Ginsburg on Hobby Lobby

[SerScot]

Cail,

But when the focus is on the victim the implication made, intentional or not, is that the victim bears the onus for the attack. That's my difficulty with what you seem to be saying.

[SoulBiter]

Let's be really clear, because you and Ali seem very keen to make my position up for me. No one deserves to be the victim of a crime. That said, we live in the real world, not the magical Land of Should. There are simple things you can do to reduce your chances of being a victim.

If a woman gets rip-roaring drunk in a bar full of strangers while she's wearing provocative clothing and dancing suggestively, she does not deserve to be raped. However, someone should have a conversation with her about her behavior that put her in that place. She is responsible for her behavior, and I'd suggest that her father did her a huge disservice by not teaching her that.

No one deserves to be the victim of a crime, but you're a fool to think your actions have no consequences.

Cail, that's a good summary of what I've been saying. I dont see why anyone refuses to see that you can only be responsible for you and thus there are consequences for actions. We all would love to live in a world without bad people doing bad things. But its not reality and I suspect it will never be reality. So if you really believe you have a 30% chance of being raped/molested, and you don't take pro-active action to learn to defend yourself, then you have put yourself into a position of being a victim.

Women have got to quit thinking they are weak and cant effectively fight back.

The primary target of a woman's body is her heart. Like a sharpshooter, those who commit violence against women choose the most vulnerable area of their victims to attack. A woman's emotions and self-image are typically at the center of the bull's eye. How successful a woman is at defending herself directly depends on her own sense of self worth. The success of most assaults against women is determined long before the physical act of rape. In fact, physical force or restraint is often unnecessary for an assailant to succeed.

How about this statistic, since people are bringing those out... Approximately 86% of women escape attempted sexual assaults by resisting and fighting back! Please understand that the old adage of "let it happen so you won't be harmed" is definitely not true and many times that leads to hazardous results in the long run according to statistics! This 86% is not necessarily women who ever did any martial art training, this is just a general statistic. However, these women did bring out their natural born survival instincts and it worked for them.

[Cail]

But when the focus is on the victim the implication made, intentional or not, is that the victim bears the onus for the attack. That's my difficulty with what you seem to be saying.

It's really simple. Do you believe that you can act with impunity? If your answer is "yes", then we have nothing more to discuss. If your answer is "no", then we can start talking about the shades of gray that make up life.

Ideally no one would ever commit a crime. We don't live in an ideal world, so it's irresponsible not to consider the consequences of your actions.

[SerScot]

Cail,

If someone will act with impunity then they will act regardless of someone's behavior or dress in which case this discussion is equally pointless.

[Cail]

If someone will act with impunity then they will act regardless of someone's behavior or dress in which case this discussion is equally pointless.

That's a simplistic way of looking at it. Criminals generally look for easy targets. It's far better to not make oneself a target than it is to expect everyone to behave by your standards.

[SerScot]

Cail,

I see your position as equally simplistic. If the defense of "she was asking for it" is taken from rapists would they continue to target those women?

[ussusimiel]

I'm not sure how this thread drifted onto rape. A subject for another thread, I'd suggest.

[On topic]
What I am starting to see in the Hobby Lobby case and a case like Citizen's United is another growing tension (or a variation on previous ones) between how the different groups view the application of the Constitution. One group (the Right?) is happy under all circumstances to trust that strict application of the Constitution will lead to the best outcomes. Another group (the Left) is unhappy about the direction this is taking, especially in relation to things like 'corporate personhood'. This is not only manifesting itself at the political level, but also at the level of the judiciary (regular split decisions).

It becomes politicised as the different sides realise that it suits their political agendas, but, IMO, this masks a much deeper fracture line within US society. Doing a little research on the idea of a Constitutional amendment on 'personhood' (e.g. Move To Amend) I quickly realised that other issues (e.g. abortion) come into the frame, which reinforces my intuition that this is a fundamental issue in the US that is surfacing in more and more places.

u.

[Cail]

I see your position as equally simplistic. If the defense of "she was asking for it" is taken from rapists would they continue to target those women?

I have never once used those words. How about debating what I'm saying rather than your preconceived notions?

I have not ever said that any woman was asking to be raped based on any of her behavior. In fact, I've made it crystal clear that that's never the case by stating several times that no one deserves to be the victim of a crime.

If you choose to teach your children that they can act however they want and they bear no responsibility for their actions if someone exploits an opportunity, then so be it. I taught my daughter not to make herself an easy target.

[SerScot]

Cail,

I don't teach my children that and I'm not saying those are your words. I'm saying that is the implication your actual words unintentionaly lead too taken to their logical end point.

[Cail]

I don't teach my children that and I'm not saying those are your words. I'm saying that is the implication your actual words unintentionaly lead too taken to their logical end point.

