Epic WTF

http://touch.dangerousminds.net/all/peaches_sold_as_sexy_butts?width=360&height=567&size=small&olcts=1406836977805

Peaches with cream...no...underwear?

Good discussion on posters :)

There are better ads that have been around for a short while, like this;

All women should go out only when accompanied by a male relative. Am I doing it right?

All women should go out only when accompanied by a male relative. Am I doing it right?

Are you deliberately trolling Ed, matey? That ad is aimed at men who are in a position to disrupt street harassment when it happens to occur in front of them, not suggesting that men need to chaperone women everywhere they go so that they can protect them.

Shit Men Say to Men Who Say Shit to Women on the Street - YouTube

There's not many decent ads toward rapist, just victims sadly.

It's easier to put the fear into the innocent than the guilt into the criminal.

It's easier to put the fear into the innocent than the guilt into the criminal.

True! Like this:

Victim-blaming nonsense!

True! Like this:

Victim-blaming nonsense!

It's not quite the same thing, though. An equivalent would be an ad campaign saying that "1 in 3 cyclists are killed or seriously injured by riding on the road", in an effort to get cyclists to stop riding on the road. Then what's their other option? Only ever ride on pre-approved off-road locations? Only use cycle paths where it's safe?

That's analogous to the NHS campaign because the unspoken other options are "don't go out and have a few drinks in public", "stay at home where it's safe".

Does that make sense? It's not the same as offering specific advice on how to stay safe in a particular situation.

women cant hold their liquor though amirite

It's not quite the same thing, though. An equivalent would be an ad campaign saying that "1 in 3 cyclists are killed or seriously injured by riding on the road"

Surely the equivalent would be "1 in 1 doorings occur when the cyclists is cycling too close to a parked car"

That's analogous to the NHS campaign because the unspoken other options are "don't go out and have a few drinks in public", "stay at home where it's safe".

Does that make sense? It's not the same as offering specific advice on how to stay safe in a particular situation.

I thought the message was "go out if you like, but don't get pissed".

Victim blaming, is genuinely shit, for example, dragging up someone's sexual history when they're bringing a rape case in court is about the most scummy thing a human can do. I'm just unclear why, taking a holistic view on the whole thing, we can't have a primary focus of preventing rape by going after the perpetrators while concurrently saying to potential victims "There are some proper arseholes out there. Let's (within reason) make it as hard as possible for them to be so."

women cant hold their liquor though amirite

Neither can I so I can't hold that against anyone!

That's why they use straws

Surely the equivalent would be "1 in 1 doorings occur when the cyclists is cycling too close to a parked car"

Nope. The NHS ad isn't that specific. Have another look!

I thought the message was "go out if you like, but don't get pissed".

Nope. You're projecting additional information into the ad which is actually very generic. It says "1 in 3 reported rapes happens when the victim has been drinking". It doesn't say anything about drinking to incapacity, doesn't say anything about drinking until your inhibitions are lowered. It doesn't differentiate between one small glass of red wine and ten pints of snakebite and black. If it did, then it might manage to scrape by as specific advice, but as it is, all it does is say "well, if you got raped when you went out drinking alcohol wtf did you think was going to happen?"

The "don't get doored" ad is showing a specific activity that is dangerous, succintly describes why it's dangerous, and offers specific advice for you to not be endangered in that way while still going about normal activities. The NHS ad doesn't, it just says "booze = rapes!"

Nope. The NHS ad isn't that specific. Have another look!

Nope. You're projecting additional information into the ad which is actually very generic. It says "1 in 3 reported rapes happens when the victim has been drinking". It doesn't say anything about drinking to incapacity, doesn't say anything about drinking until your inhibitions are lowered. It doesn't differentiate between one small glass of red wine and ten pints of snakebite and black. If it did, then it might manage to scrape by as specific advice, but as it is, all it does is say "well, if you got raped when you went out drinking alcohol wtf did you think was going to happen?"

Fair enough, "don't go out and have a drink or you might get raped!" is a crappy message

The "don't get doored" ad is showing a specific activity that is dangerous, describes why it's dangerous, and offers specific advice for you to not be endangered by it while still going about normal activities. The NHS ad doesn't, it just says "booze = rapes!"

Nope. There's nothing inherently dangerous about cycling past a car, assuming that the cyclist can do it without falling off. The danger is not from some naturally occuring hazard, like a volcano, that can't be prevented, it comes from the person in the car not paying sufficient attention when opening the door. So although we could focus entirely on the perpetrator of the offense (vs. Section 239?) we choose to tell the potential victim how to stay out of harm's way.

There's an old ads aiming at drivers to check before opening their door, which is why the incident happen, again can't find it as I'm on the mobile.

Nope. There's nothing inherently dangerous about cycling past a car, assuming that the cyclist can do it without falling off. The danger is not from some naturally occuring hazard, like a volcano, that can't be prevented, it comes from the person in the car not paying sufficient attention when opening the door. So although we could focus entirely on the perpetrator of the offense (vs. Section 239?) we choose to tell the potential victim how to stay out of harm's way.

