|
On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes.
What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes.
|
I like the assignment. Playing devil's advocate gets your mind going.
|
Playing devil's advocate can also stop being a game really quick, particularly when it comes to something like gender relations.
|
Would you agree that before written and spoken language existed that rape was the primary source of procreation for the human species?
|
That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur.
|
On November 08 2013 09:19 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:
Would you agree that before written and spoken language existed that rape was the primary source of procreation for the human species?
No.
|
On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote:
That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur.
Then let's make it more relevant.
Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
|
On November 08 2013 09:28 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote:
That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur. Then let's make it more relevant. Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
Yes obviously unless both are savants or something.
|
On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes.
I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case.
Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole.
*Statistics pending
|
On November 08 2013 09:28 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:21 farvacola wrote:
That has nothing to do with its moral propriety nor its place in contemporary society either way. It is a non-sequitur. Then let's make it more relevant. Can two people who do not share a language exchange sexual consent without a translator?
Yes, obviously.
I would imagine this exchange is non-verbal in the majority of cases anyway.
|
On November 08 2013 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes. I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case. Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole. *Statistics pending
"found that globally 35% of women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/
Majority of sexual/physical violence comes from intimate partners. Which means majority of the time, what a woman wears has 0 impact on whether or not they will be a target of sexual violence.
Of the 10 females you know that have significant others, 3 of them have been raped by their significant other.
|
On November 08 2013 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes. I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case. Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole. *Statistics pending "found that globally 35% of women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/Majority of sexual/physical violence comes from intimate partners. Which means majority of the time, what a woman wears has 0 impact on whether or not they will be a target of sexual violence. Of the 10 females you know that have significant others, 3 of them have been raped by their significant other.
That figure includes physical violence, and also sexual violence that may not constitute rape, depending your definition of rape. It is also a global figure, and almost certainly varies alot across the countries/cultures. I'm pretty confident your last statement is inaccurate for me, and also for almost everyone else on TL,
|
Why the emphasis on clothing? I think it relates to the courtroom.
Suppose you are accused of rape, and there is clear evidence that you had sex with the alleged victim at the alleged time. How do you argue your case? Whether you are guilty or not, your only option is to argue that the alleged victim gave consent. But this sex probably happened without witnesses. So how do you demonstrate that there was consent?
Well... there's no really hard evidence. So you've gotta go circumstantial. What are things that would strongly imply rape?
-Cries for help
-Signs of struggle
-Alleged victim dragged from public space against his/her will (asserted by witnesses)
If these things happened, it looks really bad for you. It's not proof of rape -- each of these things has a possible alternate explanation -- but it's serious evidence against you. However, if they did not happen, the absence of condemning evidence is itself weak evidence of your innocence.
What else? Well, your entire defense hinges on claiming that the alleged victim consented to sex with you. So you need to convince the jury that the alleged victim is the type of person who is likely to do a thing like that, and (ideally) that his/her public behavior leading up to the sex likewise implies likelihood of consent. This can never prove a rape did not occur, but it is weak evidence in your favor.
-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time?
Again, weak evidence. But when all you've got is your word against someone his/hers, you'll take all the weak evidence you can get. If the alleged victim was clearly all over you in public and you left together in obvious good spirits, your claim of consent gains a lot of credibility. (Likewise, if the (s)he plainly had no sexual interest in you and was obviously trying to avoid you, "it was consensual" becomes a tough sell.)
Lastly, you're trying to show that the accuser's testimony is false. So, if they have a history of lying (especially in related circumstances) or a strong incentive to make a spurious rape accusation, that's a big knock against their credibility. (Suppose the alleged victim is a financial dependent who might be disowned if his/her guardians found out he/she was sexually active? Or has a significant other who would leave them if they're a cheater rather than a victim? A discernible motive to lie is weak evidence against a person's testimony.)
...
