http://aguido.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] aguido.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] chaletian 2009-10-22 10:56 pm (UTC)

Well. Men not raping women is...assumed. Men being required to listen to demurrals is...assumed. In case the assumptions are not explicit enough, there are actual laws where this stuff is written down.

"How women can protect themselves against rape" is up there with "How men can protect themselves against assault and robbery" as a valid discussion to have. You might not like it that the discussion is apparently necessary, but why are you assuming that unless we yell at the top of my lungs "I don't want to rape you" as a prefix to every discussion, we don't understand that raping you is not OK?

We get that it's not OK. Some men don't. That's who you should be carrying an appropriate weapon for. It's not OK for a tourist to descend into a Somali slum and get beaten and robbed and killed by the denizens. But if I made that visit without taking appropriate precautions, and came out barely alive, people would not be applauding me for my competent grasp of the realities of the situation. They would be asking, "why on earth did you do that?"

And I wouldn't have a good answer. And i couldn't get out of it by whining about the assumptions of agency behind the question.

Regardless, yes. I actually think compulsory execution of proven rapists would be a fun thing to institute. And it's a shame that apparently the statistics do in fact support a quasi-paranoid approach to the risk of rape, and it's true that the only real fix is to sort out the rapists preemptively. Until then, though...

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting