Monday, April 8, 2013

Blaming the Victim

It seems that shit comes to me in groups. Yesterday I was accused of 'blaming the victim' when it comes to danger recognition, then someone else got upset with me over my answer to the first person (because the second person passionately believes in women's rights) and this morning -- on Allexperts -- someone asked me about blaming the victim of a crime --especially rape. Here is my full answer:


******
I'm not an insurance company or a lawyer... I don't give a fuck about 'blame.'

Both of those have a financial interest in placing blame. I'm about teaching people about staying out of the meat-grinder -- and how what they do overwhelmingly has direct influence on the speed setting of the damned meat-grinder.

Not always. But in a overwhelming majority of the time, what YOU do has a serious influence on whether you're in the meat-grinder, if it's turned on and how fast it is set for.

At the same time, I am the first to tell you: There are monsters out there. Monsters, who are walking  meat-grinders on a high speed setting and they will just grab people and throw them in.

But they are way, way less in numbers than people think. Ordinarily, the person DOES have control over climbing into the meat-grinder and turning it on. They sure as hell have control at what speed it's going to be set on.

Blame no. Kick that fucker to the curb. 'Actions having predictable outcomes because we are human beings' is what it's called.

The complexity of this, however, goes beyond just the immediate situation; it tracks back to all kinds of levels/lifestyle choices/comfort zones/socio-economic 'world views.' Here's a big one -- and since you asked in the context of rape --I'll answer that way.

I often tell women that forcible rape is viewed legally as 'grievous bodily injury.' That means the woman is legally allowed to blow his fuckin' brains into a fine pink mist. They can ram a knife into his heart and twist and -- from a legal standpoint -- it can be summed up as 'he needed killing.' Hey you know what? Gouging out an eyeball, tearing his throat out with her teeth or biting his cock off -- also on the table. (And very much something that the responding officers will have a hell of a hard time keeping a straight face over it happening to a rapist.)

Oddly enough there's a direct correlation to women who are willing to do this and the chances of them getting raped. Like odds are WAY low. Conversely, a woman who is NOT willing to do this has a much higher chance of being raped. Why? Because she's a safer victim.

Both crime and violence are INCREDIBLY predictable this way. This regardless of the person's sex. Safe victim yes. Not safe victim, no.  Pretty much a no brainer regarding violence.

Here's where it can -- and does -- get complicated. My willingness to commit extreme violence allows me to pass through (and function in) some extremely dangerous environments. Predators take one look at me while I am shopping in a shithole and say 'Uhhhh no. Let this one pass.'  (Not a safe target -- a term I prefer over 'victim') But there are a lot more factors involved -- especially my behavior and the circumstances.

Conversely, just because I'm willing to commit extreme violence will not --I repeat NOT --keep me safe if I'm being a complete asshole -- especially in their territory.

If I walk into a biker bar and loudly proclaim "You're a bunch of dickless pussies!" it's going to hit the fan. No matter how ready to commit violence I am, odds are good, I ain't gonna get out of there in one piece.  Me, meat grinder. Putting myself there. Flipping it onto high. DUH!

But, let's say I did that and bad things happened -- as they are wont to do. What would be the normal reaction if -- someone started advocating for me by telling anyone who brought up what lead to that bloodbath as  -- "You're blaming the victim! Marc had every right to walk into that bar and do that!"?

People would laugh in that person's face.

Because in essence, it doesn't matter how much of a bad ass I was, commonsense says you don't do that and NOT expect bad shit to happen. More than that, (assuming I survived) I would not be 'cleared' of the deaths and injuries I had committed while ~cough cough~ 'defending myself.' Not just because I had the power to withdraw, but because I'd participating in the creation and escalation of the incident.

Regardless if I lived or died, did the bikers commit a crime? Oh yeah. Does 'blaming me' make it less of a crime? No. Well at least not in states that don't have a fighting words doctrine. And even then it might be dropped from murder to manslaughter -- but convicted for manslaughter ain't the same thing as them walking free.