Near as I can tell, this all applies whether you are guilty or innocent. An innocent man guilty of consensual sex but falsely accused of rape must convince the court that she fucked him willingly -- so, that she's the type of woman who would fuck him willingly, that she was acting in public like she would fuck him, etc. That's gross, but what else is a defendant to do? Without details like that, all the defendant has is the defendant's word against the accusers, and despite "innocent until proven guilty," good luck with only your word.
|
On November 08 2013 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes. I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case. Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole. *Statistics pending "found that globally 35% of women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/Majority of sexual/physical violence comes from intimate partners. Which means majority of the time, what a woman wears has 0 impact on whether or not they will be a target of sexual violence. Of the 10 females you know that have significant others, 3 of them have been raped by their significant other.
That's not actually what the fact sheet says. It defines 'intimate partner violence' as:
Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours.
I'd probably qualify under those definitions as a guy. Where's my fact sheet?
|
On November 08 2013 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 08:57 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 08:09 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Are girls only victims now? Who do you think call girls sluts? It is at least equal between men and women, and I would wager that women are more vicious with the verbal abuse when it comes to calling other women sluts. To pretend that women have no place in changing society and that men are the only ones to blame - that men are the sole cause and only perpetuators of sexist behaviour and attitude - will get you nowhere. This thread has been a very interesting read overall. I feel that I want to chime in on the discussion about what women should and shouldn't wear. In an ideal world women should be able to wear anything and nothing and not get raped, but we don't live in an ideal world. Cautioning women that they should not wear provocatice clothing in precarious situations is not the same as blaming them for dressing that way if and when they do get raped. I think there's a disconnect in feminist discourse here where they cannot recognize that the woman might have made stupid choices and inadvertedly gotten punished for it. The argument that it shouldn't have mattered doesn't hold water when it does matter. It's the same thing as me cautioning my friend from walking through a rough neighbourhood at night. It seems like a bad idea because both of us know people get beat up or mugged there a lot, yet my friend still decides to go there. Is my friend stupid? Most certainly. Does that mean my friend is to blame for being the victim of a crime? Of course not, he should have been able to walk through that neighbourhood unharmed and not have to worry. It's all about making smart decisions. Closing your eyes and saying you shouldn't have to make smart decisions because you want the world to be different doesn't make the world different. A good argument against this would be that provocative clothing doesn't lead to a hightened risk of rape. I don't have any statistics on the issue so I can't know what way reality spins. It seems likely to me that more provocative clothing does entice a potential rapist to commit rape and thus leads to an increased risk for the woman, in which case cautioning against it, especially in settings where the risk is percieved as high, makes sense. The "don't wear provocative clothing" cautioning isn't an excuse to stop the long term work with changing society for the better. And indeed many people do blame the victim by saying she shouldn't have been wearing this or that, or been at that place or gotten that drunk. The fact of the matter is, though, that cautioning against it before hand is not victim blaming but a pragmatic approach to the reality we live in. A reality we can change, but not a reality we can ignore because we want to. I want to end by reminding everyone that changing the society we live in involves not only men but women as well. If we don't work together and look at things as a whole we will get nowhere. What a person wears should never be up for debate. I will not punish someone who has been robbed for having things much like I would never punish someone who has been raped for having clothes. What I don't get is why people always go to the clothing argument when it comes to sexual assault. Why do people analyze rape and sexual assault like they would weather or their eating habits in relation to getting cancer? If you wear this top, you are 10% more likely to be sexually assaulted, so you should avoid that. Also, cut down on salt, it increases your risk of heart problems. Does anyone truly believe that a reduction is trashy clothing will lead to a reduction in rape cases or is this just a thing we use to shift the discussion to the victim? Because assholes are still assholes. I don't know why "they" do, but I do it because it is useful. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If we, based on statistical data, conclude that women who wear a certain clothing are way less likely to be raped then logically advicing your female friends or family members to dress that way is done out of a caring respect for their well-being. Likewise, if a certain clothing is shown to highly increase the instances of rape then advicing against it seems like a good thing, even more so than in the former case. Now let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that women should wear a certain style of clothing and that it is a way to stop rapes from happening. Rapes will happen regardless. I am also not saying that men are right for raping women who wear certain clothes, ie. there is no redemption on of behalf of the rapist. The fact that my argument is sometimes used in that way by other people does not mean I do. Lastly, I am not shifting the discussion to focus on the victims of them. I am merely explaining that wearing the wrong clothes can be a fucking bad idea*, and that cautioning against that does not make you a sexist asshole or a victim blamer. In fact it means that you care about the person you're cautioning. Just like I would care about my friend in my earlier example and caution him from going through a rough neighbourhood in the dark of night. However, saying that anyone deserves to be raped is sexist and makes the person an asshole. *Statistics pending "found that globally 35% of women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/Majority of sexual/physical violence comes from intimate partners. Which means majority of the time, what a woman wears has 0 impact on whether or not they will be a target of sexual violence. Of the 10 females you know that have significant others, 3 of them have been raped by their significant other.
