Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday August 26 2014, @09:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the can-I-live-in-a-different-world-please? dept.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that a new nail polish called Undercover Colors changes color when it comes in contact with any date rape drug so, a woman just has to discretely dip her finger in her drink to test it for safety. "Our goal is to invent technologies that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime," say four male undergraduates at North Carolina State University who are developing the polish and currently asking for donations to complete their work. "​Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught."

However some sexual assault prevention advocates warn that the nail polish is not necessarily the best way to approach the sexual assault epidemic on college campuses. “One of the ways that rape is used as a tool to control people is by limiting their behavior,” says Rebecca Nagle. “As a woman, I’m told not to go out alone at night, to watch my drink, to do all of these things. That way, rape isn’t just controlling me while I’m actually being assaulted — it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior. Solutions like these actually just recreate that. I don’t want to fucking test my drink when I’m at the bar. That’s not the world I want to live in.” According to Alexandra Brodsky the argument that women simply need to be more responsible is a common response to the current conversation about sexual assault on college campuses — and one that activists say doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. "The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:40PM (#85953)

    There is some truth to the idea that tools like drug-detectors (and check-in apps, [checkinon.me] etc) prevent society from addressing serious problems because they mitigate the effects of the problems but do not change the incentives that create the problems. In other words, each raped woman means an incensed father willing to support social change. Social change does not happen unless pressure reaches some threshold, these tools don't fix the problem but they make it harder for pressure to reach the threshold required for change.

    That doesn't mean these tools shouldn't exist, no one thinks a girl ought to be raped for any reason. It is just the difference between a focus on the individual and the society at large. Because we are all individuals and simultaneously we all live in a society, we have to take both perspectives into consideration.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:59PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:59PM (#85961)
    "Social change does not happen unless pressure reaches some threshold, these tools don't fix the problem but they make it harder for pressure to reach the threshold required for change."

    So what's your proposal, more people should run around and rape women?
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:38PM (#85975)

      That doesn't mean these tools shouldn't exist, no one thinks a girl ought to be raped for any reason.

      So what's your proposal, more people should run around and rape women?

      Normally you are a reasonably smart poster, but that was the kind of thing a supreme asshole would say.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:55PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:55PM (#85980)
        Okay, fine, I'm an asshole. But I do think I asked an important question. Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:03AM (#85982)

          It isn't how you said it, it is the fact that you are saying I am pro-rape.
          And not just saying it, but saying it despite the fact that I explicitly explained that I am not.
          You are not adding any value to the conversation, you are obscuring the issues in order to flaunt your self-righteousness.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:22AM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:22AM (#85987)
            "It isn't how you said it, it is the fact that you are saying I am pro-rape."

            Not exactly. I'm saying your philosophy leads straight to that conclusion. This is your chance to clarify your point. I'll gladly accept the reputation of being an asshole if you can suggest a practical application of this approach to dealing with rape that is a little more thought provoking than "these sorts of products only serve to kick the can down the road".
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:32AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:32AM (#85991)

              > Not exactly. I'm saying your philosophy leads straight to that conclusion.

              Except that I explicitly denied that. The fact that you insist on that conclusion says everything about you and nothing about me. It isn't about "reputation" it is about how you think. You favor thinking the worst about me rather than thinking of answers that don't indulge your self-righteousness. Accusing some of being pro-rape is not constructive of anything.

              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:59AM

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @12:59AM (#85996)

                "Except that I explicitly denied that."

                You did not explain a practical way it would work otherwise. In fact you even suggested that rape brings the angry father into the mix to solve the problem.

                "You favor thinking the worst about me...."

                Yeah, you can tell by the way I've repeatedly asked you to clarify your view.

                "...rather than thinking of answers that don't indulge your self-righteousness."

                Oh, on the topic of self-righteous behavior, how about that clarification I keep asking you for? All this belly-aching is absurd when I'm actually asking you for more information. It's a little too much like Slashdot right now.

                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:19AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:19AM (#86001)

                  > Yeah, you can tell by the way I've repeatedly asked you to clarify your view.

                  Yeah, I can tell, here's how:
                  Question that indulges in self-righteousness: So what's your proposal, more people should run around and rape women?
                  Question that seeks answers: So what's your proposal?

                  > how about that clarification I keep asking you for?

                  First, just because someone recognizes a problem does not mean they must also have an answer.
                  "You don't need to be a baker to know the bread is stale."

                  Second, If you weren't so focused on your own self-aggrandizement you might have noticed where I said:
                  "Because we are all individuals and simultaneously we all live in a society, we have to take both perspectives into consideration."

