Barnes and Noble "Diverse Editions"

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Except where you have literally said that, as has been shown multiple times over now. I mean if you want to recant that position great, but don't try and claim you've never stated it when it's been pointed out in this very thread that you have.

No, I didn't literally say any such thing at all, no matter how hard you pound the table and howl. I note, you don't have any "literal" quote since I never actually said such a thing, just you saying, "well, when I look at this paragraph and squint my eyes just so, I think what you are _really_ thinking when you said this is..."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's painfully obvious.


For the record: I was disturbed by the victim blaming on display here before you ever chimed in.

Yea, yea, yea. Once again, you snark, but you don't actually answer the question or respond to any evidence presented that doesn't support your position.

For anyone who is actually interested in the subject, rather than just snarking, there is a lot of material out there. Many police departments do seminars on avoiding crime. Much of it seems obvious after you see it, but that's true of many things.

None of this is particularly controversial regardless of how some knee jerk about it.

Here's a link from a Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/a...d-being-victim

Even WebMD has a page on it.

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...gainst-crime#1

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I didn't literally say any such thing at all, no matter how hard you pound the table and howl. I note, you don't have any "literal" quote since I never actually said such a thing, just you saying, "well, when I look at this paragraph and squint my eyes just so, I think what you are _really_ thinking when you said this is..."

"Can words hurt? Sure, if you let them. But if they do, maybe you are better off figuring out _why_ your feelings were hurt. Do you have poor self esteem? Are you too sensitive and see insult everywhere? Do you trust and hang out with the wrong people?"

Your words, emphasis mine only to draw your eye to the language you're using.

Do please go on about how you haven't said it's the victims fault. It just further cements the idea that you've found yourself in a bad position and are now arguing to try and dig your way out.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Here's a link from a Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/a...d-being-victim

Even WebMD has a page on it.

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...gainst-crime#1

So one article from January 1, 2009 now over a decade old. And another article which is at least 2 years (there's no date WebMD just archives 2 year old articles though the only year given as a citation of crime stats is 2004) with such gems as:

Submitting to an attack because of fear does not prevent it, says Farrenkopf. He says surveys and anecdotal evidence show the difference between rapists who have completed rape and those who have attempted it is their victims' reaction. "In the completed rape, the victim usually froze and submitted," he says. "In the attempted rape, the victim fought, resisted, and escaped."

BRILLIANT if you run away from your rapist you have a better chance of not being raped. What this sheer GENIUS advice fails to grasp is that more often than not victims are unable to flee for any of many reasons. I'd also like to smack the person who even had to consider the stats of those who "submitted" (which is a gross use of the term here), vs those who ran.

And on speaking of criminals,

"They ask themselves, 'Does this person look attackable? Does this person look vulnerable? Can I get away with something here?'"

The article is also littered with more fear mongering, and pushes more on to the victim and would be victim that they must be responsible for deterring the actions of someone else.

What's next? Are you going to give us an article about how in order to avoid rape women shouldn't dress provocatively (though the webMD article does allude to that fairly directly)?

A laughable idea since rape has existed in cultures where societal norms dictated being covered from head to toe. I guess those women just had noses that screamed out to men.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

"Can words hurt? Sure, if you let them. But if they do, maybe you are better off figuring out _why_ your feelings were hurt. Do you have poor self esteem? Are you too sensitive and see insult everywhere? Do you trust and hang out with the wrong people?"

Your words, emphasis mine only to draw your eye to the language you're using.

Do please go on about how you haven't said it's the victims fault. It just further cements the idea that you've found yourself in a bad position and are now arguing to try and dig your way out.

Nice try at deflection. My feelings are hardly hurt, I'm simply pointing out what you are doing, i.e. you are trying to project your personal feelings onto my posts. You are making a purely feelings based argument. What you are basically saying is that "When I read your post, I feel..."

Once again, I point out that you have not identified a single post of mine where I actually said what you feel that I must have meant. It's purely "when I read this, this is how I reacted". I have no power over how you react or feel, that is totally on you. I only have power over what I actually say. You can feel what ever you want, but I'm not going to sit by quietly while you engage in straw man arguments. (Straw man argument - Claiming someone said something they didn't, then arguing against that point rather than the other person's actual point. A classic rhetorical technique).

