search
top

Whistling Up a False Sense of Security

Breda takes on the notion of “rape whistles”  I agree these are a poor substitute for fighting back, but I wouldn’t completely discount their utility.  I mean, if you heard someone whistling frantically within close proximity of you, and after following the sound saw a man about to rape a woman, would you do nothing?   I wouldn’t.  Of course, that presumes that at least some of us have the capability to do something other than dial 911 and hope that help shows up in time.

6 Responses to “Whistling Up a False Sense of Security”

  1. VariableFeedback says:

    A whistle is probably better than nothing. You do need to love the anti-‘s arguments that having a handgun will just make the rapist angrier, then watch as whistle are distributed, which apparently won’t just anger the rapist.

    As far as I’m concerned, rape (and I mean the violent, aggravated kind, not the she had too many drinks to consent kind) was and should still be a capital offense. If that’s what responding to a whistle requires, I’m alright with that (and I guess that means the whistle accomplished something).

  2. Ian Argent says:

    Ask Kitty Genovese? Not to put down the utility of these, but any type of attention-getting device still relies on the kindness of strangers, and the efficiency of response.

  3. Murdoc says:

    Every time there’s one of these serial rapist b@$t@rds running around, we end up hearing about how a lot of female students are illegally carrying guns for protection. But I don’t recall hearing about any sort of wild west shootout because of it, so I’m wondering if maybe legal CCW permit holders might not shoot the place up, either. Just a thought.

  4. Regolith says:

    “Of course, that presumes that at least some of us have the capability to do something other than dial 911 and hope that help shows up in time.”

    In Reno, there’s some chance of that. Nevada is a shall issue state, and Reno tends to run a bit more conservative than say, Las Vegas.

  5. DirtCrashr says:

    A whistle will force the rapist act fast in order to silence it and the whistler – a gun on the other hand can make the rapist STFU permanently, angry or not.

  6. straightarrow says:

    I might have to stop and ponder the situation for a minute if the rapee was young.

    yeah! that’s right! I might have to think about it. If she was past child bearing age, I would do what I could to stop it. However, if she was a “breeder” and was so goddamned dumb that she thinks a whistle is proper protection against a rapist or murderer, I might have to take time to consider whether her removal from the gene pool was more important to me than my conscience compelling me to protect the innocent.

    I mean, it’s not an easy decision. Do I do more harm or good by saving her. On the one hand, I can feel good about myself and possibly save an innocent life. On the other, might I be perpetuating an insanity that might manifest itself in her offspring and their subsequent generations that will destroy civilization.?

    Does feeling good about myself and feeling heroic relieve me of the consequences of a poor decision that could spell doom for our society, or at least contribute to it?

    Not as easy a question to answer as you thoutht, is it?

    Ok, now that the snark is done, my point is this. If a woman thinks she needs protection from rape, a whistle isn’t her answer. If she opts for the whistle, that probably means she is opposed to other women taking effective measures. Fucking shame on her. However, armed or not, I would take a hand and try to save her. But I don’t think I would like her.

top