Mortality Blogexpiration date: 8.7.2086

In response, front_towards_enemy has this to say:

People do not get eaten by sharks because they were:

• throwing blood and fish guts into the water, which sharks love
• looking delicious to sharks
• swimming in parts of the ocean where sharks hang out

PEOPLE GET EATEN BY SHARKS BECAUSE A SHARK ATE THEM

(Before everyone jumps down my throat, there is no crime more disgusting to me than rape, and the rapist is absolutely the sole responsible party. I’ll repeat that. The rapist is absolutely the sole responsible party. But to say that a woman’s actions and behavior cannot worsen her circumstances and increase her chance of being raped is disingenuous.)

To begin with, the last line is true – there really are choices you can make that worsen your chances of being raped. That’s statistics. It’s absolutely true, just as the statement (though stated less precisely) in the photo is absolutely true: rapists rape people. No one can argue with that. So why respond to a fact with another fact, that doesn’t contradict or support the first? What’s the point that the poster is trying to make?

I’m glad I asked. Research brings us this response deeper in the comment thread:

What the sign should have said is “Women do not deserve rape because they were:” I wish I would have said that first.

I wish you would’ve said that first too. Arguing semantics isn’t illegitimate, but I think it’s only fair to make that clear up front – to front_towards_enemy, ‘get raped’ had different connotations than ‘deserve rape,’ and that’s all he’s calling out.

… I bring all this up because it’s an excellent example of the perils of miscommunication, jumping to conclusions, and all those other delightful drama-causing missteps in human social interaction that other people seem either ignorant of or indifferent to… much to my ongoing amusement and annoyance.