It's pretty obvious that you simply can't bring yourself to accept any evidence contrary to your strongly held belief. Fine, that's your right. If you don't want to believe that there are things you can do to minimize your chance at being the victim of a crime, that's up to you. Just don't try to put words in my mouth.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Nice try at deflection. My feelings are hardly hurt, I'm simply pointing out what you are doing, i.e. you are trying to project your personal feelings onto my posts. You are making a purely feelings based argument. What you are basically saying is that "When I read your post, I feel..."

Once again, I point out that you have not identified a single post of mine where I actually said what you feel that I must have meant. It's purely "when I read this, this is how I reacted". I have no power over how you react or feel, that is totally on you. I only have power over what I actually say. You can feel what ever you want, but I'm not going to sit by quietly while you engage in straw man arguments. (Straw man argument - Claiming someone said something they didn't, then arguing against that point rather than the other person's actual point. A classic rhetorical technique).

Oh good, more gaslighting.

It's hardly a strawman when I've provided a quote of yours and demonstrated where the message is in that quote.

Simply sitting there stating you never said something which is here clear as day for anyone to read is laughable. And please spare us the "I didn't say it", I've quoted you back your own words which for some reason you felt were aimed to hurt your feelings? Not really sure how you could hurt your own feelings with something you said and now claim you didn't say. I can see how that might give you a headache.

Once again, if you want to recant that view, fine. But don't attempt to pretend you haven't stated it.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

The article is also littered with more fear mongering, and pushes more on to the victim and would be victim that they must be responsible for deterring the actions of someone else.

What's next? Are you going to give us an article about how in order to avoid rape women shouldn't dress provocatively (though the webMD article does allude to that fairly directly)?

I agree the article rubs me the wrong way. The title alone, "How to Avoid Being a Victim." It's been shown most victims of a crime feel guilt when they're victimized as a natural grieving stage of the process, so seeing article headlines like that certainly don't help.

The worst part may be:

Women with passive, submissive personalities are most likely to be raped—and they tend to wear body-concealing clothing, such as high necklines, long pants and sleeves, and multiple layers.

This seems to be going beyond the article that is all over the place talking about "tips" on avoiding catching the attention of people on the streets and in "dark alleys". Most women are raped by people they know and not in these hypothetical situations where it's easy to offer "tips" to avoid attention.

How are they defining passive, submissive personalities? Fearful women? Shy women? Quiet women? Uncertain women? Nervous women? If you're passive and uncertain, I'm assuming the article is telling these women to pretend to be anything but that when out and about on the "dangerous streets", yet if women are nervous and uncertain due to low self esteem or history of trauma, or natural personality, they can't just easily fall into the role of pretending to be tough, outgoing, assertive women to "lessen their chances of catching attention on being raped." Not quoted per the article word for word, but the meaning is clear here.

And perhaps they are thinking if they are quiet, they'd attract less attention that way, trying to reduce the chances of attracting predators that way. I can get that reasoning if you're trying not to attract attention to yourself.

And these women tend to wear body concealing clothes with multiple layers? Maybe they're cold? Maybe they're trying NOT to attract attention because so many say it's risky to dress to catch attention as another form of victim blaming? So now they dress the opposite and it's still part of them being the cause of catching attention? Poor women just can't take a break with these articles and assumptions.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Even WebMD has a page on it.

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...gainst-crime#1

This article is just as bad as the first.

"In 2004, U.S. Department of Justice statistics show seven in 10 female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, a relative, a friend, or an acquaintance. Officer Jason Lee, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department, says questionable looks from people you know can gradually advance to touching or words that may make you feel uncomfortable. "Tell someone else about the warning signs, someone who can help you, so we can prevent this," urges Lee."

First of all, a questionable look from someone you know or trust isn't going to automatically lead into rape, violent, or abusive situations. Most people think back on these scenes after the fact of a crime when they're trying to figure out what happened. What is a questionable look when it comes to rape or sexual assault from someone you know? And the police aren't going to do anything if you call the department and say you're feeling uncomfortable from a friend, parent, etc., because they gave you an odd look but haven't done anything else yet.