But -- and this is where 'blaming the victim' drives me up the wall -- the conviction is the result of what happens in court (i.e. how good of a lawyer they've got vs. how good the prosecutor is.)

It is NOT about society 'blaming the victim' Would folks think I'm a fucking idiot for what I did? Oh yeah. But 'them blaming me'  is not a free pass for the bikers. This issue is 'was a crime committed? Did they do it?" THAT is what the prosecution must prove (burden of proof). And if there's video of the event SODDI* isn't gong to hack it for the defense. So damned straight, the defense attorney is going to go after my behavior in order to sell it as 'self-defense' for his client.

Having said all of this, 'fuck fault.' Fault only matters -- and to most of us less than those who are trying to place blame -- AFTER an event. At the moment and place when/where it's going to happen, the only thing that matters is what YOU can do to prevent it happening to you.



You mentioned drunk and clothing -- which is a common selling point of those who accuse others of 'blaming the victim.' Again, restressing this point, a woman who is willing to rip someone's throat out is less likely to get raped.

Here's the rub, if she's drunk, surrounded by drunk/violent people and provoking them, there's a MUCH bigger chance of her ~having~ to rip someone's throat out.  Why? We'll get to that in a second.

 But if she doesn't have that 'willingness'  -- and those circumstances still apply -- there's a much, much higher risk of her getting raped.

The results are different.  But no matter, drunk, around violent/intoxicated people and being verbally aggressive ain't going to have a happy ending. That's because certain behaviors evoke negative responses regardless what the person's choice regarding extreme violence (me, biker bar, fuck you assholes).

Conversely, if a woman is around sober, non-violent people and she's not being verbally aggressive then it doesn't matter if she's drunk or how she's dressed. Odds are bad things ain't gonna happen.

This is not 'blame' or 'fault' it's circumstances, variables, who is involved and behaviors. Take this information and play with it. You take one detail and tweak it and you get different answers. What's the likely result of drunk, dressed 'like that' and aggressive among sober, nonviolent people? What if the drunk, violent people she's being drunk and aggressive with are family members?  What if she's a stranger to this environment/group? What if she's an entrenched member of the group who ordinarily has 'credit' with those involved? What if her credit rating is low? What if her brother is a known killer? What if she has no 'protection' except social conventions?

When it comes to the outcome of a situation, the details of the circumstances matter more than 'blame.' And in situations where bad shit happens, it ain't always going to be one kind of bad shit that happens. Blame? Who cares? That only matters if you survive.

And I've seen enough meat-grinder incidents to know
1) That survival -- much less non-injury -- is not guaranteed
2) No amount of blame is EVER as good as not putting yourself into the meat-grinder in the first place
3) If you are going to risk putting yourself into a meat-grinder
   a) know how to keep from turning it on.
   b) know what it sounds like when it's warming up
   c) don't be too proud/stupid/self-righteous to get the fuck out of there
   d) do NOT reduce your capability to do these things
   e) do NOT engage in ineffective force while standing in the meat-grinder. **



M

 *SODDI - Some other dude did it

**I was once nearly lynched at (city) Advisory Board on Rape for mentioning that in informal interviews of women who had been rape, I'd found approximately 80% of the time  that the 'victim' had hit first.

Oh the outrage! Oh the 'you're blaming the victim!'Oh the 'a woman has the right to protect herself!'  I finally reacted by snarling "You misunderstand me!  I don't care that she hit first. What I care about is she didn't break his fuckin' jaw!"

Ineffective 'violence' (or as I prefer 'force') is an disaster in ANY kind of violence, but it appears as a 'green light' for rape. This is an elephant in the room about this subject. One which unfortunately a whole lot of people have serious investment in ignoring.

22 comments:

  1. Marc, great post. I agree with, and teach, almost all of the same ideas. The only place where I would challenge you is where you say: Here's the rub, if she's drunk, surrounded by drunk/violent people and provoking them...

    My question to you is: What does a woman DO which provokes rape? The only proper answer to this, of course, is that nothing provokes rape. Rape is a predatorial behaviour. The predator decides to rape, then chooses a target. The target can not provoke a rape that wasn't already in the works. This is no where near the equivalent of walking into a biker bar and uttering a challenge/threat/throwdown. In the first instance the crime would have happened regardless of who the eventual target was. In the second, the crime would not happen unless a target caused it.

