Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So let's say a woman goes out with a female friend. For whatever reason the friend can no longer accompany her home. She can either get a taxi (but getting in a car with a stranger is risky, you should have known that) or walk home alone (walking home alone is risky you should have known that).

Getting a taxi home is far safer than walking home alone. So, go with the taxi. That seems reasonable. :rolleyes:

Ok so she gets home safe this time (phew, look at all those risks she was taking), next day a guy at work is flirting with her. She's into him, would quite like to go on a date, she might even like to kiss him at the end of said date. But she definitely does not want to have sex with him. But she's taken your training course and is aware that "flirting may have negative reactions". So sorry potential future husband, shes not going to flirt with you. It's too risky.

Well, if you had taken my course, then you'd know that I'd recommend dating for an extended period before going to his home (for whatever reason).

You know... dating? A few drinks in a bar, a dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk in a public place? Generally, activities that involve your clothes being on and other people around you.

In fairness to you you seem to walk the walk on this one. If you truly are constantly looking for exit scenarios then well....... I don't even know what to say to that. But it's not the way the vast majority of people live or want to live.

In fairness, if you want to take an extreme outlook, then everything is extreme. As for exit strategies... you're obviously misunderstanding the concept.

But if you want to live your life compulsively obsessed with safety that's fine. But I don't think anyone, even women, should be held responsible for flirting, or how they get home after a night out. I would hate to live in a society like that.

It's more along the lines of taking reasonable precautions for your safety. As opposed to getting wasted without support, going to a strangers home when you're not interested in sex. etc.

It's about lowering risk. Doesn't mean you have to go to extremes and live in a bubble. Or not considering the real risks, but taking comfort in that you are now a victim, and not responsible for what happened. I prefer seeking to prevent it from happening and not becoming the victim in the first place.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody is saying personal responsibility is not important or necessary. But failing to show it does not apportion you blame. The person who took advantage of it is to blame.

Agreed. Thanks for clearing that up.

And if you are a woman you should be cogniscant of these dangers because they may lead to? That's right, sexual violence. Like it or not the world is not equal. Women are at a much higher danger of sexual violence.

Agreed. Although it stands to reason that they should be taking more precautions than a man to prevent such incidents. It's all very well for a guy to get hammered drunk alone. The chances of him being sexually assaulted are low. The chances of the same happening to a woman are higher, so behaving the same carries higher risks.

Once you start to apportion the blame to the victim there's a very real danger it starts to become a justification.

I don't quite get this though. Rape is a crime. Murder is a crime. the acts themselves are crimes. The circumstances that lead up to the act are important to judge the severity of the response in punishment, but they should still be punished for the act.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Getting a taxi home is far safer than walking home alone. So, go with the taxi. That seems reasonable. :rolleyes:

But it's still a risk. If something happens to her she should have known.

Well, if you had taken my course, then you'd know that I'd recommend dating for an extended period before going to his home (for whatever reason).

I dunno. She may be at a party where she knows everyone and get raped by him upstairs. I mean she did flirt with him.

In fairness, if you want to take an extreme outlook, then everything is extreme. As for exit strategies... you're obviously misunderstanding the concept.

I do find your outlook extreme.

It's more along the lines of taking reasonable precautions for your safety. As opposed to getting wasted without support, going to a strangers home when you're not interested in sex. etc.

And in the context of the trial. By all accounts (the other 3 girls at the party) she was not wasted. And not alone with four men. And let's say we believe her account for the sake of this argument. She went upstairs the second time to get her bag. You would recommend she leave it rather than take that extreme and obvious risk of........ Going upstairs at a party?

It's about lowering risk. Doesn't mean you have to go to extremes and live in a bubble. Or not considering the real risks, but taking comfort in that you are now a victim, and not responsible for what happened. I prefer seeking to prevent it from happening and not becoming the victim in the first place.

So you've judged the taxi as the safest option. Suppose a woman does get assaulted after taking this option and someone else days "I don't consider that safe at all, you should have known the risks". How responsible is the woman for her own assault?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But it's still a risk. If something happens to her she should have known.

That's your objection? To take it to the extreme?

I dunno. She may be at a party where she knows everyone and get raped by him upstairs. I mean she did flirt with him.

In which case, she had taken the precautions and still it happened. At least she made an effort to minimize the risks.

I do find your outlook extreme.

Naturally. I'm pretty much the opposite of your do everything without considering the risks attitude.

And in the context of the trial. By all accounts (the other 3 girls at the party) she was not wasted. And not alone with four men. And let's say we believe her account for the sake of this argument. She went upstairs the second time to get her bag. You would recommend she leave it rather than take that extreme and obvious risk of........ Going upstairs at a party?

And we should believe her account because the trial didn't rule in her favor, and therefore justify your stance? Nah.

So you've judged the taxi as the safest option. Suppose a woman does get assaulted after taking this option and someone else days "I don't consider that safe at all, you should have known the risks". How responsible is the woman for her own assault?

As I've said before its about decreasing the risks involved. But then, you won't/can't accept that concept.

Omackeral

This....

LLMMLL wrote: »

I dunno. She may be at a party where she knows everyone and get raped by him upstairs. I mean she did flirt with him.

Followed immediately by this....

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do find your outlook extreme.

Pot kettle etc etc

Achasanai

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing the point, which is that radfems today use certain tragedies, and criminal behavior (mass shootings are just yet another example) to have a go at white men but yet generally ignore them when either women, or non-white men, are responsible.