Not only is there problems with your supposed statistics like others have pointed out but more importantly rape outside of already established intimate relationships do happen. Unless you're saying that the only rape that happens, or the only rape that matters, is rape that is committed by someone you already have an established intimite relationship with you have no point at all. Now if you would like to refute what I'm saying you have two options, either argue that I'm wrong on a logical basis, that is, explain why what I am saying is wrong and in what way. Or the more likely option, provide statistics as for why what I am saying doesn't matter because statistically what you wear does not matter when it comes to you as a woman being raped or not.
|
On November 08 2013 08:48 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:17 xM(Z wrote:
@Dogfoodboy16
use the deterministic agenda/reasoning/logic then link it with driven-by-subconscious behaviors to show how girls want rape happen to them.
after that, take a stab at what could trigger such behavior/the reasons behind it: self esteem issues, daddy issues, abuse issues, not giving a fuck issues, then you have the complexes of the ego and so on and so forth.
deterministic mechanisms have been linked mostly with people performing an action (perpetrator/aggressor)and less with people having actions performed on them (victim).
if determinism triggers sadism then determinism has to also trigger masochism. So far in my paper i have proposed the following: Women's erotic placidity much more different than a mans. By studies conducted measuring genital blood flow, men inherently know what turns them on a women don't. In women there is often a split between how the body is responding to a stimulus and what she reports to her brain consciously. Not that she lying to herself but that her ability to gauge how her body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable. I talk about how memory is reconstructed in the brain not stored. Date rape cases are primarily composed of a womens memory of what happen during the event. If a women is drugged with a date rape pill, claims she was raped, but have no psychical evidence of the encounter, their is reasonable doubt that her memory was compromised and is too vague to create a criminal case against the alleged culprit. Right now I am writing about how little date rape is reported to authorities. Mabye they consciously or unconsciously desire to be date raped. Maybe sometime during the altercation they change their mind. After that I am researching on how sex is more of a social experience than reproductive experience for humans and how women falsely claiming to be raped can gravely impact an innocents mans life.
it just looks like you are leading the conversation/thesis somewhere. it's like you try to speak for the facts and not let the facts speak for themselves. basically, one can tell you are full of shit.  (or your sources/studies/logic are).
never try to justify via studies/science how no = yes. it's the worst thing you could do not only because behavioral changes, in humans, due to chemical/electrical stimuli are extremely subjective (huge variations between test subjects), but also because you remove the agency before proving that it's not really there. if you strike (even at a very basic level) at free will, by removing what is perceived as (a) choice, people will instantly shun you.
first focus on the changes, show that they are there, show that they influence ones behavior, then pop the question(s) but don't answer it. let your audience answer it. your only job is to make them question things; then and only then, you could go further by playing with their fears/preconceptions and trigger in them the response you want. mind controlling people is easy.
also, you portraying men as some kind of masters in controlling their actions/behaviors doesn't help your cause. you have to show how they're are just as faulty as women as far as control goes.
but again, ask questions don't answer them. after all, you are only exploring possibilities. you don't need justifications nor conclusions.
|
On November 08 2013 08:48 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:17 xM(Z wrote:
@Dogfoodboy16
use the deterministic agenda/reasoning/logic then link it with driven-by-subconscious behaviors to show how girls want rape happen to them.
after that, take a stab at what could trigger such behavior/the reasons behind it: self esteem issues, daddy issues, abuse issues, not giving a fuck issues, then you have the complexes of the ego and so on and so forth.
deterministic mechanisms have been linked mostly with people performing an action (perpetrator/aggressor)and less with people having actions performed on them (victim).
