Duke LaCrosse Team accused of gang-raping black dancer

[DianaPrince]

You need to get over your personal issues with dancers  , for real. Get help.

No, actually, I deal quite well with any  issues I may have.  I speak out on whatever offends me.

[chocolateladee]

Yeah DP, you really do have some damn issues. How do dancers offend you? They are using their own goods to make their money, you act as if they are using your raggedy ass puccy!!! Why are you offended?

Viagra can be used as sexual stimulation, is the little blue pill a "prostitute" DP?
And if I believed all of your rantings then it would lead me to believe that you have never checked out a porn tape or anything. There is your problem right there!!! You need you some good stimulation and some Daddy Dyck in your life, maybe then you would stop being so uptight.

So if the women who provide the service are scum and the men who like the service are scum, does this mean that you would never date a man that watches a chick flick or frequents a strip club?
Well once you eliminate all of those men and then you add in your man-hating ass attitude, you are destined to be alone and secretly living thru my azz forever huh?

Get ova yo'self DP. You are no better then a woman who has chosen dancing as her hustle (such as myself).

[The Shepherd]

And my point is that even that may not be enough. Six months may not be enough. These men don't have a rapist decal that will eventually show through the skin on their foreheads after a month of exposure.  Maybe after a month of waiting and building frustration, they can't take "no" for an answer. Maybe they were being "perfect gentlemen" (chivalrous) just to get the prize; maybe they've been deceptive as to their true nature all along. . .That's why I say again, rational caution can only go so far, meaning that every situation can't be saved by it.

We are, and have been, in definite agreement on that. Women are never truly safe. But, does that mean they shouldn't exercise any rational caution in these types of situations? Does that mean that rational caution can never prevent them from being victimized and violated by brutal rapists?

I'm just talking rational caution. I'm not saying don't ever be alone with him, I'm saying be alone with him after you've got to know him for a bit. I'm not saying don't go out and get drunk. I'm saying don't go out and get drunk and bar hop ALONE at 4am. I'm not saying don't strip. I'm saying don't strip at private parties with drunken sexually charged men.

I could make an argument for not doing any of those things, but that's not the thread for that discussion. And, I already stated this is not about imposing my morality, it's about informing women about the exercising of rational caution so they can lessen their chances of being victimized.

If men can't handle seeing strippers perform, maybe we should outlaw stripping for the safety of women.

Again, I'm not advocating any particular moral principle. I'm advocating a woman's use of rational caution. Plus, it seems that men can handle seeing strippers perform - in a controlled environment.

[Obsidian]

We are, and have been, in definite agreement on that. Women are never truly safe. But, does that mean they shouldn't exercise any rational caution in these types of situations? Does that mean that rational caution can never prevent them from being victimized and violated by brutal rapists?

Listen, Shep. I understand fully the concept of rational caution as a method of prevention. I really do. And I also think that women should be aware of the ever present danger they are in of falling prey to sex predators. However, using hindsight, we can always say that a woman wasn't cautious enough. Concerning a woman who was abducted from a parking lot at night it could be said that she should not have been out after dark alone, or she should have had mace or carried a tazer or something.  It's revisionist and requires that something happens in the first place in order to make the assertion of whether or not a woman was rationally cautious enough. That's the problem with your position.

[Obsidian]

Plus, it seems that men can handle seeing strippers perform - in a controlled environment.

Can they? I delved a little further into that because it seemed to me that it's not safe for strippers even in a "controlled" environment. I found an interesting article at http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/laydenhealthy.cfm which deals with the causes and effects of the porn industry. I'm in the process of reading the whole thing -- the author has some interesting information on the psych profiles of strippers and the patrons as well. Here's what she has to say on the safety of the controlled environment.

"Despite the fact that it is illegal to touch a stripper, strippers reported that customers grabbed them by the arm (88%), grabbed their breast (73%), or their buttock (91%). Customers at strip clubs often assault the women. Customers pulled their hair (27%), pinched them (58%), slapped them (24%), or bite them (36%). They are often attacked in the str1p club in front of bodyguards and other audience members.

If men would do this to women in public, what would they do to women in private? Strippers are often raped. Strippers have reported that they have been followed home (70%) and have been stalked (42%). The fact that strippers work with bodyguards is evidence to the fact that their fears that this activity causes violence are realistic. Strippers may have bodyguards while they are at work but when they leave, they are as vulnerable as is the rest of the female population. Most women interact with these individuals without the benefit of a bodyguard. All women will have to interact with the strip club patrons who have permission-giving beliefs about the use of women's bodies. Strip club patrons do not apply their beliefs only to women who work in the sex industry. Strippers, having been damaged by their own sexual abuse, now go on to work in an industry that encourages the beliefs that will allow behavior that hurts all women. The unbroken chain of victim and victimizer continues."

