The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Frasier
Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that the fear of rape will shape women's lives in a very negative way. In what ways does that imply that other fears won't shape their lives in a negative way.

I'm not making example of rape, I'm talking about how the fear of rape has negative impact on women's lives. You were the one saying it was ridiculous to think that this fear shapes daily activity, not me. You were actually denying what you are now accepting: that the fear of rape does shape daily activities.

This thread is about women protesting about how the victims of rape are treated and sometimes blamed for their crimes. Are you really surprised that people have talked about the fear of rape more than other kinds of fears?

You still haven't backed up your claim about feminists, I find that very interesting. Basically, can you admit what you were saying was rubbish that you made up based on your reading of probably zero to very little feminist literature?

The reason why we might see rape as a crime worth talking about is for the reasons I've already talked about on this thread. People treat the victims of rape differently to say those of murder (a lot more blame comes their way) and they focus very heavily on women lying about their rapists, despite there being no evidence that this occurs with a higher frequency than other crimes. That's the kind of arguments I've seen on this thread. I don't see much about how rape is the only fear that will shape behaviour, if anyone said that I'd disagree and be surprised, frankly, if that were said explicitly.

You're still not really understanding what determinists are saying, as proven very well by that last paragraph (behaviour can be changed, even if couldn't be, my distaste for people who think they know about stuff when they've read absolutely nothing about it is part of my behaviour and so on). Do you want a discussion on determinism or not? You said in the last post you didn't, but you can't seem to let go. I'm happy to have one, try to actually respond to the arguments for the argument that I put forward a few posts back. I'm not going to respond further to your points here because I'm not going to write a long post only for you to say you don't want to talk about it any more.


No, I asked "What does it mean to make the deliberate statement that 'some of these women will have even structured their daily activities to avoid rape'?"

Does this then mean that the rest of us don't?

What I was saying is that it was ridiculous to make the claim that people who had been through a negative experience structure their daily activities to avoid negative experiences as though that was saying that anyone who hasn't been doesn't take those precautions.

Of course everyone fears being a victim of negative consequences, and will structure their activities to avoid them.

I don't particularly want a debate on determinism, no.

I was simply clarifying my examples as you had misunderstood them, particularly in the former, where I said you can predict X behaviour if determinism is true. You attempted to interpret that as any prediction of this behaviour is merely a prediction of a belief that you will do X, when you will do Y.

Not the case, because if I will definitely do X in a given situation, and this is not determined by free will, but some existing precondition of how I am made up, then it is possible to predict that I will definitely do X because that's just the way I am.

Under the theory of determinism it is even possible to take into account any and all possible responses, even if the prediction that I will do X is known before the event.

Thus your prediction is that I will do X, and even given that you have taken all possible responses to the revelation of the prediction into account, I must still do X, because your prediction tells you that I will behave in a certain way, since that prediction incorporates my reaction to knowing that I will do X, my reaction to knowing that it incorporates my reaction that I will do X, and so on indefinitely.

You tell me what this X is and then still believe that I am in some way compelled to act in accordance with this prediction? :biggrin:

[You know that the discussion is over and the thread is dead when nobody else replies and the only thing going on here is an irrelevant argument between two people about determinism and the concept that free will does not exist]
(edited 11 years ago)
This thread.

:daydreaming:- 5 stars
Reply 182
If you don't want a debate, why do you keep replying? To clarify on this one point that you keep making:

Thus your prediction is that I will do X, and even given that you have taken all possible responses to the revelation of the prediction into account, I must still do X, because your prediction tells you that I will behave in a certain way, since that prediction incorporates my reaction to knowing that I will do X, my reaction to knowing that it incorporates my reaction that I will do X, and so on indefinitely.