I'm not missing the point, I'm just disagreeing with yours. They ignore when women or non-white men commit these types of crimes because they are statistically negligible. Not only would it be pointless pointing to these crimes when (say) a woman commits them, but it would actually prove their point.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's your objection? To take it to the extreme?

It's not really an extreme. Getting into a taxi alone is a known risk. There was even an app where you could record the details of a taxi you got into in case something happened to you. So while it's less risky, it's still a notable risk. So how responsible is she?

In which case, she had taken the precautions and still it happened. At least she made an effort to minimize the risks.

Right so if she walked home alone along a route that had a bit more lighting and a bit busier than a route that was all dark alleys she would have minimized her risk a bit. So how responsible is she now for her assault?

Naturally. I'm pretty much the opposite of your do everything without considering the risks attitude.

I'm not against people being aware of risks. I'm against apportioning responsibility to them when someome commits a crime against them.

And we should believe her account because the trial didn't rule in her favor, and therefore justify your stance? Nah.

Not saying you should believe her (I do) but using it as an example. If you don't believe her and. Nothing in consensual happened then why bring up supposed risks she took at all. If they are telling the truth there was no risk to her. She was the main instigator according to them and therefore going home with 4 guys (and three girls) was not risky at all.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

This....



Followed immediately by this....



Pot kettle etc etc

You do know getting raped by someone you know is the most common scenario.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't quite get this though. Rape is a crime. Murder is a crime. the acts themselves are crimes. The circumstances that lead up to the act are important to judge the severity of the response in punishment, but they should still be punished for the act.

I've been physically assaulted twice. Both muggings, one where my phone was taken, the other i got away.

The first one I was walking alone at 11pm down a dark street in temple bar with my head down looking at my phone when I was attacked by 5 guys. I assume you think I had some responsibility there as it was a mildly unsafe situation.

The second time was 7pm on one of the busiest streets in dublin that has a garda station nearby and plenty of passers by and cars. I think anyone would be hard pressed to say I took any real risk for this one.

But according to you the circumstances need to be explored to determine the severity of punishment?

So do the first assaulters get a lesser sentence because I was walking down a dark street not paying attention to my surroundings?

I'm done. It's just too much work to discuss anything with you, LLMMLL.

deaddonkey15

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm done. It's just too much work to discuss anything with you, LLMMLL.

That became quite apparent a long time ago. In fairness to him, he does well at giving the illusion that he is some sort of intellectual.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've been physically assaulted twice, one where my phone was taken.

The phone one was someone from here making an effort to stop you posting absolute garbage on boards!

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm done. It's just too much work to discuss anything with you, LLMMLL.

I don't really find you work. It's more like debating with a dystopian AI that has been programmed with a set of principles, some rudimentary logic, and zero empathy. I find it kinda fun to see what horrible cruel conclusion your cold principles will lead to next.

LLMMLL is a dude?..

TBH I half suspected it was a pseudonym of certain clonakilty writer..

DavidLyons_

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm done. It's just too much work to discuss anything with you, LLMMLL.

I've a very strong feeling that O'Neill or someone close to her is posting on this thread.

Yes, some of the arguments are that ludicrous.

freshpopcorn

Deleted User wrote: »

LLMMLL is a dude?..

I think so!

LLMMLL

My dream is that you'll all start a thread on me wondering if I like the inbetweeners or not.

DavidLyons_

LLMMLL wrote: »

My dream is that you'll all start a thread on me wondering if I like the inbetweeners or not.

It appears you already have it, Doll.

LLMMLL

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

It appears you already have it, Doll.

Well if you think I'm LON then you'll have to stop complaining she's afraid of debate......

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if you think I'm LON then you'll have to stop complaining she's afraid of debate......

This reply makes me suspect it even more..

DavidLyons_

LLMMLL wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

It appears you already have it, Doll.

Well if you think I'm LON then you'll have to stop complaining she's afraid of debate......

Great point, well made.

Your first in the thread. Congratulations!

Did she like Peep show I wonder..

Actually, It's probably misogynistic and symbolic of how the world is viewed through the eyes of the patriarchy..

I had a quick look at LLMMLL's posts to see if she was into rugby or fair city or whatever..

The first three pages of posts consisted of posts from this thread and the Belfast rape trial thread..I did'nt want to go any further..

Go on LLMMLL...are you really an author and feminist icon/influencer who lives at home with her parents in her thirties?

backspin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I just can't accept that. I do believe in personal responsibility for the situations I place myself in. Am I 100% responsible? nope. Other people involved are responsible too, but as long as I had a reasonable chance of avoiding the danger, I would place the responsibility on myself. And since I do believe in equality of Gender, I apply the same logic to women.

When I get drunk in public, I do so with reliable friends nearby. I no longer walk the streets of a town/city alone at night. I wouldn't go back to a strangers home until I know them reasonably well. I don't put myself in situations where I don't have an easy exit strategy. I don't flirt and play with other peoples emotions without being aware of the negative reactions that might occur. etc

The point being that the world is not a safe place, and I see no reason to pretend that it is. That's not encouraging a rape culture. It's encouraging personal safety.

Common sense like that is 'problematic' these days klaz.

py2006

If it was LON she would not engage in debates with straight white males which presumably most of us are.

We are just awful, don't ya know

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

If it was LON she would not engage in debates with straight white males which presumably most of us are.

We are just awful, don't ya know

Did you just assume my gender?

LLMMLL

Ah lads. I think you're all just afraid of a bit of debate.

Do you think Ryan Tubridy is hot?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think Ryan Tubridy is hot?

Not even a little

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not even a little

Would you though?...