Tweet
I cant tell you how wonderful it is to see so many well educated and contributing males to this topic and forum.
Rock on gents, princessella courstey bows ..........
Rock on gents, princessella courstey bows ..........
-
-
I believe the more pressing question is NOT whether a woman can "talk her way out of a rape" but rather why does one ask the question in the first place? This is particularly ethically significant since the latter was posted by a male (as far as I can determine). We can ask such a question because our current androcentric paradigm devalues women's physical strength and innate power and instead forces us to only "value" their ability to speak.
Women are socialised to be passive, not aggressive. And so our androcentric paradigm ensures that women will never be taught to FIGHT BACK and, more provocatively, that they will be taught to feel shame. Thus, to ask such a question serves to perpetuate a highly oppressive episteme (system of knowlege).
I call for contestation!Comment
-
Ony, I dunno about you, but I'll get myself out of a rape any way I can, even if it is as unglamorous as talking my way out of it, or other methods (I've heard of "bodily functions" successfully getting women out of a predicament).
Politicize it all you want, but if talking oneself out of it works even a small percent of the time, don't knock it.Comment
-
Actually...
Actually, the reason a male asked this question is because the male was asked by a female this very question.Originally posted by Ony
I believe the more pressing question is NOT whether a woman can "talk her way out of a rape" but rather why does one ask the question in the first place? This is particularly ethically significant since the latter was posted by a male (as far as I can determine). We can ask such a question because our current androcentric paradigm devalues women's physical strength and innate power and instead forces us to only "value" their ability to speak.
Women are socialised to be passive, not aggressive. And so our androcentric paradigm ensures that women will never be taught to FIGHT BACK and, more provocatively, that they will be taught to feel shame. Thus, to ask such a question serves to perpetuate a highly oppressive episteme (system of knowlege).
I call for contestation!
Scroll down from the first thread and you'll see the post I'm talking about.Comment
-
further clarification...
Ryokan
I hear what you are saying. IF you re-read my previous post then you will realise that I made NO such statement (positive or negative) re: talking one's way out of a rape - in fact I do not doubt the value of using what works. However, as I said before, I "knock" the very androcentrism supporting the question.
And yes, as long as we continue to live in a society of oppression/privilege, THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL!
Flash
Thank you for the clarification (like I said, it was as far as I could determine). But I think that the fact that a woman initiated the question only serves to reinforce the very point I was making re: women being SOCIALISED in such a way that their 'visceral reaction' will not be to fight back.
blessed be!Comment
-
I am pretty sure too, that the only way to create enough space to escape from an aggressive unknown rapist - is sudden pain.
However, we should not forget that most rapists and their victims already know each other.
In that case I am sure it would be a good thing to try with psychology. If that does not work, then: PAIN.
What probably not works is when a woman threatens bigger and stronger man with the use of force, unless she has some kind of intimidating weapon. Definitely works better when it all comes like lightning out of a blue sky.
Sincerely
Sean JComment
-
His biggest fear
Sean, I agree with you.
The delivery of pain is a main strategy. In fact, I contend that the attacker's second biggest fear is the fear of getting hurt. That's why they "interview" subjects to ascertain the probability of acheiving their goal without a physical cost to them.
However, a predator's biggest fear is the fear of getting caught.
Employing a multilevel strategy that appeals to these two fears can increase a woman's potential to win/survive the encounter. Studies of attacks show that half of all attackers will break off the attack if the intended victim even INDICATES she is willing to resist.
That's the up side. The downside is that (here in the States) the "3-strikes and you're out" laws are having the unintended consequense of creating criminals who are willing to kill their victims to avoid arrest.
While it might be instinctive to fight back, we are not born with the ability to fight effectively. It takes instruction and training. Women have the potential to fight back effectively -- they just need to learn how.Comment
-
Why talk your way out ????
Because doing so (if there seems reasonal posibility of success) is an OPTIMUM strategy when compared to CHOOSING to escalate violence.
You ever heard the expression - fight fire with fire. Seems more obvious to me to fight fire with water.
I've been training women for 20 years, I do not devalue their physical and intelectual potential - and because I don't - I don't encourage to make the same strategic mistakes that the male ego would useually encourage..........
The laws of physics are immutable. I bigger, stronger, experienced rapist is a VERY poor choice to CHOOSE to get in a fight with. If he listening to you talk - THATS STILL probably the optimum strategy at that moment.
Study the psycho profiles of rapists - and dwell on the type that WANT the victem to react with rage and physical reply so that they can justy increased violence.
In a Rape scenario a women will likly ONLY get ONE CHANCE to fight back physically - if it doesn't work the ods of succcess go WAY down. Encouraging women to compromise their intelects to react as a man would (driven by ego - and not strategy) is a bit on the dumb side.
Remember : The Daughter of a Lion - is a Lion Too !
Joe
Comment
-
Fight like a girl
Joe:
I love your comment about fighting fire with water -- a great observation!
I've tried to study the various rapist types (e.g. the "power" rapist, the "opportunity" rapist, the "sadistic" rapist, ad nauseum) and I noticed that the types of rapists seem to change depending on which shrink type is offering her/his theory.