Well, not exactly. There's nothing inherently dangerous about cycling past a car, but there is an inherent danger in cycling past a car very closely - you keep your distance from parked cars partly to avoid hazards like doors opening, partly so that you can see more of the road, and partly so that you have time and space to react to unexpected events like dogs or children or grown-ass adults who have no idea how roads work suddenly appearing from between parked cars.

You're also expected to keep your distance in a vehicle, and it composes part of good road positioning and should be regarded as normal. Poor road positioning is specifically dangerous because it reduces your ability to react to sudden hazards (including but not limited to doors opening in your path), and it's discouraged in favour of good road positioning, which is functionally identical to bad positioning - as you still get to go where you were already going, at the same speed - but removes a component of danger.

That's not to say that people who open a door into somebody's path shouldn't be prosecuted, as it's still an offence.

Well, not exactly. There's nothing inherently dangerous about cycling past a car, but there is an inherent danger in cycling past a car very closely

No, there's no inherent danger unless somebody/something else acts in such a way as to put you in danger. If there is nobody else around it's safe, hence not *inherently *dangerous.

• you keep your distance from parked cars partly to avoid hazards like doors opening, partly so that you can see more of the road, and partly so that you have time and space to react to unexpected events like dogs or children or grown-ass adults who have no idea how roads work suddenly appearing from between parked cars.
  
  

You're also expected to keep your distance in a vehicle, and it composes part of good road positioning and should be regarded as normal. Poor road positioning is specifically dangerous because it reduces your ability to react to sudden hazards (including but not limited to doors opening in your path), and it's discouraged in favour of good road positioning, which is functionally identical to bad positioning - as you still get to go where you were already going, at the same speed - but removes a component of danger.

Good points. There are other good reasons for good road positioning. It would be odd to expect kids and dogs to be aware of your safety.

That's not to say that people who open a door into somebody's path shouldn't be prosecuted, as it's still an offence.

Exactly and that's what the poster shows. So why are we not incensed that it puts the onus on the cyclist to stay out of danger, when the danger (at least as portrayed on the poster) is entirely manmade?

Because people make mistakes. Being doored is terrifyingly dangerous and to educate cyclists to minimise the chances of it happening is common fucking sense not victim blaming.

It doesn't matter that it would be the fault of the person in the car and that he might face prosecution. The cyclist is the one who ends up in thw wheelchair.

Because people make mistakes. Being doored is terrifyingly dangerous and to educate cyclists to minimise the chances of it happening is common fucking sense not victim blaming.

It doesn't matter that it would be the fault of the person in the car and that he might face prosecution. The cyclist is the one who ends up in thw wheelchair.

Yeeaaaaaahh......? I'm trying to clarify where the line falls between victim-blaming and uncontroversial, non-victim-blaming, public safety information i.e., why it's seemingly unnacceptable to present any advice to potential rape victims about how to stay safe (because this would be victim blaming), while being perfectly acceptable to give advice to potential victims of a dooring about how to stay safe (because this is... what?)

bothwell is, frankly, doing a very good job of picking it apart. I don't think your post really adds much as it just leaps back to a "it's common sense" (hello Jeez?) approach, which doesn't really serve to distinguish the two situations. After all "It doesn't matter that it would be the fault of the rapist and that he/she might face prosecution. The rape victim is the one who ends up pregnant/psychologically scarred etc. etc."

I think part of it is also the fact that the justice system - from the police to the courts - is so appallingly shit at taking rape seriously and prosecuting it successfully.

So, to go back to your original example of the advice to lock your doors when you go out or you might get burgled. Imagine you lived in a society where burglary was rife and no fucker - from the police to the courts - did anything about it. All you got was bombarded with messages to lock your doors, and god did you really think it was a good idea to go on holiday without putting a timer on your lights, and maybe you were asking for it anyway with only that flimsy yale lock on? You'd be pretty fucked off at the general tone of the conversation.

Basically, we live in a culture where a shit ton of guys think it's ok to rape (or don't even really know what rape is or what consent consists of), and instead of tackling that problem society spends its time telling women to modify their behaviour because that's the much easier option. And because of patriarchy, obvs.

Ah, FFM, I misread the post to which I replied. When I read "why are we not incensed" I read it as meaning we should be incensed. My mistake.

However I am also not incensed by the apparent intentions of the drinky rapey poster either for much the same reason.

People do need to take responsibility for their own safety. Advice to help them do so may be construed as victim blaming in some circumstances but hey, if it prevents one rape or cyclist in a coma then it's worth it.

Sometimes you can't solve a problem only from the guilty / responsible party side, you have to get people to stay out of harms way too.

Thats some serious skillz

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0747559414/ref=sr_1_1_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407418246&sr=1-1&keywords=the+rider&condition=new

£121 + ... ?!

I used to work for a second hand bookseller listing their stock on Amazon. That kind of thing is pretty common. You get a bunch of fucking amateurs out there who find a book that no-one else has in a certain condition or edition etc. and because they don't have a clue how much it is worth - and because they're either unscrupulous or a bit dim or both - they whack it on there at a massively optimistic price. You then get similarly clueless people who use that price as a baseline and then try to undercut it by a few quid. Morons, basically.