                  One approach that takes both perspectives into consideration would be to put 50% of the revenue from sales of anti-rape tools towards funding advocacy groups that do things push for better laws to make rapists and attempted rapists more accountable and promote cultural changes that discourage misogyny.

                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:33AM

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:33AM (#86002)

                    Question that seeks answers: So what's your proposal?

                    "Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?" Sound familiar?

                    First, just because someone recognizes a problem does not mean they must also have an answer. "You don't need to be a baker to know the bread is stale." Second, If you weren't so focused on your own self-aggrandizement you might have noticed where I said: "Because we are all individuals and simultaneously we all live in a society, we have to take both perspectives into consideration."

                    First, if bread is going stale and you suggest that the problem won't get solved until you leave more bread to go stale, even if you say you really shouldn't leave bread out to go stale, you really should expect people to get the wrong idea about your attitude. Second, that comment, when paired with your remarks about angry fathers etc, leads right down the path to what I suggested. Saying "...but I'm not saying that is the case!" doesn't automatically undo it, it requires support.

                    One approach that takes both perspectives into consideration would be to put 50% of the revenue from sales of anti-rape tools towards funding advocacy groups that do things push for better laws to make rapists and attempted rapists more accountable and promote cultural changes that discourage misogyny.

                    I actually think that's a decent answer... maybe a bit fanciful, and it contradicts your point of view, but at least it fits my requirement of being practical. I have to ask, though: Was all this slashdottian nonsense really necessarily? I conceded my assholishness on the first reply, the only practical reason you had to put us through that bullshit was that you needed to buy time to concoct that answer.

                    --
                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:47AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:47AM (#86005)

                      Self-righteousness: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"
                      Seeks answers: "What do you suggest to solve the social problem of rape?"

                      > Was all this slashdottian nonsense really necessarily?

                      This "slashdottian nonsense" was 100% your creation at every step.
                      You chose twice to accuse me of being pro-rape under the cover of asking a question.
                      Do not accuse people of being assholes if you want a response other than fuck off.

                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:22AM

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:22AM (#86018)

                        Self-righteousness: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"

                        Oh the hypocrisy of that statement. Wow.

                        Seeks answers: "What do you suggest to solve the social problem of rape?"

                        Actually my original question was: "This is what it sounds like you're saying, am I wrong?" The difference is important to the conversation, or at least it would have been if you had a more sophisticated take on this topic.

                        This "slashdottian nonsense" was 100% your creation at every step. You chose twice to accuse me of being pro-rape under the cover of asking a question.

                        I expressed astonishment at your statement and when you challenged my tone I altered it. Your response then was to keep circling the drain on the original accusation... just like what happens on Slashdot. You failed to make your point originally then you turned hostile when challenged on it. I do not accept responsibility for that.

                        Do not accuse people of being assholes if you want a response other than fuck off.

                        You're upset, not because of an implied accusation of being a terrible human being, but because you know that's how your post was going to be read and you think your wimpy little handwavium should have been enough to protect you from it. The consequences of that were entirely within your control. Blaming me is only succeeding in stabbing you in the back during your attempt to pin 'self-righteousness' on me. Grow up.

                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:27AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:27AM (#86021)

                          my original question was: "This is what it sounds like you're saying, am I wrong?"

                          Since that text does not actually exist in anything you've posted here, you are now making shit up to rationalize your poor behavior.
                          I think that marks the end of this discussion.

                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:45AM

                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:45AM (#86030)

                            Since that text does not actually exist in anything you've posted here, you are now making shit up to rationalize your poor behavior.

                            Here it is:

                            Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"

                            I think that marks the end of this discussion.

                            Heh. Sure you don't want to advertise your reading comprehension problem a little more before you go?

                            --
                            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                            • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrider on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:50AM

                              by mrider (3252) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:50AM (#86032)

                              Posting as A.C. because I've moderated in this thread - and in fact I've moderated you up elsewhere in this post:

                               

                              I think you're just feeding the troll at this point... mrider

                              --

                              Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"

                              Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."

                              • (Score: 2) by mrider on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:52AM

                                by mrider (3252) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:52AM (#86033)

                                AAAND of course I forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" check box. Oh well, syonara points I've given in this thread. :(

                                --

                                Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"

                                Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:04AM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:04AM (#86056)

                                  Soylentcode changed that. Posting does not negate previous moderations, it just blocks you from doing any new ones afterward.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:05AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:05AM (#86144)

                                Posting as A.C. because I've moderated in this thread

                                Unlike on the other site, on Soylent News you don't undo your moderations by posting after moderating.

                              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18PM

                                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18PM (#86365)
                                I think you're right.