Your argument fundamentally doesn't work, because the whole point is that if someone tells you that you're going to do X, then you might well change to doing Y, but that change was predetermined in the first place, so the original person predicting you were going to do X was wrong in the first place. Of course, they might have known you would react in this way, and secretly predicted you were going to do Y when told you were going to do X. The point is not that events are necessarily 'predictable' (indeed, sometimes determinism is argued from the fact that we are composed of randomly acting particles), but that they are not controlled by the will. If you're told that you're going to X, but then do Y, then that's not showing you have free will. It's just showing that you change your behaviour from X to Y when you're told you're going to do X. Telling someone they're going to do something will change their behaviour. It doesn't mean that they are exercising free will. At any rate, you've not made a dent in any of the arguments actually put forward, you keep putting this point forward and then claiming you don't want a debate. If that's true, and you think the thread is dead, just don't respond, rather than claiming constantly that it is dead and you don't want to argue but just this one last point. If you think the thread is dead: leave it.

What I was saying is that it was ridiculous to make the claim that people who had been through a negative experience structure their daily activities to avoid negative experiences as though that was saying that anyone who hasn't been doesn't take those precautions.


But I'm sure you might accept they might take further precautions, perhaps unnecessary precautions, because they worry about it happening in the future more than someone who hasn't had those experiences, right? I'm sure, for example, if you were the victim of repeated robberies, you might be more paranoid about another robbery occurring. Given the emotional effect that rape is likely to have, I think it's fairly obvious that people affected by rape are going to take more precautions, and be overly cautious in how they live their lives. Surely that's obvious? Or do you think we all are shaped the same amount by fear, something which seems to me as patently false as all the other stuff you've just dropped when questioned on it by me?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 183
i'm jsut going to put this article down here:

Fear… Rational or Irrational?

Fear. What an incredibly strong word. It’s one of the few words that is both an emotion and elicits even stronger emotions. It’s a basic biological driver at the instinctual level that has the power to warn, or to overwhelm, the person feeling it.

As such, it’s particularly difficult to control and analyze. Fear, as defined by Webster is, in part: ”an unpleasant, often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger.”

This basic emotion which is understood to be driven by the amygdala is part of the “fight/flight” response that directs us to either avoid or confront dangerous situations (real or imagined). This basic driver becomes problematic when we can no longer distinguish by what is a rational fear (the cause is understood) and what is an irrational one (no understandable cause).

Some examples would be:

Rational : You are afraid of dogs because you were bitten by one at some time.
Irrational : You are afraid of all common pets because you bitten by one at some time.

Rational : You fear being assaulted at night because it has already happened to you.
Irrational : You never venture outside because you fear being assaulted or you fear being assaulted because someone you know was, even though you never have been.

All of these fear responses are completely understandable, valid, and appropriate to one degree or another. There is nothing inherently wrong about them. Sometimes, irrational fear is experienced before we are able to analyze it and reduce it to a rational one.

That said, living in a state where the irrational has overtaken the rational fear is unhealthy in many respects. It can lead to anxiety, depression, rage response, extremism (in thoughts and actions), paranoia, isolation, and sometimes suicide. Living in a prolonged state of irrational fear has never been found to result in a happy, healthy, fulfilling life.

Irrational Fear(s) Leading to SJ Myths

I think we can all agree that violence is bad, being a victim of violence results in a specific fear of that violence, that fear has the potential to be generalized, and that generalized fear can be extremely debilitating. For example:

A woman is assaulted by a man, she fears being assaulted by a man in the future, she begins to fear all men, therefore all men have the potential to assault her.
A non-Caucasian person is denied a job promotion by a Caucasian, a fear develops of never being promoted, the Caucasian is at the root of denying the promotion, therefore all Caucasians will deny job promotions to non-Caucasians.

Eventually, these specific examples, which are based in a real, present, and perfectly valid emotion, become generalized to a larger population. Extremists that share the more general views will then “study” their effect, collect data, apply statistical models, and then “prove” that the negative behaviours are more general and indicative of sexism or racism.

The irrational fear that developed from a perfectly rational one becomes the basis for a myth that is presented as fact. The irrational fear has facilitated an “all or nothing” argument on which to hang the myth. Fearing future negative behaviour (from anyone) based on experience is perfectly rational; expanding that to include all persons in that group is irrational.