"Just as you can sense people's feelings, others can sense yours as well. Predators look for people who are meek, mild, weak, unfocused, and distracted. "Criminals are looking for easy pickings. They're looking for someone who they can take by surprise and will likely not resist," says Jean O'Neil, director of research and evaluation for the National Crime Prevention Council. She suggests presenting yourself in an assertive manner. When walking down the street, make eye contact with people who look at you. O'Neil says that signals the would-be offender that you are in charge and aware that they are there."

Ugh. Again this is saying if a woman is raped in public, she shouldn't have been acting "weak"? Like a weak person? I would think some are more attracted to the woman who keeps acting assertive and challenging with eye contact instead, this article is ridiculous with its assumptions. And women or men feel like victims, feel weak, after they have been raped --- telling them they may have been attracting the attention in the first place because they acted like a weak person could be psychologically devastating.

"If escape is not an option, Farrenkopf suggests firm resistance, particularly in cases of rape or sexual assault. With people you know, he urges being clear about saying "No" to sex, and to avoid flirting or mixed messages. With both intimates and strangers, he says physically resisting and then escaping is the best option."

I'm so glad the would-be victim is being told her/his best option is to escape. Um. Of course that's the best option and what every person being attacked will try to do (whether they initially freeze or not), that doesn't need to be spelled out in the article like it's a choice we proactively choose when getting attacked. Being told before the fact that it's a good idea to escape if you're attacked helps no one - obviously most people would try to escape if possible!

And of course if you're being raped, you're being clear on saying "No" and not sending mixed messages or flirting during the attack - this is just in insulting. Say "No" in more a firm, and clear message? What on earth! That's like telling a woman who has been raped she must not have said no firmly and clear enough. How sad this article is.

I also don't get these medical websites publishing these articles talking about women messing up more when they froze or did not escape, when we've also been taught - from a medical standpoint, for crying out loud - that the flight or freeze instinct isn't always in our control when faced with danger and how it can be impossible to know how you're react in a situation, even without training.

A good article about this from Psychology Today that states the flight or freeze response is a hormonal, neurological tie-in response sometimes outside the person's control

"Say, you’re attacked by a ferocious dog who’s sunk his teeth into your neck and you’re totally at his mercy. In such an alarming instance, you’d experience trepidation, panic, horror, dread. And these extreme feelings would be so fraught with anxiety, so laden with terror, that almost no one is “gifted” with the resources required to stay fully in the present—which is precisely what’s needed to “process” emotional and physical completion, or release, of what so frighteningly besieges you.

Under such unnerving circumstances, “freezing up” or “numbing out”—dissociating from the here and now—is about the only and (in various instances) the best thing you can do. Being physically, mentally, and emotionally immobilized by your consternation permits you not to feel the harrowing enormity of what’s happening to you, which in your hyperaroused state might threaten your very sanity. In such instances, some of the chemicals you thereby secrete (i.e., endorphins) function as an analgesic, so the pain of injury (to your body or psyche) is experienced with far less intensity.

Additionally, if you’re not putting up a fight, the person or animal aggressing against you just might lose interest in continuing their attack. But whatever the provocation, if you can’t make the assailant disappear, you’re much better off “disappearing” yourself, by blocking out what’s much too scary to take in. So, in its own way, the freeze response to trauma is—if only at the time—as adaptive as the fight-flight response."


So, clearly the freeze response isn't because you're weak, passive, submissive - it can be a natural process by the body to help your survival long-term once the violence is over. It is usually not a controlled process, even in trained or "aggressive women" or those who meet people's eyes on the street. Substitute the dog here for rape, being hit, being mugged, it's the same thing -- people should not be told they can avoid being victims by not freezing for a second when attacked - it's not something they can control and it doesn't make them more their fault if they do that.

[Paperbackstash]

Wow, I read more of the article and it got worse.

Submitting to an attack because of fear does not prevent it, says Farrenkopf. He says surveys and anecdotal evidence show the difference between rapists who have completed rape and those who have attempted it is their victims' reaction. "In the completed rape, the victim usually froze and submitted," he says. "In the attempted rape, the victim fought, resisted, and escaped."

So then women/men where the rape was "completed" didn't fight and resist enough, got it.

I hope the article writer realizes the woman or man with the partial rape that isn't full finished (?? What does this even mean fully?) can be just as traumatized as the woman/man who has a "full rape"

And freezing for a moment does not mean a person is submitting.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

With binoculars and a parabolic mike.
Wouldn't want to be caught in tbe crossfire.