They warn you, "Oh don't resist against an (fill in the blank) type of rapist, because that is what they want you to do. But you should demonstrate confidence against the (fill in the blank) type of rapist."
How can the average person tell between which type of person is trying to rape you? I contend that all this psychobabble does is confuse the defender and offer additional options which must be weighed in choosing the "right" mode of defense. The more options you must weigh, the less efficient your defense will be (Hick's Law) and you begin to overload the system which can cause defenders to freeze because they don't know what they should do.
Screw what type of rapist this guy is. Rape is a crime of violence that uses sex as a weapon. If you cannot avoid the attack, if you cannot verbally deescalate the attack, then you must have only two options -- submit or resist.
You should be aware that attempts to verbalize with the attacker can suddenly degenerate. I've got information on one case where the victim tried to get the attacker to talk more because she thought she recognized his voice (he was wearing a stocking over his head). He caught onto her game and savagely beat her yelling at her, "you think you know me bitch? you think you know me?"
If you choose to resist, then train in a method that allows a woman to use her greatest strengths against a man's greatest weaknesses. Our motto is "Fight like a girl!" because -- I agree with you here -- you cannot realistically expect a woman to fight a man, like a man, and prevail.
In many rape cases, there are NUMEROUS chances and opportunities to resist physically. However, to be fair, I have seen a few where there were NO chances whatsoever to resist.
However, actual cases usually take place over a period of time, involve disrobing, and often a change of location (so the rapist has privacy and control). So in analyzing cases, you'll see there were many, many opportunities to resist physically. Often there are even opportunities to actually escape, but victims were too intimitated to leave.
I've also noticed that the professionals on the "behavioral" side of the equation never have a background in personal combat. (Lt. Col. David Grossman excepted here, but he specializes in a different area). Even the revered Gavin de Becker fails in this regard when he advises women that they will "naturally" be able to resist when the time comes.Comment
-
Statistics
In my corner of the world I came across the following statistic statement: In the cases where the victim with all her power the rapist gave up in 11 cases out of 12.
When I advocate not threatening the rapist I base it on the following observation: When the aggressor ist bigger than you he is not likely to be intimidated by your physical threats. I have worked as in night club security in a part of the world where the average person is considerably bigger than I am. Son on that point I know what I am talking about. Besides, it is the same thing, when you are outnumbered.
It is quite simple: Surprise counterattack is more likely to be successful - and surprise can compensate considerably for lack of skill, if you only have at least 1 or 2 good techniques.
Of cours a woman can learn to fight efficiently. She just has to chose her targets better, because she usually is smaller. She simply has to go for hurting him more.
Sean JComment
-
Well, I saw this awesome post from somebody--don't remember who--somewhere, I don't think it was on defend.net. He said that a woman he knew printed out a card on thick paper, and made it look all official. It said something along the lines of,
My name is xxxxxxx, and I am infected with the AIDS virus. If I am found injured, take extreme caution and please call my doctor at xxx-xxxx.
Hospital: St. John's
Doctor: Dr. X
Hospital Phone: xxx-xxxx
A guy tried to rape her once, and she said, "Look, buddy, you don't want to rape me. I have AIDS. If you don't believe me, look at my card."
She showed the guy her 'card', and he backed off and ran away. How cool is that!Comment
-
Yeah that "awesome post" was from me girl....when are you going to start MT?Comment
-
defence
as this topic is touching on defence, I feel the need to add...., when a woman is attempting to defend herself physically, against a male attacker she should not just assume the guy will rape her then leave, she should consider this "rapist" is someone who is going to kill her. With that in the forefront of the mind's reality the defence would be more assertive, so when you go to rip off his ear, or poke his eyes out you do it with conviction and more success.
Stating this, you should be prepared you are taking the fight to another level where the attacker may get more violent so you would have to accept with full conviction that this is an attack on your life and existence.
That's what I tell me wifey...
tip: when ripping the ear off, grab it at the top, do not pull it as there is more resistance, but tear it in the direction from top to bottom, as he free's his hand, stick your thumb in his eye and bite his nose if you get the chance, then go for whatever you want or run. It will get most people off you.Comment
-
That aids thing is a good idea .. I have thought about girls saying .. I have aids.. but not an official card. You would still need to be able to defend yourself. If the guy had rape on his mind he may also be prepared to kill, after hes finished. And if he thinks you have aids and was going to kill you anyway .. he may still try, so it best to be prepared.
Is biting such a good idea???? I mean sure it could save your life ... but what if this guy has some nasty diseases .. you could easily catch it off him ... maybe instead of a bite to the nose .. a headbutt.Comment
-
catching a disease is definitely a secondary concern in a life and death situaiton. you won't live to catch the disease if you don't do something. if biting is an option, use it. paul vunak, a major proponent of kino mutai, made a pretty convincing case in favor of biting in a fight. the mouth has so many enzymes and such to prevent disease that you probably won't catch anything. even if the risk of disease contraction was high, i would bit if it would save me.
ryanComment
Comment