    Women who are in this field tend to see a dual pronged approach to prevention of sexual assault and relationship violence. Or at least I do. The first prong is to teach women to effectively stuff a rapist's testicles into his eye sockets, when necessary. The second is to make deep changes in the culture which rewards and gives status to violators. Two different motivations and two different skill sets.

    That said, I am not in disagreement with your points as I understand them. And I am a huge fan of your books, blog, website. I appreciate your approach to the issue of self-defense as one of understanding the problem(s) and then working through solutions as opposed to the martial arts approach of knowing what the art can do and trying to apply them to "real life".




    ReplyDelete
  2. Sheila, you still aren't listening.

    The bikers in the bar are going to beat up someone eventually, and if you provoke them, they will decide it is you.

    No different with the rapist.

    This culture does not, as you claim, reward and give status to violators. Most people, men and women, think rape is horrific.

    Mr. MacYoung is focusing on how individuals can empower themselves to prevent violence, and getting nothing but grief for it.

    You seem to believe that either you stuff a rapists testicles into his eye sockets or make deep changes in the culture.

    He is suggesting a third way, which you are ignoring.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am very familiar with Marc's work and I do understand what he is staying and agree with 98% of it. His main point is to avoid subjecting oneself to the meat grinder, in other words, prevention. He and I agree.

    I will also agree that I misspoke when I said there are two ways of approaching the problem of violence against women. You are correct that there are three, I should have included prevention in my list. Just an unintended slip of the keyboard.

    However, there is one aspect of his argument with which I vehemently disagree. That is the idea that women provoke rape.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a list for me of those behaviors which provoke rape.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Sheila : I am from India and we have horrific statistics on Rape .
    We have child rapes,marital rapes, rapes of low caste women .Rapes because a girl made friends with a boy of another community , was out late from work,or simply because she wore jeans .There is no end to what provokes esp in fluid newly urbanized societies like India where what women see as normal behaviour is seen as licentious by many men .
    So while going bare breasted and not asking for it is one extreme way of voicing the sentiment that women dont seek rape .
    Fact is no matter how many precautions you take a Meat Grinder might cross your way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish there was a like button for you comments.

      Delete
  5. so while the average Indian woman takes a lot of precautions like being covered up not going out not smoking drinking etc rapes keep on happening :

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You come across as a sweet woman to me. I think people are ignoring you in the comments because they can't find an excuse to attack you.

      Delete
  6. My question to you is: What does a woman DO which provokes rape?

    Damn good question:

    The only proper answer to this, of course, is that nothing provokes rape.

    No, that is not the proper answer, and here's why: That answer doesn't help anyone to avoid being raped.

    Rape is a predatorial behaviour. The predator decides to rape, then chooses a target. The target can not provoke a rape that wasn't already in the works.

    I notice that the very first section of this page talks about anger - not the rapists, but the victim's before she is raped. It also includes a link to this page. From this I infer - and Marc can correct me if I'm wrong - that Marc does believe that some rapes weren't necessarily "in the works" before the victim engaged in those attack-provoking behaviours.

    Personally I'm willing to bet that Marc's views on this topic are more realistic than yours.

    Women who are in this field tend to see a dual pronged approach to prevention of sexual assault and relationship violence. Or at least I do. The first prong is to teach women to effectively stuff a rapist's testicles into his eye sockets, when necessary.

    Oh really? When do you teach she should do that? Before the guy begins his attack? How is she going to explain to the judge that she mutilated a man who had done nothing to her. Or do you suggest she do it when a guy - probably bigger and stronger than her, and possibly angrier and more willing to do extreme violence than her, is already attacking her? Would you bet your life on your "teachings" always working in those circumstances, more to the point, would you bet hers?

    Contrast with Marc's approach, as outlined above:

    "[Do not put] yourself into the meat-grinder in the first place
    3) If you are going to risk putting yourself into a meat-grinder
    a) know how to keep from turning it on.
    b) know what it sounds like when it's warming up
    c) don't be too proud/stupid/self-righteous to get the fuck out of there
    d) do NOT reduce your capability to do these things
    e) do NOT engage in ineffective force while standing in the meat-grinder."

    Finally, as a last resort, and not mentioned here: escape like fluffy the cat

    Notice the difference between the violence Marc advocates, and the violence you do. Fluffy the cat doesn't care about what happens to his eyes or his testicles. Fluffy the cat just wants to get to safety. That your focus is on his eyes and testicles suggests that you're more concerned about punishing the rapist than you are about your client's safety. The "slip of the keyboard" by which you failed to mention not getting attacked in the first place suggest the same thing.

    The second is to make deep changes in the culture which rewards and gives status to violators. Two different motivations and two different skill sets.

    I think Marc is too. And the culture he is trying to change is that expressed right here in your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daran,

    First, my comment about ‘stuffing a man’s testicles into his eye sockets’ was a tongue-in-cheek reference back to Marc’s comments “blow his fucking brains into a fine pink mist…ram a knife into his heart and twist…gouging out an eyeball, tearing out his throat with her teeth or biting his cock off”. It is nothing more than an acknowledgement that we MUST teach women that if the duct tape comes out – she must act with definitive, extreme violence because her survival depends on it. Oddly enough, no one seemed to have an issue with Marc advocating that level of violence when it is necessary, but suddenly when I suggest it I’m more “concerned about punishing the rapist than focusing on your client’s safety”. Really? You can’t think of another reason why I might focus on genitals and eyes, as examples. Also on throats, noses, temples, jaws, carotid artery, cervical spine and a few others? Its because no matter how big or strong a man is, he is vulnerable in those areas. This is self-defense basics. What the hell you think “fluffy the cat” means? It means you are going to unleash hell on the most vulnerable parts of this man’s body, causing as much damage on the way out as you possibly can. Its not wiggling and squirming until he can’t hold you anymore.

    You said: That answer doesn't help anyone to avoid being raped.

    Okay, let’s go with that for a moment. What do I have to do to avoid being raped? Here’s a list of things commonly brought up:
    1. Don’t drink.
    2. Don’t go out alone.
    3. Don’t walk on the street after dark.
    4. Always have a companion with you (preferably male, but a woman will do in a pinch).
    5. Don’t dress provocatively. (Perhaps covered head to toe in black cloth?)
    6. Don’t engage in flirtatious behaviour with anyone you are not willing to have sex with.
    7. Don’t be alone with a guy unless you know him very well and are willing to have sex with him.
    8. Never show that you like a guy unless you are willing to have sex with him.
    Do you agree with that list? Why or why not?

    You said: That Marc does believe that some rapes weren't necessarily "in the works" before the victim engaged in those attack-provoking behaviours.

    Let’s go over that a bit. What would a woman have to do to make you rape her? Seriously. Give me a list. If she dressy sex and flirts with you, would you rape her? If she called you a dick-sucking asshole in front of your friends, would you rape her? If she was passed out unconscious in a bedroom at a house party, would you think “score!” and rape her? I want to know.

    You said: Personally I'm willing to bet that Marc's views on this topic are more realistic than yours.

    Really? You don’t know anything about me. You think Marc knows more about being raped than I do? Maybe you should ask him how many times he’s been raped. Maybe you should ask him how many times he’s been afraid of being raped.

    You said: Would you bet your life on your "teachings" always working in those circumstances, more to the point, would you bet hers?

    Violence, by its nature, can be unpredictable so there is no perfect solution to every situation. But I absolutely stand by what I teach. You are making assumptions about what I teach based on very little information. Be careful with that. My theory and practice for women is generally this:
    1. Predator recognition and avoidance.
    2. Boundary setting.
    3. Definitive non-violent action.
    4. Devastating violence.

    The problem with what I see in Marc’s way of looking at things is that it generally follows the accepted cultural story that women are responsible for or complicit in the violence inflicted upon them, thus leading to victim-blaming. Women are targets. We can be soft targets or hard targets, but we are still targets.

