And the point you continue to ignore is that NONE of the things women are told to do to avoid being raped actually work to avoid being raped.
This is a patently ludicrous claim. People wearing seatbelts have died in car accidents, so does that mean wearing a seat belt does not mitigate the risk of dying in a car accident? People who have normal blood pressure have died from heart attacks; does that mean there is no association between hypertension and heart attack risk?
Of course not.
Of course you can be raped even if you take a number of measures to guard against it. That does not mean there is nothing that can mitigate your risk, or that mitigating your risk wasn't worth it.
Perhaps you're making a different, less ludicrous claim. Perhaps you're saying that the risk mitigating behaviours offer no or only trivial reductions in rape risk. That's an empirical question, of course.
But do you believe,
do you actually believe, that women who accept opened/uncovered drinks at parties are
no more at risk from rape than women who don't?
Was Toni wasting her time when she told her daughters to avoid accepting opened drinks?
Staying sober does not ensure I will be safe from rape. Dressing conservatively does not ensure I will not be raped.
No, and having an ideal lipid profile does not 'ensure' I will be free from a heart attack, and locking my car does not guarantee it won't be stolen.
Are you looking for a guarantee against crime?
What planet do you live on?
As I have pointed out mulitple times now (and been ignored every time because it doesn't fit some people's narrative) is that even the *warning* sign in the OP makes it clear that 2 out of 3 rapes have nothing to do with the sobriety of the victim. So why the fuck are we wasting time *warning* women not to drink?
Your claim has been answered before. Your bewilderment is a result of your statistical ignorance.
Do you believe that women spend a third of their lives drunk? Because then it really would be the case (or at least, it would appear to be the case on correlations with no other variables partialled out) that there was no association between drunkenness and rape risk.
But of course, women don't spend a third of their lives drunk. I would say young women in the prime of their 'partying' years (say, 18-25) spend about 8 hours drunk a week (let's say 4 hours on Friday and Saturday night).
That means they're drunk about 5% of the time, yet this is when one third of rape victims are raped.
If smokers make up 5% of the population but one third of the people in an emphysema ward, would you make the clearly mistaken claim that smoking has nothing to do with emphysema?
And IF we are going to warn women not to drink because it *might* increase their chances of being raped, where are the signs warning men not to drink because it *might* increase their chances of being a rapist?
That's an empirical question. Does being drunk increase the probability that a man will rape someone?
But in any case, that's a different kettle of fish. Whether rape can be reduced by signs addressing potential rapists is an interesting proposition. I think the idea might work for petty crimes. There certainly are signs that try to discourage (potential) criminals from engaging in crime. Some of them don't even have to have text. (E.g. a prominent screensaver of a pair of eyes encourages psychology students to not cheat when left alone in a room).
But I don't think we'll ever see signs saying 'Don't kill people, it's murder'. Rape is not as serious a crime as murder, but it's far more serious than shoplifting.
