High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[Shonx]

I know you're not attempting to justify the abuse. I'm suggesting that your assumptions - patriarchal, Oedipal - are ultimately part of the problem. It's not likely that abusers would seek out those they can't dominate, those in a more socially powerful position, is it? Wouldn't that make them, in your words, of 'low self-esteem', 'weak', victims of abusive 'emotional attachments'?

Yes. I've already said they were cowardly and opportunistic. They are looking for someone weaker and more damaged than themselves. It does of course make perfect sense to look into using the same course of treatment on them if it might reduce the general incidence of abuse and possibly lead them to happier existences.

No, low self-esteem is a symptom, not a 'cause' of anything, a chronic, ideologically-driven confusion/substitution made by psychologists and psychiatrists everywhere.

I didn't say it was the cause. Once the abuse has occurred though, we can't do anything about that. Or are you saying treat the effects of the memory of abuse that contributed to the low self-esteem, which was actually what I meant (maybe I should have been clearer).

The matter, the distinction, isn't so transparent, unfortunately. I asked for clarification because what may appear to be 'benign supportive relationships' may actually be complicit in perpetuating 'unhealthy emotional attachments.' Empathizing with the victim ("Let me feel your pain"), without any consideration of one's own desires, one's own inscription into patriarchal structures and the Oedipal economy, can merely serve to perpetuate the status quo, or can make matters worse: for instance, the NHS 'public service' ad referred to above. I'm sure all of those involved in that campaign were genuine and well-intentioned, and fully 'empathized with the victims of rape', but their way of responding to the problem was self-defeating because such empathy was predicated both on the victim's own culpability and the narcissism of the NHS staff. Even many rapists have no difficulty empathizing with their victims, so rendering them even more powerless.

Is that not reading rather too much into it maybe? It did occur to me that if both partners are from abusive backgrounds, there is clearly the issue of being support group ("we should stick together because we both know what we've been through") as well, where interdependence is established.

 

[Shonx]

Well, I do think that the sort of juvenile typical PG13 comedy flicks (that are viewed mainly by a lot of pre-teens and young teen boys) need to stop having so many frat party type scenes where the sex myth portrayed is that beautiful girls will spontaneously start an orgy or give into your sexual advances if you just get them drunk enough. I think starting a discussion of rape with this kind of media sex mythology, you might have a chance of lowering date rape incidence. (I do think date rape would be the easiest thing to tamp down, since some other types of rape are more pre-meditated and require sociopathic personality traits.)

Yeah I agree, I think the date rape issue would be much easier to deal with by simple education, both sexual and in terms of alcohol consumption and its effects. I think that naked, sexually attractive women sell films and Hollywood is probably more concerned about dollars than unrealistic portrayals of women. Mind you, I've never actually thought the majority of males in those films were something to aspire to either.

To be honest, a lot of what I was concerned about was the more sadistic rapist (not downplaying any other rape), as I thought this was what the thread was originally about, and like you say there's less that can be done with them once they live their fantasy. Although I hear loads of complaints about the Saw and Hostel series and other "torture porn", I don't think these actually create killers, they just reflect what's already in their heads.

 

[jambo]

No, they weren't "suggested by waffles." They were suggested by you.

If a pedestrian crossing the road at a traffic light is run over, is s/he 'complicit? Etc. If you're mugged or attacked (whether sober or sozzled) on the street, are you 'complicit'?

I was showing that in those scenarios it is not about any 'complicity' but to an extent it can be about, being wise.

Jambo, you refuse to see this, but what you're doing with this analogy between rape and wearing a rolex in a bad neighborhood is assuming that simply being a drunk female is some sort of "advertisement" to a rapist.

You're reading that into it but the example is simply meant to illustrate that no matter the desired rights and wrongs of a situation we still take circumstances into account.

But OK, your point is that this is beside the point as in this context being very drunk is no different to just being female in the first place.