I honestly had the same intentions, but with these articles, I couldn't resist adding my input.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

This article is just as bad as the first.

"In 2004, U.S. Department of Justice statistics show seven in 10 female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, a relative, a friend, or an acquaintance. Officer Jason Lee, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department, says questionable looks from people you know can gradually advance to touching or words that may make you feel uncomfortable. "Tell someone else about the warning signs, someone who can help you, so we can prevent this," urges Lee."

First of all, a questionable look from someone you know or trust isn't going to automatically lead into rape, violent, or abusive situations. Most people think back on these scenes after the fact of a crime when they're trying to figure out what happened. What is a questionable look when it comes to rape or sexual assault from someone you know? And the police aren't going to do anything if you call the department and say you're feeling uncomfortable from a friend, parent, etc., because they gave you an odd look but haven't done anything else yet.

"Just as you can sense people's feelings, others can sense yours as well. Predators look for people who are meek, mild, weak, unfocused, and distracted. "Criminals are looking for easy pickings. They're looking for someone who they can take by surprise and will likely not resist," says Jean O'Neil, director of research and evaluation for the National Crime Prevention Council. She suggests presenting yourself in an assertive manner. When walking down the street, make eye contact with people who look at you. O'Neil says that signals the would-be offender that you are in charge and aware that they are there."

Ugh. Again this is saying if a woman is raped in public, she shouldn't have been acting "weak"? Like a weak person? I would think some are more attracted to the woman who keeps acting assertive and challenging with eye contact instead, this article is ridiculous with its assumptions. And women or men feel like victims, feel weak, after they have been raped --- telling them they may have been attracting the attention in the first place because they acted like a weak person could be psychologically devastating.

"If escape is not an option, Farrenkopf suggests firm resistance, particularly in cases of rape or sexual assault. With people you know, he urges being clear about saying "No" to sex, and to avoid flirting or mixed messages. With both intimates and strangers, he says physically resisting and then escaping is the best option."

I'm so glad the would-be victim is being told her/his best option is to escape. Um. Of course that's the best option and what every person being attacked will try to do (whether they initially freeze or not), that doesn't need to be spelled out in the article like it's a choice we proactively choose when getting attacked. Being told before the fact that it's a good idea to escape if you're attacked helps no one - obviously most people would try to escape if possible!

And of course if you're being raped, you're being clear on saying "No" and not sending mixed messages or flirting during the attack - this is just in insulting. Say "No" in more a firm, and clear message? What on earth! That's like telling a woman who has been raped she must not have said no firmly and clear enough. How sad this article is.

I also don't get these medical websites publishing these articles talking about women messing up more when they froze or did not escape, when we've also been taught - from a medical standpoint, for crying out loud - that the flight or freeze instinct isn't always in our control when faced with danger and how it can be impossible to know how you're react in a situation, even without training.

A good article about this from Psychology Today that states the flight or freeze response is a hormonal, neurological tie-in response sometimes outside the person's control

"Say, you’re attacked by a ferocious dog who’s sunk his teeth into your neck and you’re totally at his mercy. In such an alarming instance, you’d experience trepidation, panic, horror, dread. And these extreme feelings would be so fraught with anxiety, so laden with terror, that almost no one is “gifted” with the resources required to stay fully in the present—which is precisely what’s needed to “process” emotional and physical completion, or release, of what so frighteningly besieges you.

Under such unnerving circumstances, “freezing up” or “numbing out”—dissociating from the here and now—is about the only and (in various instances) the best thing you can do. Being physically, mentally, and emotionally immobilized by your consternation permits you not to feel the harrowing enormity of what’s happening to you, which in your hyperaroused state might threaten your very sanity. In such instances, some of the chemicals you thereby secrete (i.e., endorphins) function as an analgesic, so the pain of injury (to your body or psyche) is experienced with far less intensity.

Additionally, if you’re not putting up a fight, the person or animal aggressing against you just might lose interest in continuing their attack. But whatever the provocation, if you can’t make the assailant disappear, you’re much better off “disappearing” yourself, by blocking out what’s much too scary to take in. So, in its own way, the freeze response to trauma is—if only at the time—as adaptive as the fight-flight response."


