no reply. You continued to talk about the exchange of money as if to say this would alter the act itself.

I do not think I am alone in my bemusement. I am stuck for words about what you mean by all women being whores and men then looking at themselves and stopping other men from raping?

I was not comparing DVD players to women! Haha! I was showing how an act is deemed in the eyes of two different parties. Probably much like how you view the OP as one thing and almost everyone else thinks its the mosy insane thing they've ever heard. So you the person who just takes the DVD player from the shop and returns it the next day unaware of any misdemeanor.

[LuckyR]

Thank you for using a more neutral (as opposed to needlessly inflammatory) example to make Empiricist's "point".

Others have observed correctly that this thread is essentially a word definition game, not a real "problem" that needs a solution.

LuckyR, I looked back on the thread and found no one but you that describes this thread the way you are now doing. Do you mean to say that rape or rape defense mechanism aren't worth discussing?
I don't think comparing women to object is appropriate in the sense you suggest. If this thread is too hot for you, may I suggest you limit yourself to the "Safe Space" Thread?

You flatter yourself. You aren't discussing rape or women. You are trying to imply that relabeling an issue changes the issue, when in fact it just changes it's name not it's reality or meaning.

It is mildly amusing if applied to DVD players and is needlessly offensive when applied to people, especially women, assuming you are neither a woman nor a rape victim.

If you cannot (or will not, to be charitable) see that BG was trying to salvage your thread's concept then ignoring rather than dismantling the "logic" on display is the best approach.