    We don't enter a meat-grinder. We live in a meat-grinder. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's a 4096 character limit. Here's part 1 of my reply.

    First, my comment about ‘stuffing a man’s testicles into his eye sockets’ was a tongue-in-cheek reference back to Marc’s comments “blow his fucking brains into a fine pink mist…ram a knife into his heart and twist…gouging out an eyeball, tearing out his throat with her teeth or biting his cock off”. It is nothing more than an acknowledgement that we MUST teach women that if the duct tape comes out – she must act with definitive, extreme violence because her survival depends on it. Oddly enough, no one seemed to have an issue with Marc advocating that level of violence when it is necessary, but suddenly when I suggest it I’m more “concerned about punishing the rapist than focusing on your client’s safety”.

    I don't agree that Marc did "advocate" that level of violence. He merely adduced two facts: 1. She's "legally allowed" to do it (when resisting forcible rape) and 2. a woman "willing to do this" is much less likely to be raped than one who isn't. What he did not say is "therefore you should engage in extreme violence." In fact he rejects the "should" framing outright in favour of asking "are you willing". And he points out that there are consequences to either answer:

    Quoting from the page I just linked: "The decision whether or not to use physical force is not to be taken lightly. There are long term psychological, legal, moral and ethical ramifications of either decision. Before you can make an informed choice as to whether or not you are willing to participate in "self-defense" or opt for a more pacifistic approach, you must understand all the factors involved. Then you can make an informed decision instead of an ineffective -- and dangerous -- compromise."

    Contrast this with what you wrote: "Women who are in this field tend to see a dual pronged approach to prevention of sexual assault and relationship violence. Or at least I do. The first prong is to teach women to effectively stuff a rapist's testicles into his eye sockets, when necessary..."

    Your "first prong" was to advocate that women engage in a degree of violence, which, even if they are able to do so effectively, is likely to leave them psychologically traumatised. Ok now you're saying that this is point four in your four point-program, but it's taken two iterations to get the other three points out of you.

    Really? You can’t think of another reason why I might focus on genitals and eyes, as examples. Also on throats, noses, temples, jaws, carotid artery, cervical spine and a few others? Its because no matter how big or strong a man is, he is vulnerable in those areas.

    No he is not. He is sensitive in those areas. There is a difference. It's actually quite difficult to do a serious injury to a person's eyes or their genitals, and there's no guarantee that the pain will incapacitate him

    This is self-defense basics. What the hell you think “fluffy the cat” means? It means you are going to unleash hell on the most vulnerable parts of this man’s body, causing as much damage on the way out as you possibly can. Its not wiggling and squirming until he can’t hold you anymore.

    It doesn't mean either of those things. It means that you're focused purely upon getting away and doing whatever it takes to achieve that. It doesn't matter whether your attack causes damage. What matters is that it enables you to get away.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You said: That answer doesn't help anyone to avoid being raped.

    Okay, let’s go with that for a moment. What do I have to do to avoid being raped? Here’s a list of things commonly brought up:


    This is a red herring. That "common" advice is useless doesn't make your answer useful. But I'll address your question anyway.

    1. Don’t drink.
    2. Don’t go out alone.
    3. Don’t walk on the street after dark.
    4. Always have a companion with you (preferably male, but a woman will do in a pinch).
    5. Don’t dress provocatively. (Perhaps covered head to toe in black cloth?)
    6. Don’t engage in flirtatious behaviour with anyone you are not willing to have sex with.
    7. Don’t be alone with a guy unless you know him very well and are willing to have sex with him.
    8. Never show that you like a guy unless you are willing to have sex with him.
    Do you agree with that list?


    No I don't

    Why or why not?

    Without going into a detailed analysis of each point, I would put my objections into four categories:

    1. The measures are impractical or too costly to implement.
    2. The measure is ineffective because it proscribes purportedly risky behaviour which really isn't particularly risky.
    3. The measure addresses a real risk factor, but fails to adequately remedy it.
    4. To the extent that these measures are aimed specifically at preventing rape, they perpetuate the myth that rape is the The Worst Crime(TM) that women must fear, rather than just one of many different dangers that women and men face.

