Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (Amoral Scumbag)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Rape (The nature of reality)
Message-ID: <1774@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 05:11:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1774
Posted: Mon Oct 21 05:11:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 04:37:34 EDT
References: <725@decwrl.UUCP> <1751@watdcsu.UUCP> <2016@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (Amoral Scumbag)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 60
Summary: 

>> >>> What does David mean by "things we (women) can do to avoid
>> >>> rape"??  Does he mean stay home and lock the doors?
>
>> >>  Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being
>> >>  raped.

Let me add back some context that Mr. Dyer removed:

	Several people have misinterpreted my words as specifically
	recommending this technique, even though I have tried to make
	it clear that what you do, if anything, to try to avoid rape is
	entirely your choice.

>> I've heard that most rapes occur in the home.  I've also heard that in
>> most such cases the woman let the man in.  That involves unlocking the
>> door.
>
>Yes, it is true that most rapes occur in the home.  It is also
>true that in over 70% of rapes reported to the police, the
>attacker was previously known to the woman (landlord, friend,
>boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest).
>Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at
>all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are
>willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their
>doors to all their male acquaintances because of these
>statistics.  David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting
>it, and you need to be aware of this.  

Some of what I've written has been deliberately offensive.  I guess
I'm reaping the rewards for that.

Allow me to point out that a woman *can* avoid rape by having herself
sealed into a concrete box with holes for air and a slot for someone to
pass food through.  As before, I'm not actually advocating this course
of action.  As before, I fully expect that some bozo will quote that
out of context, and somebody else reading the out-of-context quote will
feel compelled to point out to me that very few women want to live in a
concrete box...  which doesn't change the truth of that statement.

Repeatedly, I've tried simply to say that women can reduce their risk
of rape, and that how much trouble they go to in order to do so is
their choice.

I've also been trying to make a more general point: that statement is a
statement about fact.  It can *only* be proven wrong by providing
observational evidence.  Moral judgments are logically irrelevant.  In
particular, PASSING A NEGATIVE MORAL JUDGEMENT ON THE PERSON WHO HOLDS
A BELIEF DOESN'T PROVE THE BELIEF TO BE FALSE.

Calling that statement "blaming the victim" (as some do) amounts to
passing a moral judgement on the person who said it.  It's a form of
what I call the "amoral scumbag" argument:  "Only an amoral scumbag
would believe that."  Very well: I am an amoral scumbag.  Now that the
matter of my moral stature (or lack thereof) has been settled, why not
consider whether the statement is true or not?

-- 
David Canzi

There are too many thick books about thin subjects.