 

[Shonx]

Empathizing with the victim ("Let me feel your pain"), without any consideration of one's own desires, one's own inscription into patriarchal structures and the Oedipal economy, can merely serve to perpetuate the status quo

I thought I'd come back to this - I don't think empathising equates to "let me feel your pain" and obviously in a real sense never can. To me it means being considerate to someone's emotions and trying to understand how they feel. Personally, my main consideration is my friends' welfare, not trying to re-establish male dominance. I have said this many times, and I am quite capable of looking at my motivations via endless navel gazing

I can't say I subscribe to patriarchal structures either, although to be honest, I probably wouldn't subscribe to matriarchal ones either. I'm not a great fan of heirarchies as it goes.

I am fascinated by this Oedipal economy you keep mentioning, yet I don't have a clue what it means. Any chance you could elucidate?

 

[jambo]

Sadly, staying in is more likely to get you raped than going out.

This is understood.

I am interested in the idea that we "shouldn't" "have to" "adjust our lives" for any reason though. I absolutely applaud the idealistic refusal to accept restrictions.

Really, to hell with gravity! Walls be damned!

 

[nomadthethird]

This is understood.

I am interested in the idea that we "shouldn't" "have to" "adjust our lives" for any reason though. I absolutely applaud the idealistic refusal to accept restrictions.

Really, to hell with gravity! Walls be damned!

Yes, Jambo, because institutionalized sexism is just like gravity. There's no way anyone could possibly through their own actions chip away at institutionalized sexism. Nope. Just like gravity, it's a force of nature that can never be reversed.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes. I've already said they were cowardly and opportunistic. They are looking for someone weaker and more damaged than themselves. It does of course make perfect sense to look into using the same course of treatment on them if it might reduce the general incidence of abuse and possibly lead them to happier existences.



I didn't say it was the cause. Once the abuse has occurred though, we can't do anything about that. Or are you saying treat the effects of the memory of abuse that contributed to the low self-esteem, which was actually what I meant (maybe I should have been clearer).



Is that not reading rather too much into it maybe? It did occur to me that if both partners are from abusive backgrounds, there is clearly the issue of being support group ("we should stick together because we both know what we've been through") as well, where interdependence is established.

The language you use, it just persists in being part of the problem. Women with PTSD or trauma histories aren't "damaged" or abnormal because they've had difficult lives, any more than rapists are "damaged" because they are mentally ill. Both rapists and victims are perfectly capable of being rehabilitated. The notion that only women who are irrevocably damaged by abuse (and are abused because they are weak) could ever possibly end up in an abusive home situation is PART OF THE PROBLEM, not the solution.

You insist upon focusing solely on women in your suggestions regarding how to solve the institutional problems that make the abuse of females possible and common and hard to prosecute. This is asymmetrical, it doesn't help, and it only serves to further stigmatize female abuse victims. It ignores the fact that BOTH abuse/rape victims AND abusers/rapists are likely to have trauma histories.

Why not start early trying to rehabilitate young men who have been scarred and "damaged" by abusive households? Why does no one ever speak of men who have been "damaged" by no fault of their own by traumatic pasts and societal neglect? Why? Because only women are considered naturally "weak" enough to be "taken advantage of" by an abuser. This is a myth. It's simply untrue. Just because women tend not to turn aggressive and violent due to a traumatic upbringing doesn't mean women are "weaker"--in fact, you could easily make the argument that women, despite traumatic histories, are less likely to in turn victimize others, and therefore are "stronger" than men, who when abused tend to turn violent and angry and lose any control of their impulses.

Although I'd never question your good intentions, you have a seriously scary binary view of "human nature" and human sexuality that only serves to strengthen to very problem you're ostensibly trying to solve.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes. I've already said they were cowardly and opportunistic. They are looking for someone weaker and more damaged than themselves.

I have a gigantic problem with the idea that a VICTIM OF ABUSE is "more damaged and weaker" than a mentally ill misogynist who is so DAMAGED that he doesn't respect the most basic of sexual and personal boundaries and is so WEAK that he can't control his own sexual impulses even when these are completely inappropriate and out-of-line. Not to mention the weakness of a rapist's intellect--what kind of a person is such a mental weakling that they can't figure out that it's wrong not to get consent from a potential sexual partner?