The wider problem is that extremists on any “side” of an issue related to Social Justice will often resort to using these myths as fact in support of their argument. They are also terribly difficult to refute as the myth has gained a power of its own because of its popularity as fact. It is difficult to counter an argument that is founded in irrational emotion with logic and reason. The real and present danger of assault becomes framed by the myth that people are either those that will commit assault or those that will perpetrate it. Any discussion that ignores this imposed dichotomy is ignored. When the fear has become generalized to this point (the basis for such a myth), it frames the discussion on the basis of emotional investment and endangers a rational understanding of the more specific discussion.

Possible Solutions

So what do you do when you suspect you might be suffering from irrational fear(s)? The first step is often the hardest: recognizing the fear for what it is. Give it a name. If you can’t find a name, explain it in the best way you can to someone until you find a name for it that fits. Next, you might consider analyzing the roots of this irrational fear on your own. Did something happen that has transformed into a more general, uncontrollable fear? What was that? Can I get past it on my own? If the answer is yes, then make a commitment to yourself that you will work past this event and move the fear from irrational to rational.

If the answer to that question is no, then consider seeking help. Has a friend or family member experienced the same fear and overcome it? How did they do it? As that person was successful, copy what they did. If you can’t find someone that you know that has suffered from this fear, consider seeking the advice of someone trained in recognizing and addressing that fear. It doesn’t have to be a “professional”, but it should be someone other than the person that you met on the bus. That person may be suffering from an irrational fear of their own and may not be in the position to help you. There is absolutely no shame in asking for professional help.

In summary, admit your fear, recognize and name it for what it is, analyze it if you can, overcome it on your own if you can; if not, seek the aid of someone that can truly help you. Not doing these things is a disservice and disrespectful to you

Citation again
Original post by Frasier
Your argument fundamentally doesn't work, because the whole point is that if someone tells you that you're going to do X, then you might well change to doing Y, but that change was predetermined in the first place, so the original person predicting you were going to do X was wrong in the first place.


Not at all.

If determinism exists, then I have no free will to choose my own behaviour. In a given situation, I will definitely do X.

If I will definitely do X in a given situation, and this is not determined by free will, but some existing precondition of how I am made up, then it is possible to predict determine that I will definitely do X because that's just the way I am.

I'm not saying that any one person will be able to analyse my constituent microparticles and say that I will definitely do X. This is a hypothetical scenario.

Under the theory of determinism, I am saying that if it were possible in theory to analyse my constituent microparticles, then it would be possible in theory to make a determination of exactly what my behaviour would be in a given situation, given that I have no free will and my behaviour in a given situation is already predetermined.

If it is possible for an external observer to look at my constituent microparticles in such a way to determine my behaviour perfectly in a given situation, they will be able to say for absolute 100% certainty that in that situation, I will do X.

That determination will be perfect because they will know that's just the way I am and they will know how I will behave in a situation that even incorporates my reaction to the knowing I will do X, my reaction to knowing that it incorporates my reaction, and so on indefinitely.

But if you can falsify any prediction about doing X, and if the prediction is derived perfectly from a comprehensive knowledge of my body’s constituent microparticles, then my mind must be free to do as I choose.

Surely if human behavior were not free, then science could in theory at least predict when I am going to raise my hand. And why should the equations used to predict that behaviour be unable to compensate for the subject’s knowledge of the prediction?

Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability 0.3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn't I instantly make the probability equal to zero?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by marcusfox
Not at all.

If determinism exists, then I have no free will to choose my own behaviour. In a given situation, I will definitely do X.

If I will definitely do X in a given situation, and this is not determined by free will, but some existing precondition of how I am made up, then it is possible to predict determine that I will definitely do X because that's just the way I am.

I'm not saying that any one person will be able to analyse my constituent microparticles and say that I will definitely do X. This is a hypothetical scenario.

Under the theory of determinism, I am saying that if it were possible in theory to analyse my constituent microparticles, then it would be possible in theory to make a determination of exactly what my behaviour would be in a given situation, given that I have no free will and my behaviour in a given situation is already predetermined.

If it is possible for an external observer to look at my constituent microparticles in such a way to determine my behaviour perfectly in a given situation, they will be able to say for absolute 100% certainty that in that situation, I will do X.

That determination will be perfect because they will know that's just the way I am and they will know how I will behave in a situation that even incorporates my reaction to the knowing I will do X, my reaction to knowing that it incorporates my reaction, and so on indefinitely.