Not hardly.

Tell me, would you think any differently of someone who's house was robbed if they'd left their door open? Would that maybe prompt a discussion?

[aliantha]

No. How in the name of God can you say that with a straight face? Apparel is not construative permission for sex. If I get drunk and pass out at a club qnd another guy rapes me is it my fault, or, the fault of the bastard that raped me?

Yeah, Cail, you should probably just stop talking now.

Ali, if the best retort you have is to tell me to stop talking, you don't have much of an argument. If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, you probably shouldn't post here.

That's twice you've suggested that I leave. Just for that, I'm staying.

As usual, you guys are stuck on what a woman is wearing as if rapes only happen to women wearing skimpy clothes. It just underscores the disconnect.

This. If looks had anything to do with it, then 75-year-old women would never be raped. Rape is a power trip for the rapist. It has nothing to do with sex.

Ananda, I also agree with something you said earlier. It's not that I live in fear every day that one of my daughters or I will be attacked -- but it's certainly in the back of our minds. And I think all women know, when they're advised to look out for their own safety, that "safety" is a euphemism for avoiding a sexual assault.

And yes, I've taught my daughters to take care of themselves. MagickMaker's a blue belt in kempo, fer godsakes.

Back on topic, maybe? There's a lot of stuff wrapped up in the issue of "corporate personhood" -- not just social issues like the one we've been discussing, but also the 99%/1% divide.

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

This. If looks had anything to do with it, then 75-year-old women would never be raped. Rape is a power trip for the rapist. It has nothing to do with sex.

Indeed. Well said.

Cail,

See, above. You are equating leaving your home unlocked to someone being targeted for rape because of their apparal or behavior. They simply do not equate.

[rdhopeca]

I don't teach my children that and I'm not saying those are your words. I'm saying that is the implication your actual words unintentionaly lead too taken to their logical end point.

Not hardly.

Tell me, would you think any differently of someone who's house was robbed if they'd left their door open? Would that maybe prompt a discussion?

My only issue here is the use of the word "responsibility". In both cases, I am not *responsible* for the actions of the perpetrators. If I leave my door open, I'm a fool, yes, but I am not responsible for their behavior, and they should not get a pass because I left my door open.

Same with rape victims. Regardless of their behavior, up to and including foolishness, they are not *responsible* for being raped. Yet we (the royal societal we) continue to imply that they are.

[Cail]

Aliantha,

This. If looks had anything to do with it, then 75-year-old women would never be raped. Rape is a power trip for the rapist. It has nothing to do with sex.

Indeed. Well said.

Cail,

See, above. You are equating leaving your home unlocked to someone being targeted for rape because of their apparal or behavior. They simply do not equate.

Sure they do, but it doesn't fit the approved narrative, so you're going to dismiss it.

To be clear, you're stating that 100% of rapes are about power not sex, and that 0% of rapes are crimes of opportunity.

[SerScot]

Cail,

Yes, rape is a crime about control. It's about ignoring the desires of the victim and impossing the rapists will upon the victim.

[SoulBiter]

WOW.. I dont know why there is such a disconnect here. Its like some of you, SS, Ali, and Ananda aren't connecting to what is being said at all.

No one has said what rape is, why it happens, etc etc. Cail has said, take care of yourself. Don't wander around thinking you live in a perfect world where this crap doesn't happen. This applies to women and men and not just to rape.

Leaving your front door open and being robbed, is analogous to going out to a club late at night, dressed provocatively and drinking too much. In both cases, just because you have 'left the door open' doesn't mean you will get robbed/raped. But it sure increases the chances.

Also all rapes are not done by Psycho's on a power trip. Many are kids/adultsw who think "no doesn't mean no" because that works for them. Sometimes at the time its voluntary, but later its buyers remorse. As Cail and RR (I think) also pointed out, there is a double standard of a female can be too drunk to give consent (even though they gave consent)but for some reason a male cant be too drunk to give consent, and cant be too drunk to know the female is too drunk.

OK I have a crap load of upgrade testing to do today and possibly wont be able to revisit this thread until very late today (if at all). Carry on!

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

So if women dressed in chadors, never went out, and never drank, there would be no rapes? If not none how many fewer would there be?

[Cail]

So if women dressed in chadors, never went out, and never drank, there would be no rapes?

No one has said any such thing.

[SerScot]

Cail,

But y'all are saying there would be fewer rapes otherwise why say what you are saying, how many fewer?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, you probably shouldn't post here.

That's twice you've suggested that I leave. Just for that, I'm staying.

Based on what I have seen so far, I wouldn't question aliantha's ability to deal with her beliefs being challenged.

Besides, we already suffer from a dearth of posters so suggesting that someone who recently came back should leave is not conducive to rebuilding a thriving Tank community. We are still having to undo the damage done in the past.