So it's victims who are weak and damaged?

Wouldn't that just flatter the rapist's obviously socially inflated ego? The idea that he's "weakened and damaged" his victim simply by being a psychopathic or deluded mentally disturbed individual and violating a woman's person through no fault of her own? Is a PTSD sufferer--remember, men suffer from PTSD as well, SOLDIERS ESPECIALLY--a "weak" person, or just an unlucky person who went through literally hell on earth? I can't picture you calling a soldier with PTSD "weak", Shonx.

I'm sure pounding it into everyone's head that it's the VICTIMS who are forever weak and damaged and not rapists and abusers will do wonders toward correcting the ill thinking of rapists...

 

[nomadthethird]

This is understood.

I am interested in the idea that we "shouldn't" "have to" "adjust our lives" for any reason though. I absolutely applaud the idealistic refusal to accept restrictions.

Really, to hell with gravity! Walls be damned!

Are you mentally disabled, Jambo?

As has been amply demonstrated, even if women were to STOP DRINKING UNTIL THEY PASSED OUT TODAY, THAT WOULD ONLY POTENTIALLY LOWER THE RISK OF A WOMAN GETTING RAPED IN LESS THAN 10% of CASES.

Women avoiding alcohol WILL NOT ensure that they do not get raped, nor will avoiding drinking alcohol till unconscious lower a woman's statistical chances of getting raped (THEY'D ACTUALLY MAKE THEM HIGHER), NOR IS THERE ANY STATISTICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS WOMEN AVOIDING DRINK WOULD LOWER THE RAPE RATE AT ALL.

In fact, the rates of rape have remained similar over years and years, even as the RATE OF FEMALE DRINKING HAS STEADILY GONE DOWN OVER TIME.

What about this do you not understand?

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, Shonx, one can still use naked females and sex scenes to sell films without choosing to depict mythical things like "gray rape", or blatant date rape in the guise of a "conquest", or males intoxicating women to force consent, or any of the sorts of scenarios that are likely to normalize date rap.

 

[nomadthethird]

I can't say I subscribe to patriarchal structures either, although to be honest, I probably wouldn't subscribe to matriarchal ones either. I'm not a great fan of heirarchies as it goes.

Rest assured in the knowledge that, however unwittingly, you are the perfect mouthpiece for the patriarchal, rape-normalizing, gender inequality promoting status quo.

 

[Shonx]

Why not start early trying to rehabilitate young men who have been scarred and "damaged" by abusive households? Why does no one ever speak of men who have been "damaged" by no fault of their own by traumatic pasts and societal neglect? Why? Because only women are considered naturally "weak" enough to be "taken advantage of" by an abuser.

I did. In my reply to Waffle's post I mentioned that it was a good idea to spot and rehabilitate male victims of abuse too. It's been shown that early intervention is more likely to curb violent behaviour in later life, so yeah I'd totally agree. I'd also state that I never said that "damaged" was a permanent state of affairs, the reason why I suggested the therapy, which would in itself be useless if it was permanent surely.

Wouldn't that just flatter the rapist's obviously socially inflated ego? The idea that he's "weakened and damaged" his victim simply by being a psychopathic or deluded mentally disturbed individual and violating a woman's person through no fault of her own? Is a PTSD sufferer--remember, men suffer from PTSD as well, SOLDIERS ESPECIALLY--a "weak" person, or just an unlucky person who went through literally hell on earth? I can't picture you calling a soldier with PTSD "weak", Shonx.

So you say that the rapist is also "weakened and damaged" and then say he has an "obviously inflated ego". I mean weak in a comparative sense i.e. someone that is weaker is taken advantage of by someone that is stronger. Is a soldier with PTSD weakened mentally - yes. Is he a weak person - compared to pre-PTSD, yes. Do you not think that using the term "victim" is equally emotive and negative?

Rest assured in the knowledge that, however unwittingly, you are the perfect mouthpiece for the patriarchal, rape-normalizing, gender inequality promoting status quo.