[The Shepherd]

This is not hindsight. Does it take something to happen for a person to reasonably deduce that it's not rationally cautious to be bar hopping alone at 2am, to be stripping at private parties with 40-50 drunken sexually charged men, or to be spending time alone with men you barely know? Does it really take something to happen to be able to determine what's rationally cautious? And, if nothing had happened to the young ladies in the above situations, would we be able to say that they exercised rational caution?

The exercising of rational caution has nothing to do with the outcome. Rational caution is a principle that transcends whatever the outcome of a situation might be. Driving fast, but legal, in a snow blizzard is not rationally cautious whether you crash or not.

The only problem with my position is that I'm not acting as an enabler to women's bad judgment. What's odd is that you agree with THAT you wouldn't do it, but you won't afford other women the same protection that you afford yourself. You have enough sense not to do any of the above, you choose to exercise rational caution, so why do you disregard it for other women?

Obsidian, okay, strip clubs are not safe either. But, that only goes to further my poing about rational caution. If a woman works in that environment and has that happen, she's not using rational caution by going to a house and stripping at a party where there is no bodyguard at all. And, I don't care if strip clubs were outlawed, or stripping was outlawed, I don't indulge anyway. But, it's not about MY morality, it's about can women exercise some rational caution to prevent or lessen their chances of being victimized? That's all.

[Obsidian]

Shepherd. You missed the point. I'm not arguing whether or not the women in your examples used rational caution (which we've already established is a subjective standard to begin with), but rather that once something like this happens to ANY woman in ANY circumstance, it isn't at all uncommon to have people, such as yourself, immediately analyze what the victim could have done differently. Rape, in particular, is the only crime I know of that produces that type of response.

But, that only goes to further my poing about rational caution. If a woman works in that environment and has that happen, she's not using rational caution by going to a house and stripping at a party where there is no bodyguard at all.

Come on, Shepherd, you shouldn't base your argument on assumptions that are themselves based on way too many variables --  i.e. the experience of the actual stripper in question may not have been one that included that type of assualt or on-the-job harrassment, another variable would be the length of time/amount of experience/information on such stats that the woman in question has...there are certainly too many scenarios to identify here, but my point is that you and I are intellectuals not 21-year old strippers. It's easy for us to say she shouldn't have been stripping with that knowledge because we have that knowledge. Don't assume that she did.

[Obsidian]

This is not hindsight. Does it take something to happen for a person to reasonably deduce that it's not rationally cautious to be bar hopping alone at 2am, to be stripping at private parties with 40-50 drunken sexually charged men, or to be spending time alone with men you barely know?

For some people, YES!

Does it really take something to happen to be able to determine what's rationally cautious?

How else do you learn? You learn from the mistakes of others and from your own. The phrase "hindsight is always 20/20" would be absurd nonsense with no meaning at all if this wasn't the case.

And, if nothing had happened to the young ladies in the above situations, would we be able to say that they exercised rational caution?

No, because there wouldn't be a story.

[The Shepherd]

It's easy for us to say she shouldn't have been stripping with that knowledge because we have that knowledge. Don't assume that she did... How else do you learn? You learn from the mistakes of others and from your own.

Uhh, that's the point I've been making.

I'm speaking to women regarding what the lesson of these tragedies are...

As I said earlier, the lesson for women, the lesson I'll tell my nieces and daughter(s), is that a woman, a female, cannot afford to be cavalier or naive by placing themselves in the private company of men they don't know, or barely know.

The lesson is that we need to tell women not to be damm fools by driving fast (albeit legal) in a snow blizzard.

Rational caution should be exercised by all women in all situations dealing with men. Many 'date' rape victims, as well as the Duke lady, and St. Guillen chose to not exercise rational caution. That's the lesson. Let's hope women start to get it.

Rational caution is not an intellectual principle. I mean, we tell kids "don't talk to strangers", and any fool driving knows it's not rationally cautious to drive fast in a blizzard. Do you think most women don't understand rational caution, or do you think they just don't prioritize it? Women understand rational caution, all of the victims above understood it. Anybody that has lived in this country 6 months, let alone raised here, understands the dangers everpresent in this societ. My goodness, St. Guillen was even some sort of criminal justice student at John Jay College. The difference is that these women were cavalier, were more concerned with fun or easy money, than observing Maslow's first need on the hierarchy.

I have analyzed what the victim could have done differently because if no one tells women that their lack of exercising rational caution can put them in more danger than necessary, then more women will be as cavalier as the above victims and place themselves, not only in the path, but vulnerable and in the path of PREDATORS!

What's wrong with telling women to exercise rational caution? You're acting as if that's a bad thing.

[Obsidian]

Shepherd, I'm not acting as if it's a bad thing to educate women on what's safe or not. We began telling kids not to talk to strangers because strangers started snatching kids off the street. Something had to HAPPEN first to warrant that type of response (the Don't talk to Strangers campaign).  Of course, women need to be educated as to the risks. Did I ever suggest otherwise?

I can see that this exchange is becoming useless. You don't seem to understand my vantage point at all, while I can clearly understand and appreciate yours (BTW, that's what intellectuals do, they exchange and examine ideas). Incidentally the idea of "rational" caution itself sounds like rather intellectual terminology.

