2575: Cheetos, Doritos, Mojitos, Burritos

[Andrea_Allan]

with Yamaneika Saunders – Roast battles; cleansing; sex and religion; Yamaneika’s Wack Pack; Family Ties’s Brian Bonsall has a rapist impersonator; Harrison Ford’s ongoing flying accidents

Guest:
Yamaneika Saunders



Share this episode: Twitter, Facebook & email

Get the show: on iTunes, on Stitcher and RSS feed

[Chopsuey]

When I think about it using my head and what makes sense in terms of logic Chemda is right. But...when I think about it using my gut and instinct, Yamaneika is right. Ya get me.

[memecherry]

Originally Posted by Chopsuey

When I think about it using my head and what makes sense in terms of logic Chemda is right. But...when I think about it using my gut and instinct, Yamaneika is right. Ya get me.

Therein lies a large valley of gray area we are trying to navigate within this debate...

[FingerLakes]

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this episode!! What is this guest even talking about!

Keith!

You do NOT look innocent! The only reason I'm even attracted to you is cuz I think you'd smack me around before and during sex. Don't let any one tell you otherwise, Sir.

---------------------

JK JK
I agree with Chemda, of course. While I get Yamaneika's point in taking precautions, I think they were having different..discussions. Where Chemda was trying to get her/us out of the mindset of blaming the victim with our language of "what was she waering? What do you expect when you meet him in a chatroom!?" Yamaneika eventually started saying that everyone, women included, need to take all the precautions we can to avoid risks. But there's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it. So let's stop ending the discussion on what they were doing or if they had their jewelry on display or if they were looking at their phone too much or drinking too much.

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by FingerLakes

There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it.

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

[memecherry]

Originally Posted by jbliss

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP SAYING WE JUST NEED TO TELL OUR DAUGHTERS THINGS???? CAN WE MAKE THIS A LARGER CONVERSATION???????

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by jbliss

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO KIDS ABOUT BASIC SAFETY ANYWHERE ON THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

You have some weird selective hearing/reading OCD. Why do you keep trying to bring this back to this point?

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by Lanfear

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO KIDS ABOUT BASIC SAFETY ANYWHERE ON THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

You have some weird selective hearing/reading OCD. Why do you keep trying to bring this back to this point?

Because it's the easiest-to-understand argument I can think of to counter the "there's nothing we can do" arguments, of which there have been many:

"There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it."

"The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state. So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here?"

"When even wearing a burka and never being alone with unknown men prevents a woman from being raped it seems questionable to tell her to prevent it."

etc

These people have been trotting out arguments of:

- risk-mitigation strategies are not 100% effective

- risk-mitigation strategies are de-facto blaming the victim

I argue that the first is a straw man and the second is just false.

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by jbliss

Because it's the easiest-to-understand argument I can think of to counter the "there's nothing we can do" arguments, of which there have been many:

"There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it."

"The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state. So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here?"

"When even wearing a burka and never being alone with unknown men prevents a woman from being raped it seems questionable to tell her to prevent it."

etc

These people have been trotting out arguments of:

- risk-mitigation strategies are not 100% effective

- risk-mitigation strategies are de-facto blaming the victim

I argue that the first is a straw man and the second is just false.

Again - nobody is saying that we shouldn't mitigate risk, indeed most everybody is saying that it already happens it just isn't 100% effective.

And while I believe that immediately saying 'what did she do/what should she have done' is a shitty move - I understand that impulse because it's very normal to think that.

What you are doing here is double triple quadrupling down on that being the only important topic we should discuss here, implying that we are endangering women by not wanting to engage you on that and in my book that is fucking hardcore victim shaming disguised as a savior complex.

Sparrow opened up a whole separate thread asking for concrete 'what are techniques to protect' - I don't see you typing ideas or asking for examples there.

[Keith]

Who goes INTO the house? The psycho!