Untrue and offensive. You continue to try and view me via your own false assumptions. Have I not said

a/ rape is wrong
b/ I would prefer that women were safe
c/ men need re-educating as to what is acceptable sexual behaviour

I take it you agree on most of these points yet would rather antagonize the situation by ignoring the "good intentions" and concentrate on implied behaviour rather than actual behaviour. It's this sort of thing that pretty much destroyed left wing politics in the UK, missing the greater proportion of agreement to concentrate on semantics. I presume in your eyes I will be utterly wrong until I see it in the exact same way you do, and I think that is an expectation that is ridiculous. If you need men to play their part, isn't it better to treat them respectfully if you expect them to treat women more respectfully in turn?

 

[Shonx]

Also just out of interest, what is the possibility that someone that is constantly told they were "born bad" regardless of their general behaviour, is likely to fulfil that prophesy? If negative role models for women undermine female self-worth and distort aspiration, does this not apply to men too? All men have the potential to be rapists purely by having a functioning penis, most men however will not rape.

I'm just starting to wonder whether someone knowing that they're viewed as a potential criminal may not lead them to become one. Just a theory, if you think otherwise I'd be glad to hear your views.

 

[Shonx]

Actually, whilst wondering quite how this wonderful patriarchy's working for me and still not being able to think of any particular advantages and I found this

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAU/is_1_6/ai_n27283522/print?tag=artBody;col1

I had a look at the Home Office statistics for 2001 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf and it appeared that 1 in 3 of people that said that they had experienced non-sexual domestic violence involving severe force were male, and 1 in 4 of those experiencing more moderate force.

This was a much higher percentage than I expected, definitely a significant minority of victims. The amount of incidents reported seems to bring the figure down to about a sixth, but then this seems to be because (pg 36), men's experience of violence seems to be more heavily weighted to instances of violence (less than 50) rather than frequent or constant like those in relationships with sadistic socio/psychopaths.

Then I found this http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 246 scholarly investigations: 187 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 237,750. "

Admittedly the information might be cherry-picked and there are a lot of considerations to take into account but it's food for thought.

One that caught my eye out of that list...

Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). ..used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)

Any thoughts as to why that might be?

 

[nomadthethird]

Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). ..used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)

Any thoughts as to why that might be?

Could this be because women started fighting back?

Women are smaller than men. Without some sort of weapon, it's extremely difficult for a woman to seriously injure a man.

But female on male abuse is certainly a problem. It should be dealt with as well.

Like I've said before, this will never happen until we get rid of the stupid traditional gender norms that would make a man feel "unmanly" if he were to report his own abuser. The same thing that will help female victims, the deconstruction of rigid gender roles, is the thing that will help male victims.

 

[nomadthethird]

So you say that the rapist is also "weakened and damaged" and then say he has an "obviously inflated ego". I mean weak in a comparative sense i.e. someone that is weaker is taken advantage of by someone that is stronger. Is a soldier with PTSD weakened mentally - yes. Is he a weak person - compared to pre-PTSD, yes. Do you not think that using the term "victim" is equally emotive and negative?

You certainly can be weak, damaged, mentally ill AND have an inflated ego. Why couldn't you? A rapist is not emotionally or psychologically "stronger" than a victim. This is simply not accurate according to the principles of biochemistry and psychology/psychiatry.

PTSD sufferers are not "weak", they suffer from a disorder that most any serious trauma victim will develop. PTSD is linked to the "flight or fight" response, it's the result of a disruption of the biological mechanism that helps people successfully avoid predators and bad situations--i.e., fear. In PTSD, this response becomes too strong, and thus becomes debilitating in many ways. This does not mean that someone with PTSD is "weak", just that they have to work harder to get through situations that others have no problem with because their fear responses are not overactive.

No, I don't think using the word "victim" is somehow "emotive" or "negative". I also never said that saying someone was weak was "emotive", just that PTSD sufferers are no "weaker" than anyone--in fact, given the fact that their limbic systems are completely out of whack, they're often very strong/strong willed people who have to work harder than others.