    I don't however agree that Marc's advice amounts to anything on your list, or that any of my objections applies to Marc's advice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You said: That Marc does believe that some rapes weren't necessarily "in the works" before the victim engaged in those attack-provoking behaviours.

    Let’s go over that a bit. What would a woman have to do to make you rape her? Seriously. Give me a list. If she dressy sex and flirts with you, would you rape her? If she called you a dick-sucking asshole in front of your friends, would you rape her? If she was passed out unconscious in a bedroom at a house party, would you think “score!” and rape her? I want to know.


    There is nothing a woman (or a man) could do to provoke me into raping her (or him).

    But we're not talking about me or people like me who never would. We're talking about those who will, or might in certain circumstances. And yes, calling some men dick-sucking assholes in front of their friends is a seriously bad idea, one which is likely to provoke an attack which was not otherwise "in the works".

    As for your woman passed out in a house party bedroom, how exactly is she going to stuff anyone's nuts into their eyesockets, should the need arise?



    You know, I've never for a second thought to ask my doctor how many times he's had my disease, or how scared he is of it.

    You said: Would you bet your life on your "teachings" always working in those circumstances, more to the point, would you bet hers?

    Violence, by its nature, can be unpredictable so there is no perfect solution to every situation. But I absolutely stand by what I teach. You are making assumptions about what I teach based on very little information.


    I've based it on the information you've given me.

    Be careful with that. My theory and practice for women is generally this:
    1. Predator recognition and avoidance.
    2. Boundary setting.
    3. Definitive non-violent action.
    4. Devastating violence.


    Do you teach any inaction, such as "don't call him a dick-sucking asshole in front of his friends"?

    The problem with what I see in Marc’s way of looking at things is that it generally follows the accepted cultural story that women are responsible for or complicit in the violence inflicted upon them, thus leading to victim-blaming. Women are targets. We can be soft targets or hard targets, but we are still targets.

    I suspect that Marc doesn't give a damn whether his way of looking at things follows accepted cultural stories, or departs from them.

    We don't enter a meat-grinder. We live in a meat-grinder. Seriously.

    There's a cultural story right there. The plain fact is women suffer much less violent victimisation overall than men - I know of no violence study that shows otherwise. Yet for some strange reason it is violence against women, rather than violence against men, which gets called an "epidemic".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not sure what went wrong with the above, but I was intending to reply to this:

    Really? You don’t know anything about me. You think Marc knows more about being raped than I do? Maybe you should ask him how many times he’s been raped. Maybe you should ask him how many times he’s been afraid of being raped.

    when I wrote: You know, I've never for a second thought to ask my doctor how many times he's had my disease, or how scared he is of it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Daran,

    There is far too much in the above posts to entirely address in this type of forum, so I’m going to touch on only two points.

    First, my “testicle to eyeball” example of violence was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek reference back to Marc’s rather descriptive examples in his blog post, both in language and in tone. That said, I really do instruct women that if the duct tape comes out, chances are she is facing a slow and difficult death and that she must resist with extreme and incapacitating force if she is to survive. If you think that makes me a bad self-defense instructor, well then, you go right on thinking that. But I stand by what I teach.

    I AM going to politely ask you to refrain from making assumptions about the rest of my curriculum based on this one expressed instruction. This one instruction tells you nothing about what is taught and what is absent from the rest of my curriculum. You do not know what I teach with respect to pain compliance, legal restraints, “fluffy the cat” or punishing the offender, to name a few specific examples which you have introduced into the conversation. (As an aside, you bring these topics up by linking to Marc’s other writings, thus acknowledging that Marc has a broader and more encompassing point of view than that expressed in his blog post. I’m just asking for the same courtesy.)