[Obsidian]

It's easy for us to say she shouldn't have been stripping with that knowledge because we have that knowledge. Don't assume that she did... How else do you learn? You learn from the mistakes of others and from your own.

Uhh, that's the point I've been making.

Really? Because I seem to remember you saying this wasn't about hindsight. That's what hindsight is -- learning from mistakes of others and from your own.

[The Shepherd]

Obsidian, I more than understand your vantage point. I don't agree with it!

I don't know anyone, nor have I ever, driven fast in a blizzard and crashed. Yet, I can deduce that it's rationally cautious to not drive fast in a blizzard.

The point that I was making is that we need use these tragedies to further educate women on their need to exercise rational caution. However, you are calling that "blaming the victim". Is it blaming the victim, or is it educating women?

And, the exercise of rational caution is not related to hindsight! Exercising rational caution does not require hindsight. That's another point that I was making. You stated that it was hindsight to say that the ladies should not have behaved as they did. Hindsight, however, can only occur if something bad happens. That's the point about educating ladies. But, I have explicitly stated that one doesn't have to know that something bad will, or has, happen in order to determine if their behavior is indicative of rational caution.

Those are two separate arguments. One is about using the tragedies to teach women. The other is about the application and exercise of rational caution.

I'll ask, once again. Do you think most women don't understand rational caution, or do you think they just don't prioritize it?

[Obsidian]

But, I have explicitly stated that one doesn't have to know that something bad will, or has, happen in order to determine if their behavior is indicative of rational caution.

And I suppose the old adage "experience is the best teacher" has no meaning for your either? Shep, without the benefit of mistakes, of experience, (whether those of others or those of your own) it is impossible to make such assertions as those which we have been discussing. A bar, at some point in the past, was set.

I said that you were walking a very fine line as far as "blaming the victim."

It is apparent that you don't understand me when you keep asking why I don't believe women should be educated on risks or that women should use "rational caution" while I have never uttered such an absurdity.

And to answer your question, it is possible that some women buy into feelings of comfort/safety when there are lulls in the reportings of rape or assault in their areas. They may feel that it is safe to party -- seeing as we live in a party-party-party, fun-fun- fun, oriented capitalist culture, this shouldn't be shocking behavior.

You say that you're all for educating women and not "blaming the victim" but your final question suggests otherwise. If you're all for advocating "rational caution" then get off the victims and get back to application and exercise of rational caution sans the actions in the past. Can you do that without using them as examples? If not, why not and if so, then you are using hindsight to make your point. How convenient.

Shepherd, even in your examples about driving cautiously on a slippery road some experience is required. Many people have to learn how fast/slow to drive in slippery conditions from actually slipping a few times! At least that was the case for me. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the average age of rape victims is 21.4?  Maybe there's a reason why it's not 31.4. I'll say again, that experience is the best teacher -- whether your experience or that of another.

Even road signs are put up after an accident or two or a complaint or two has occured.

[The Shepherd]

Okay, Obsidian, what exactly do you disagree with concerning my position?

If you believe that women should use rational caution, if you believe that women should be educated on the use of rational caution, if you believe that the above victims could have lessened their chances of being victimized by exercising rational caution, if you believe that the actions of these women does not indicate a use of rational caution, if you believe that women "buy into feelings of comfort or safety" (in other words priortize their partying instead of their safety), then what exactly do you disagree with?

Do you just disagree with the fact that it's being said?

And, yes, I can use rational caution without referring to any victim. I don't drive fast in blizzards. However, to refer to the victims shows the extreme consequences of NOT exercising rational caution.

Further, if we claim that the assertions are hindsight, then we'd have to buy into the concept that there was no reasonable concern BEFORE the action. Do we really think that BEFORE these women made these fateful decisions that there was no reasonable inference that extreme consequences could be incurred?

In other words, if they had called YOU, Obsidian, an hour before they left to party, what would you have told them? If there is any chance at all that you could have seen their actions as putting them in danger, then this discussion is not hindsight.

[Obsidian]

The woman who says she was raped last week by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team thought she would be dancing for five men at a bachelor party, she said Friday. But when she arrived that night, she found herself surrounded by more than 40.

Shep, maybe you missed this part of the article. The women did not get called and asked to dance at a party of 40 drunken sex-crazed athletes. They were under a different impression. If exotic dancing was my job, then yes, I might have danced at a bachelor party of five men along with another girl dancer.

What I disagree with is your assertion that rational caution is just some kind of a priori knowledge. While a priori knowledge does play a factor, it can't be said to be the sum total of all that comprises "rational caution". Being "rational" and requiring one to "deduce" a thing (as you've already suggested), is more in line with a posteriori knowledge; factoring in known situations and variables in order to arrive at a rational conclusion and course of action. Of course, people generally get better at this with age.

So I'll be clear: I disagree that all actions of rational caution can be completely arrived at using solely one's imagination for the aforementioned reasons.