Untrue and offensive. You continue to try and view me via your own false assumptions. Have I not said

a/ rape is wrong
b/ I would prefer that women were safe
c/ men need re-educating as to what is acceptable sexual behaviour

I take it you agree on most of these points yet would rather antagonize the situation by ignoring the "good intentions" and concentrate on implied behaviour rather than actual behaviour. It's this sort of thing that pretty much destroyed left wing politics in the UK, missing the greater proportion of agreement to concentrate on semantics. I presume in your eyes I will be utterly wrong until I see it in the exact same way you do, and I think that is an expectation that is ridiculous. If you need men to play their part, isn't it better to treat them respectfully if you expect them to treat women more respectfully in turn?

As I've said before THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS.

If you *really* want to help stop rape, and I hope that you do, you will stop putting the onus on women, as if women can magically alter the negative and harmful behavior patterns of others by sheer will power alone.

Ask any psychologist whether focusing on a victim's actions preceding abuse or rape is unhealthy for everyone involved. I guarantee you they will say that people who want to stop rape need to focus on "consent" education, not victim behaviors and SYMPTOMS, as if stopping a symptom will stop the abuse.

If a woman abuses a man, hits him, punches him, wounds him, tells him he's worthless-- do you think we can prevent that by telling men to fix their self-esteem problem? Or should we fucking put the woman in jail where she belongs? Is it important for society to tell men that they're just weak and suffering from low self-esteem, and this is why they let a woman/abuser beat on them? Or should we tell women that it's NEVER OKAY to hit a man?

 

[nomadthethird]

Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). ..used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)

Any thoughts as to why that might be?

Also, I've seen many people, the most prominent being Glenn Sacks, pulling out these "results."

But let's think about this for a minute.

These results were culled from "surveys" of men and women.

Do you think male abusers are going to honestly admit to beating the shit out of women at home? After all, most rapists and abusers don't even admit they've done something wrong, even after (in a real study, not a survey), they will admit that they've committed certain acts that legally constitute rape and abuse.

Could it be that women are more likely to admit that they've struck a husband in a fit of frustration because they didn't hurt the guy in doing so? Because the guy could easily kill them for doing so? Because the physical imbalance of power is such that most women cannot really hurt men as easily as men can hurt women?

I do not doubt for a second that there are female abuser, and that this is a huge, huge problem that needs dealing with: but this does not diminish the fact that a woman is far more likely to be killed while pregnant by her male partner than is anyone else in the population, that women are raped and sexually assaulted at a rate that approaches 60% of the population, while only 3% of men are presumed to be raped (even less report), a woman is more likely to be murdered by a stranger than a man is, etc.

We don't have to focus on one social problem, we can tackle all off them. The same problem lies at the center of each, as we've seen.

 

[nomadthethird]

Here's a good article that debunks a lot of the new MRA "research":

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/archives/html/1variation.htm

There is no question that husbands are murdered almost as often as wives in the United States; even so, Steinmetz and Lucca's4 analysis has many major limitations. Several researchers (Campbell, 1992; Daly and Wilson, 1988; Geotting, 1989; Lundsgaarde, 1977) provide a major challenge to the argument that marital homicide is "sexually symmetrical." (Dobash et al., 1992). Their findings, for example, show that:

"Men often kill wives after lengthy periods of prolonged physical violence accompanied by other forms of abuse and coercion; the roles in such cases are seldom if ever reversed. Men perpetrate familicidal massacres, killing spouse and children together, women do not. Men commonly hunt down and kill wives who have left them; women hardly ever behave similarly. Men kill wives as part of planned murder-suicides; analogous acts by women are almost unheard of. Men kill in response to revelations of wifely infidelity; women almost never respond similarly, though their mates are more often adulterous (Dobash et al., 1992: 81)."