So, clearly the freeze response isn't because you're weak, passive, submissive - it can be a natural process by the body to help your survival long-term once the violence is over. It is usually not a controlled process, even in trained or "aggressive women" or those who meet people's eyes on the street. Substitute the dog here for rape, being hit, being mugged, it's the same thing -- people should not be told they can avoid being victims by not freezing for a second when attacked - it's not something they can control and it doesn't make them more their fault if they do that.

Once again, if you don't want to take any number of experts advice on how to avoid crime, that is totally up to you. I'm sure you don't have a fire alarm in your house either because telling people to use a fire alarm is just blaming the victims of a fire. Nor, I'm sure do you lock your car because locking your car puts the blame on the victim of a car break in.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Once again, if you don't want to take any number of experts advice on how to avoid crime, that is totally up to you. I'm sure you don't have a fire alarm in your house either because telling people to use a fire alarm is just blaming the victims of a fire. Nor, I'm sure do you lock your car because locking your car puts the blame on the victim of a car break in.

These are not worthy comparisons to what the articles have stated. There is a difference between setting up fire alarms and locking doors versus advising someone not have a "weak look" when leaving their house, or saying that they could prevent rape if they only were able to fight hard enough and escape in time. Some of these things are outside a person's control, especially if taken by surprise.

I get some of the points of what you're saying with a few of your posts, but I'm bringing to mind these articles in particular you linked can be harmful to victims who have experienced these crimes. Being a victim of a crime, especially a violent one, cannot always be prevented - in fact, in a majority of cases with violent crime the person is taken by surprise through no fault of their own. The majority of violent crimes, especially with assault, are not with strangers in dark alleyways with fog and ominous shadows.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Once again, if you don't want to take any number of experts advice on how to avoid crime, that is totally up to you. I'm sure you don't have a fire alarm in your house either because telling people to use a fire alarm is just blaming the victims of a fire. Nor, I'm sure do you lock your car because locking your car puts the blame on the victim of a car break in.

Experts from a decade + ago, in a field that is constantly evolving.

Also no one has said not to take preventative steps. What has been said is that telling someone they should have taken them is victim blaming. So your terrible analogies with fire alarms and house alarms are rather misplaced, not that they actually addressed any of the points brought up by Paperbackstash or others, unless you're saying homes with alarms that are activated somehow look physically stronger than homes without, or that fires are going to look at a house with a fire alarm and think "Nah I'll only be put out real quick". Which I presume is not in fact what you're saying because that is of course absurd.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Two very different issues. There is a lot of research by psychologists on preventing crime by keeping people from becoming criminals (which is what you seem to be focused on). It's successful for some people, not so successful for others. With all the knee jerk reactions towards teaching people to minimize their chance at being the victim, I have zero interest in discussing keeping people from become criminals. It's much more controversial.

Part of the problem is what I like to call the "solving world hunger" issue. For some people, if you don't have a 100% solution for every aspect of a problem, then you are absolute garbage and having done anything. They will shout down anything that isn't a 100% solution. It's all "well what about this", "well, what about that". We aren't solving world hunger. We are solving this one small piece of the puzzle. You eat an elephant one bite at a time, not in one humongous gulp.

Excuse me? I have said no such thing. All I was expressing is that your way of fighting crime is not part of the solution, but just a band aid. What you are suggesting, attempting to keep people from becoming criminals, is indeed part of the solution. Interestingly enough, you don't want to talk about it. The only controversy about keeping criminals off the street is in the methods. One side wants to give the benefit of the doubt and believes in redemption, the other side much rather lock them up in prison and throw away the key.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Excuse me? I have said no such thing. All I was expressing is that your way of fighting crime is not part of the solution, but just a band aid. What you are suggesting, attempting to keep people from becoming criminals, is indeed part of the solution. Interestingly enough, you don't want to talk about it. The only controversy about keeping criminals off the street is in the methods. One side wants to give the benefit of the doubt and believes in redemption, the other side much rather lock them up in prison and throw away the key.

"your way of fighting crime..." This is the issue. I'm not advocating ways of "fighting crime", I'm advocating ways of avoiding crime, which is a very different subject. You are right, I don't want to talk about fighting crime or keeping people from becoming criminals. It's simply not one of the subjects that I've studied in any depth and have zero expertise in.