But if you can falsify any prediction about doing X, and if the prediction is derived perfectly from a comprehensive knowledge of my body’s constituent microparticles, then my mind must be free to do as I choose.

Surely if human behavior were not free, then science could in theory at least predict when I am going to raise my hand. And why should the equations used to predict that behaviour be unable to compensate for the subject’s knowledge of the prediction?

Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability 0.3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn't I instantly make the probability equal to zero?


Did all this stem from someone's inability to admit that they're sexist?
Original post by bottled
tumblr_m79odypG931qgincb.jpg why i don't like these walks

the thing people don't realise is that most rapists don't rape because they see a sexy woman, they actually have some sort of mental condition. Telling people not to rape isn't gonna stop rapists in the same respect telling a murderer not to murder isn't going to be very effective, or a mugger not to mug isn't gonna stop anything at all.

and my gosh comparing someone showing his junk in a slutwalk, a walk in which many people go around the place naked or topless to a noose is a damn stupid analogy to make.


You are actually wrong, there are 2 types of rapists, generally speaking.

The first type identifies himself as a rapist, he consciously intends to rape. He sets out to search for a suitable target, it doesn't matter really whether the target is attractive or not. It's is the act of violence that arouses him (or her I guess I should say) not the body of the victim, but the fear.
Apart from maybe extensive therapy, there is nothing that we can do to stop their behavior or their mindset. It's pathological.

And then there is the second type, who doesn't identify himself/ herself as a rapist. Maybe he sees a girl who dresses 'slutty' according to him, sees her acting sexually provocative in a club for example, and believes she is asking for it. To continue with this example, they may make out in the club which further confirms his belief that she is asking for it. However if later on she acts uncomfortable and says no, because of this 'confirmed' belief about her, he can easily ignore her and continue to push himself on her. Perhaps he even feels justified.
Now this one is more to do with social attitudes and I believe that we can make a difference here through making the issue known and attempting to correct these ridiculous assumptions that some people may come to. So if a slut-walk or whatever it's called gets a lot of press, and the meaning becomes well publicized, maybe it will actually make a difference.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 187
Original post by EffieFlowers
You are actually wrong, there are 2 types of rapists, generally speaking.

The first type identifies himself as a rapist, he consciously intends to rape. He sets out to search for a suitable target, it doesn't matter really whether the target is attractive or not. It's is the act of violence that arouses him (or her I guess I should say) not the body of the victim, but the fear.
Apart from maybe extensive therapy, there is nothing that we can do to stop their behavior or their mindset. It's pathological.

And then there is the second type, who doesn't identify himself/ herself as a rapist. Maybe he sees a girl who dresses 'slutty' according to him, sees her acting sexually provocative in a club for example, and believes she is asking for it. To continue with this example, they may make out in the club which further confirms his belief that she is asking for it. However if later on she acts uncomfortable and says no, because of this 'confirmed' belief about her, he can easily ignore her and continue to push himself on her. Perhaps he even feels justified.
Now this one is more to do with social attitudes and I believe that we can make a difference here through making the issue known and attempting to correct these ridiculous assumptions that some people may come to. So if a slut-walk or whatever it's called gets a lot of press, and the meaning becomes well publicized, maybe it will actually make a difference.


no, i am not wrong, thus is why i said 'Most Rapists'.

moreover the belief that the slutwalk will stop sexual objectification is unrealistic because it's pretty much natural. If you go around the place wearing a mini skirt and a short cut clothes and expect people do not find you sexy, then you're being pretty unrealistic


'So why is the Slutwalk a pointless endeavor? Because it does nothing to reconcile the idea of female sexual freedom with female sexual responsibility. Yet again, the Slutwalk puts the onus on one gender--every goddamn member of it--to be responsible and accountable for the sexual conduct of the other.

Whether you believe a woman who advertises her sexual availability is increasing her risk of rape or not, the Slutwalk will do absolutely nothing to prevent rape. And it will do nothing to keep immature, power-drunk, sexually irresponsible women from being labeled as sluts, either.