Another body of empirical work on homicide also calls Steinmetz and Lucca's analysis into question (Browne, 1987; Campbell, 1992; Daly and Wilson, 1988; Jones, 1980; Polk and Ranson, 1991; Wallace, 1986; Wilbanks, 1983). This research shows that, in sharp contrast to men, women who kill their partners do so only after years of enduring various forms of physical and sexual abuse, using up all available forms of social support, when they perceive that they cannot leave their abusive relationships, and because they fear for their lives (Dobash et al., 1992).

 

[nomadthethird]

Also just out of interest, what is the possibility that someone that is constantly told they were "born bad" regardless of their general behaviour, is likely to fulfil that prophesy? If negative role models for women undermine female self-worth and distort aspiration, does this not apply to men too? All men have the potential to be rapists purely by having a functioning penis, most men however will not rape.

Shonx, who ever said men were "born bad"??????????? Who told men they were "born bad???

???????????????????????????????

I was the first one to say men should be able to look up to male role models. What the fuck kind of nonsense are you trying to pin to me? This is getting absurd.

I AM THE ONE who has REPEATEDLY spoken out against this idea, and pointed out the fact that EVERYONE IS BORN GOOD. Do you need me to go back to old posts and quote each and every time (there were close to 10) when I said this?

As we already discussed at the beginning of the thread, it takes a village to raise up a psychopath or sociopath (or date rapist.)

Rapists, whether male or female, are people who had POOR UPBRINGINGS, and who WERE NOT BROUGHT UP TO RESPECT WOMEN AND THEIR SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BOUNDARIES.

Men who were brought up to be respectful tend not to rape. Men who are educated as to what constitutes "consent" under the law, and who are not taught to think that drunk, flirtatious, or beautiful women are "fair game" for sexual aggression are almost NEVER rapists.

I AM THE ONE WHO BELIEVES ALL MEN ARE BORN GOOD. SOCIETY WARPS MEN INTO RAPISTS. PARENTS WARP MEN into RAPISTS.

Rapists are potentially good people who have been failed by their parents, their communities, and most of all, the legal system.

Exacty WHAT about this idea suggests that I think we should tell men they're "all bad."

I don't even think RAPISTS are bad, just misguided and uneducated.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also just out of interest, what is the possibility that someone that is constantly told they were "born bad" regardless of their general behaviour, is likely to fulfil that prophesy? If negative role models for women undermine female self-worth and distort aspiration, does this not apply to men too? All men have the potential to be rapists purely by having a functioning penis, most men however will not rape.

I'm just starting to wonder whether someone knowing that they're viewed as a potential criminal may not lead them to become one. Just a theory, if you think otherwise I'd be glad to hear your views.

Also, just out of interest, what is the possibility that someone who is constantly told that if they drink they might get raped, that they were "born rapable", regardless of their lack of ability to control a rapists' actions, is likely to fulfill that prophesy?

I'm just starting to wonder whether someone knowing they're going to be viewed as a potential rape victim might not lead them to become one. Just a theory, if you think otherwise I'd be glad to hear your views.

All people are potentially ANYTHING. A woman can grow up to be a pedophile. A man can grow up to be a murderer. Anyone can grow up to do bad things. Only a community can prevent a person from turning bad.

It's utterly hilarious for someone to suggest that *men* are portrayed as somehow "all potential rapists." Actually, in the media, it's women who are most often portrayed as "unrapeable" because they've been drinking, because they were wearing a skirt, because they took a walk through the park.

In fact, LOOK AT THE COURT SYSTEM. It's not just TV where women are considered unrapeable (especially black women, in the U.S.), it's in REALITY that rapists are almost NEVER convicted.

Pretending that some men, men you live near, men you work with, men you may be related to, don't commit rape is not going to stop rape. This is the approach society has already been taking to rape prevention for hundreds of years--women need to restrict their activities in order to avoid rape, rapists are just crazed aliens who come out of nowhere to jump your daughter in a dark alley--and rape rates have steadily remained the same or gone up.

Doesn't that suggest that the "status quo" idea that rape can be prevented by victim focused techniques, since this technique has done nothing to prevent rape over the past hundred years or more, does not work? Doesn't this mean we need to change our tactics?

Why is this not self-evident?