statistics: one was the rate within one year, one seems to be something like 'lifetime risk' for a woman of average age, that's why the numbers are so differant. But I guarantee that the DOJ includes non full penetration in sexual assault among many other forms of touching.
police: ok, nice point, but it still has nothing to do with the analogy. police work need not be the highest risk to be high risk, or to be more precise, higher than normal risk. And of course the core point that blame need not attend participation in elevated risk remains.
VIP/ Detrioit: ok, got me on imprecise phrasing, but this is a tad pedantic. Do you think the VIP room is equal to all other settings in rate of sexual assaults committed per time or number of persons? My point of course, as I think you know, was not that only persons in Detroit get mugged there, but rather that Detroit is in fact a place with a much higher mugging per capita rate- i.e. higher risk.
Yes, re all the other, I think we are now finally in some form of agreement. Yes, I totally agree that what is at risk is your rights or whether your "no" is respected or treated as a "yes", and thus under all that fancy talk what is at risk, at least in the sense I meant or the way I limited the discourse, is whether the actual concrete action of a rape or assault happens. In some places or conditions or behaviours some bad people will respect your "no" and your rights more or less than other places and situations.
Yes, society has traditionally conflated risk and blame in this situation, so I understand the defensiveness, but that still doesn't meant they can't be disaggregated logically.
If we are discussing a property crime all your points are still valid, but also still are mine, because you seem more focused on blame and specifically legal culpability, while I am focused on probability of occurance, or risk.
A person has every right to pin $100 dollar bills all over their clothes, and nobody has a right to snatch one off without consent, no means no. But by doing so in itself one is elevating the statistical likelihood of someone not respecting your property rights, or not honoring your "no". If one walks in a neighborhood with a high property crime rate, alone at night, through a crowd, or for that matter ever leaves the house in that money suit, one has never surrendered the moral or legal right to one's money, but one HAS significantly elevated the chances of having someone else, thru their bad behaviour, violate those rights. And someone might say "you might want to put your cash in a money belt under your clothes, just to be safe next time".
Perhaps stripping and its attendant places and behaviours are not associated with greater frequency of sexual assault, aka riskier, maybe I'm wrong. But, do strippers also use false names when doing errands during the day, or have large intimidating men attend them to Starbucks for morning coffee? If not, then I submit they perceive less risk in those environments. Not NO risk, merely LESS risk.
Even if there is nothing about the club itself, the act of stripping, being naked and rubbing on men that might elevate risk of a sexual nature, and dancing for a customer in the VIP was the same risk as going on any old date, don't strippers then see thousands more men, and go on thousands more 'dates' than other women? If all men, period, are the problem, wouldn't that still elevate risk?
Maybe the security measures, like cameras and bouncers and fake names, balance out the risks, like good window bars in a bad neighborhood, but the initial elevated risk I meant is still there.
Anyway, if my point about risk, or elevated probability of occurance, isn't made yet, I suspect is can't be made in this setting.
Re: the manipulated customer analogy, I repent of that, it was needlessly insensitive. Severity of violation is critical to how much "shoulda known better" comes into play, and rape is near the top of severity. Sorry.




I find that MOST people who were abused/violated in some ways are USUALLY the ones who allow their boundaries to be continually violated. Does that mean that the girls who come from "loving" homes cannot be violated or don't do some form of extras? No. And, I never said that. My point was simply this: Sex sells...but dysfunctional sex sells more. "Everyone" believes that strippers are drug-addled ho bags who fuck every guy in the dark corner of the club for $5 (unless he's cute, in which case it's free). "Everyone" believes that strippers have been seriously molested as a young girl and therefore cannot form a logical sentence and must be "doomed" to being "nothing more than a stripper". I've noticed that some of the women in my community, when given the option of two strippers (me and the stereotyped one) will always believe that I am lying. That I started dancing, at one point, because "abuse made me do it".

And I was still hot on the tails of a lawsuit I worked on.

Bookmarks