Most women don't realize just how restrained male sexuality already is. I compare my experiences in strip clubs depending on whether it's ladies' night or Miss Mugs 'n' Jugs' world tour, and I'm always amazed at how well-leashed the men in the audience generally keep themselves relative to women's behavior in similar situations. This is because men are socialized toward sexual self-restraint and sexual accountability, while women...well, nowadays women get to do whatever and act however they want, and if they don't like the consequences--whether it's an ugly guy ogling them, or having to admit that going upstairs with that frat boy was a poor decision--they can shift all the responsibility onto men.

That's the opposite of sexual agency. And that's the ****ing Slutwalk. And no amount of reappropriation of the word "slut" is going to do anything to change the behavior of the women who've earned the name, nor change the attitudes of the men who've learned by experience to be wary and scornful of them.'

it also repeatedly reinforces the view that most men are rapists, and only men can solve this issue of rape, as seen by such pictures.
tumblr_m79oez7SyS1qgincb.jpgtumblr_m79oekMHu51qgincb.jpg5771362296_b8142654ce.jpg

It is exclusive of men, and therefore makes the whole issue for men seem less than it is. It shouldn't even be exclusive in the first place as rape is a universal problem.
they also have a slight habit of thinking that by a man telling them to take the precaution of dressing less provocatively is 'Victim Blaming' which is blatantly isn't. And like i say, telling a person set on raping not to touch them without consent is a futile action because it's like me telling a murderer not to murder me, or a rapist not to rape me. They don't give a rat's ass about my consent that's why they're raping a person.
now back to the simpsons/boondocks
(edited 11 years ago)
Ladgendary.
Reply 189
What i don't get is why do these "Feminists" have to resort to violence?
Reply 190
why are feminists so angry?
Original post by doggyfizzel
Its not really funny, he's just being a dick.


:congrats: nicely done
Original post by bestsundaydress
Did all this stem from someone's inability to admit that they're sexist?


No, from someone refusing to admit that I have the ability to structure my own day and make conscious choices about how I avoid becoming the victim of crime, or any other negative experience.

Page 8 of the thread, posts 148 to 152 are how it started in the unlikely event you are interested.
Original post by qwerty7
Just thought I'd repost what someone else has written on a blog about the story, it provides some context on what happened and why there was such an outcry about the man's actions.


"This occurred at a Slut Walk. For those not familiar with it, the Slut Walk is basically a peaceful protest seeking to eliminate the rape apologism so prevalent in society. The basis is that no woman is “asking for it,” with “it” being rape. It’s not a feminist protest; it’s a human rights protest.
Many of the protesters, as you can probably imagine, have dealt with sexual harassment or rape in their own lives. Many of them have structured their daily activities to avoid being raped. The gathering is supposed to be a place for them to feel empowered and able to recover in the company of those who understand what they’ve been through or who will not blame them.

Nobody at a Slut Walk will tell a survivor that it’s her fault. They will not ask what she was wearing to provoke her attacker. Nobody will say she had too much to drink. Nobody will tell the men in the group that they are inherently rapists themselves, and nobody will tell a male survivor that his experience “wasn’t really rape.”

Then, this fellow comes along. He sees this gathering of survivors and their supporters, and to him, it’s a joke. He sees feminazis. He sees girls who are taking “a bit of fun” too seriously. And what does he do? He exposes himself to this group of survivors and supporters - some of whom are, in fact, underage.
He sexually harasses literally hundreds of women in one act. Aside from public indecency, there was cruel intent in his actions. He wanted to make them uncomfortable. He wanted to “put them in their place.” Other photos from this event show him flipping the protesters off and laughing at their anger.

And there are still people defending his actions. There are those who still feel like these women were asking for itand that they deserved to be harassed for trying to claim they weren’t. There are those who feel that women should be taught a lesson this way, and they applaud this man’s actions.

So no, he didn’t pull out his dick in front of feminist protesters. He harassed dozens - if not hundreds - of rape survivors. The reaction to his actions alone outline the purpose of the Slut Walk.