                                Sorry about your mod-points, though. Have a good week, man.
                                --
                                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:01AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:01AM (#86054)

                              Here it is:

                              Here, I'll rephrase it less assholishly: "Are you suggesting making it harder for women to avoid rape so we'll finally solve the social problem of rape?"

                              Since that is not literally the same text you seem to be arguing that the OP erred by not taking the best possible interpretation of what you wrote (that you were not accusing him of being pro-rape) while simultaneously arguing that you were correct in taking the worst possible interpretation of what he wrote (that the logical conclusion was more raping).

                              There is something called the "principle of charity" [lander.edu] which includes this precept:

                              "We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent."

                              It looks like you are trying to claim it for yourself while denying it to the OP, even though the last paragraph of the first post looks like a straight-up contradiction of your interpretation.

                              I'm a fan of the principle of charity and I don't see either of you using it here, but I think all this mishegas would have been avoided if just one of you had.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:23AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:23AM (#86064)

                                > Since that is not literally the same text you seem to be arguing that the OP erred by not taking the best possible interpretation of what you wrote (that you were not accusing him of being pro-rape) while simultaneously arguing that you were correct in taking the worst possible interpretation of what he wrote (that the logical conclusion was more raping).

                                Those two are both noisy morons. However, your assertion that their two statements were equally faulty is false. You might have had a point if that statement didn't end in a question mark.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18AM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:18AM (#86087)

                                  The cavuto mark. [newshounds.us]

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:06AM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:06AM (#86097)

                                    That doesn't describe either of the idiots in this thread.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:58AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:58AM (#86157)

                          ...and the peanut gallery is back with a verdict!

                          We, the peanut gallery, declare Tork to be the more sensible party in this discussion. Anonymous Coward is an oversensitive and immature dolt.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:16PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:16PM (#86323) Homepage
      Normally you're a smart poster, ...

      and your method of saying something shocking in order to draw attention to your point (that you disagreed with him and wanted him to justify his stance) was indeed a smart approach. It forces the person you are responding to to be painfully clear and precise about what he believes the problems and alternatives to be. Unfortunately, the person to whom you were responding doesn't seem to be smart enough to have worked that out.

      What I want to know is: how on earth does having real time evidence, in a public place, of a smoking gun not make it *easier* for the social pressure to rise? It's now easier to identify many of those who are part of the problem. Abstract concepts are far harder to stamp out that things you can positively identify. (Compare how labels like "Al Qaida" or "ISIS" have been used in order to help drum up support for abstract campaigns.)

      I would have tought that anyone who performs a crime which requires a modicum of planning (bringing and chosing where and when to deposit the drug) almost certainly has also considered the probabilities and consequences of getting caught. (And there's very little you can do to protect against the psychopaths and sociopaths who will not fold to pressure except, perhaps, just maybe, I don't know if this would ever be possible, - *catching them with the smoking gun* before one sip of rohypnol has been imbibed.)
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:35PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:35PM (#86341)

        What I want to know is: how on earth does having real time evidence, in a public place, of a smoking gun not make it *easier* for the social pressure to rise?

        This is pretty much the point my wife made when this article appeared on her news feed. To which I was informed that I really had no idea how dangerous it is for women out there.

        http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/the-daily-show-takes-on-the-double-standards-in-combating-co [buzzfeed.com] -- This link here did more to give me a clearer idea of what the social problems here than not-releasing-the-app, like the AC was headed down the path of suggesting.

        Unfortunately, the person to whom you were responding doesn't seem to be smart enough to have worked that out.

        I'm actually disappointed about that. Not that I wanted him to be right, but rather I have encountered really effective uses of later-thinking in my life. I was secretly hoping to eat some humble pie if this dude had delivered.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:04PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:04PM (#85963)

    That argument reminds me of the classic prisoners dilemma problem in game theory.

    Long story short- what you're suggesting is not in equilibrium. It'll never work.

  • (Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:06AM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:06AM (#86007)

    *except*, i would be willing to bet 9 out of 10 times it will NOT be a chick finding out a psychopath is about to victimize her, but some bros pulling a bad trick on their bud trying to (innocently, as it were) pick up said chicka...
    ...or even a psycho 'saving' a chicka with *his* magically polished nail, only to rape later...
    like most tools, this cuts with two edges...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:09AM (#86009)

      i would be willing to bet 9 out of 10 times it will NOT be a chick finding out a psychopath is about to victimize her, but some bros pulling a bad trick on their bud

      Wow.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:55PM (#86434)

      I'm pretty sure most "Bros" would limit their prank to their friend, and not drug some random "chicka" for shits and giggles. It does sound like the sort of thing the suddenly confronted rapist would claim though "Oh no, I have no idea how roofies got into the drink I just gave you. I bet it was my asshole friends."

      9 times out of 10? Come on.