    With respect to the idea that rape is provoked (and the corollary that rape can thus be avoided), you have already given us the answer when you said: There is nothing a woman (or a man) could do to provoke me into raping her (or him)

    What does that suggest to you? It suggests to me that the only man who can be ‘provoked’ into raping a woman is one who already feels that he is entitled or justified in doing so. In other words, he has already built a worldview which supports rape and a personal set of criteria under which it would be acceptable to rape.

    There is no justification for rape in your mind, thus it is impossible to provoke you into raping anyone. Your values and belief system and worldview will not allow it.

    The good news is I believe you are entirely normal. I believe most men are just like you and could not possibly be ‘provoked’ into raping.

    With me so far?

    ReplyDelete
  13. No matter what you say, dressing in revealing sexy clothing is only about getting sexual attention from others. Even the bible says a women is to dress and cover properly. Of course rape happens to women who dress properly as well but at least it's more likely that they didn't provoke it. Go ahead and keep pushing it, cause when it does happen to you, you are just proving you provoked it and won't get any sympathy. What you're doing is like dangling drugs in front of a drug addict, teasing and testing him. You want to chance a man's lack of self control, go for it, but don't bother crying after. Yes i blame anyone who rapes but if your attitude is like the one in the picture of this article then of course i blame you 'the victim' as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No matter what you say, dressing in revealing sexy clothing is only about getting sexual attention from others. Even the bible says a women is to dress and cover properly. Of course rape happens to women who dress properly as well but at least it's more likely that they didn't provoke it. Go ahead and keep pushing it, cause when it does happen to you, you are just proving you provoked it and won't get any sympathy. What you're doing is like dangling drugs in front of a drug addict, teasing and testing him. You want to chance a man's lack of self control, go for it, but don't bother crying after. Yes i blame anyone who rapes but if your attitude is like the one in the picture of this article then of course i blame you 'the victim' as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everybody is a Christian. People are not obligated to do something just because the Bible says to.

      Delete
    2. No one is obligated as everyone has free will, though just because people refuse Jesus Christ doesn't mean they are exempt from God's law. All will be judged regardless.

      Delete
  15. Also, putting naked women with signs saying "i'm still not asking for it" only does the opposite of what you want, it only serves to prove that they are asking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, putting naked women with signs saying "i'm still not asking for it" only does the opposite of what you want, it only serves to prove that they are asking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sheila, while I can't speak for Mark, I feel you have perhaps taken on too narrow a definition of “provoking” as only some type of obviously stupid and obnoxious move. Please remember that in some places/situations looking at someone a couple of seconds too long may be enough to get you attacked – because, weather you are aware or not, it WAS a provocation to the person now attacking you.

    Your kind of rational thinking just doesn't apply to violent criminals – or to people under heavy influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

    Also remember Peyton Quinn's 5 rules of how to get attacked:
    http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/get_attacked.htm

    As Mark writes at that page it is not unheard of for women to basically violate all 5 of them, often in conjunction with “speaking their mind” to a spouse or boyfriend. If they do it badly enough, perhaps even physically restraining the male from leaving they are unquestionably provoking him.

    Please also re-read the older post on “Reverse cowgirls social engineering”.
    http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.fi/2012/10/reverse-cowgirl-social-engineering.html

    I particularly feel this quote from that article is relevant:

    “But in that situation, they can be likened to a snaky bull (that's a cowboy term for a mean and dangerous animal that intends to hurt you). Oddly enough though, the same tactics that keep you safe in the pens with a normal bull also work with a dangerous one. And the same behavior that places you in danger with a normal one really put you in danger with a snaky one. In other words, there is a consistency about behavior in dangerous situations.”

    In countless other articles Mark has also talked about it being best to shut up and make a quick exit just to be on the safe sound. It's not about who's right – it is about who is left.

    Does that mean ALL women who get raped provoked it out of the perpetrator – of course not. Can some of them, albeit unwittingly, have said or done something that was the proverbial last drop for the attacker – without a doubt those cases also exist. Despite the popular belief not all women are sweet, polite and caring individuals either.

    And that still doesn't make it about “blame”. Although modern feminists will likely never entertain these concepts you as a self defense instructor should.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Put me through the meat grinder. I like the picture of the topless girl.

    ReplyDelete