For those of you still doubting whether what he did was wrong (and I do wonder if there’s something wrong with you, if you have doubts), let me give you an analogous situation. Imagine a gathering of black civil rights activists. Imagine Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and all their colleagues gathered together to demonstrate that being black did not make them lesser people. That being black and living in the South did not mean they were “asking” to be the target of hate crimes.

And at this gathering, a white man decides he should teach them a lesson by pointedly hanging a noose from the nearest tree and laughing at their anger. And other white men, laughing along with him, commend him for taking these activists down a peg.

That’s what happened here. It’s not an “OMG, I can’t believe he did that!” moment. It’s an “OMG, there are people who think this is okay” moment. And the fact is, it’s not. It never will be. And that’s the take home message of this ridiculous rant I’ve written up"


(Sorry that the message is so long, I'd have cut it down but I think pretty much all of it is worth reading and I didn't really want to paraphrase since it's not something I wrote)




You are wrong, and here is why:

There is no such thing as public indecency. Clothing is a mode of societal and governmental control.

To be free is to be free to be naked

This man can't have sexually harassed women with the sight of his penis because it is okay for everyone in the world to be naked. Any time they want. Ever.

The fact that these women are upset and angered at the site of his penis is a form of hate called misandry. It is just as powerful and evil as misogyny. You may not be familiar with the word because it is not a word that is used in the common liberal rhetoric. Regardless of intent, he is not wrong to have done what he did. You say you want equality, you say you don't blame the victim, yet you participate and engage in the violation of these philosophies regularly. What good is your platform if it alienates half of the population? Please, throw down your misguided accusations and assumptions and accept civil rights.
Reply 194
Original post by Sunstrider
You are wrong, and here is why:

There is no such thing as public indecency. Clothing is a mode of societal and governmental control.

To be free is to be free to be naked

This man can't have sexually harassed women with the sight of his penis because it is okay for everyone in the world to be naked. Any time they want. Ever.

The fact that these women are upset and angered at the site of his penis is a form of hate called misandry. It is just as powerful and evil as misogyny. You may not be familiar with the word because it is not a word that is used in the common liberal rhetoric. Regardless of intent, he is not wrong to have done what he did. You say you want equality, you say you don't blame the victim, yet you participate and engage in the violation of these philosophies regularly. What good is your platform if it alienates half of the population? Please, throw down your misguided accusations and assumptions and accept civil rights.

er, duuude... no need to ressurect this thread man.
Original post by Sunstrider
You are wrong, and here is why:

There is no such thing as public indecency. Clothing is a mode of societal and governmental control.

To be free is to be free to be naked

This man can't have sexually harassed women with the sight of his penis because it is okay for everyone in the world to be naked. Any time they want. Ever.

The fact that these women are upset and angered at the site of his penis is a form of hate called misandry. It is just as powerful and evil as misogyny. You may not be familiar with the word because it is not a word that is used in the common liberal rhetoric. Regardless of intent, he is not wrong to have done what he did. You say you want equality, you say you don't blame the victim, yet you participate and engage in the violation of these philosophies regularly. What good is your platform if it alienates half of the population? Please, throw down your misguided accusations and assumptions and accept civil rights.


if you really think flashing your penis and laughing in front of a group of rape victims is morally ok.. then..
Original post by Rational Paradox
He's an arse, but mobbing him and trying to assault him just makes them look like thugs and destroys any point they were trying to get across :/


Exactly. And feminists say they don't incite hatred against men ...
Reply 197
Original post by fallen_acorns
if you really think flashing your penis and laughing in front of a group of rape victims is morally ok.. then..


this coming from a movement in which loads of women walk around the place topless (and in some places totally naked)... moreover i'm sure not every person who went up there to attack that man were rape victims
Original post by bottled
this coming from a movement in which loads of women walk around the place topless (and in some places totally naked)... moreover i'm sure not every person who went up there to attack that man were rape victims


Attacking the man was very wrong - I would never claim it to be right..

But his initial action was also awful (you can presume at an event like these there will be a significant number of rape victims there)

As for the women walking around topless.. if they were to do that infront of a male rape victim, and it cause them the same problems.. I would deplore that, just as strongly.
Though usually this is not the case, and the way they are protesting is simply a way to raise awareness of victim-blaming.
Night of the Living Feminists.