if determinism triggers sadism then determinism has to also trigger masochism. So far in my paper i have proposed the following: Women's erotic placidity much more different than a mans. By studies conducted measuring genital blood flow, men inherently know what turns them on a women don't. In women there is often a split between how the body is responding to a stimulus and what she reports to her brain consciously. Not that she lying to herself but that her ability to gauge how her body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable. I talk about how memory is reconstructed in the brain not stored. Date rape cases are primarily composed of a womens memory of what happen during the event. If a women is drugged with a date rape pill, claims she was raped, but have no psychical evidence of the encounter, their is reasonable doubt that her memory was compromised and is too vague to create a criminal case against the alleged culprit. Right now I am writing about how little date rape is reported to authorities. Mabye they consciously or unconsciously desire to be date raped. Maybe sometime during the altercation they change their mind. After that I am researching on how sex is more of a social experience than reproductive experience for humans and how women falsely claiming to be raped can gravely impact an innocents mans life.
I can only imagine a few different papers that would be more offensive than what you just said here. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, only 8% of all rape reports are "unfounded".
From Wikipedia:
However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.
Now, as a woman, I would recommend you stop playing amateur psychologist, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. My ability to gauge how my body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable? Where did you get this "information"?
Get out of the universe and completely scrap your paper and start over with a different topic. Don't even write it, because it's going to be a waste of paper and printer ink, and you will probably get an F for having completely flawed research.
|
On November 08 2013 19:39 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 08:48 Dogfoodboy16 wrote:On November 08 2013 08:17 xM(Z wrote:
@Dogfoodboy16
use the deterministic agenda/reasoning/logic then link it with driven-by-subconscious behaviors to show how girls want rape happen to them.
after that, take a stab at what could trigger such behavior/the reasons behind it: self esteem issues, daddy issues, abuse issues, not giving a fuck issues, then you have the complexes of the ego and so on and so forth.
deterministic mechanisms have been linked mostly with people performing an action (perpetrator/aggressor)and less with people having actions performed on them (victim).
if determinism triggers sadism then determinism has to also trigger masochism. So far in my paper i have proposed the following: Women's erotic placidity much more different than a mans. By studies conducted measuring genital blood flow, men inherently know what turns them on a women don't. In women there is often a split between how the body is responding to a stimulus and what she reports to her brain consciously. Not that she lying to herself but that her ability to gauge how her body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable. I talk about how memory is reconstructed in the brain not stored. Date rape cases are primarily composed of a womens memory of what happen during the event. If a women is drugged with a date rape pill, claims she was raped, but have no psychical evidence of the encounter, their is reasonable doubt that her memory was compromised and is too vague to create a criminal case against the alleged culprit. Right now I am writing about how little date rape is reported to authorities. Mabye they consciously or unconsciously desire to be date raped. Maybe sometime during the altercation they change their mind. After that I am researching on how sex is more of a social experience than reproductive experience for humans and how women falsely claiming to be raped can gravely impact an innocents mans life. I can only imagine a few different papers that would be more offensive than what you just said here. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, only 8% of all rape reports are "unfounded". From Wikipedia: However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.Now, as a woman, I would recommend you stop playing amateur psychologist, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. My ability to gauge how my body is responding to sexual encounters is unreliable? Where did you get this "information"? Get out of the universe and completely scrap your paper and start over with a different topic. Don't even write it, because it's going to be a waste of paper and printer ink, and you will probably get an F for having completely flawed research.
The italicized block is quite interesting. I was under the impression, from earlier, that a very significant amount of rape (the word used was "most") was rape by an otherwise consensual sexual partner. But the FBI only throws out at most 8% of cases based on the concept that the two parties had a prior sexual relationship. So either some part of the statistics are misleading, or the judging process here is highly subjective. I'm pretty sure it's the latter, leaving me a little confused in how to actually approach this issue if the statistics are so muddied (this has the potential to become an argument not of what's being said, but who's saying it).
|
Are you in here really arguing the trivialities of rape?
Its wrong. Its bad. Anyone who even thinks seriously about it should be beaten to a pulp and never let within society again.
Oh look i just /closed the thread.
I only skimmed so i may have the wrong end of the stick here.
|
On November 08 2013 20:06 Capped wrote:
Are you in here really arguing the trivialities of rape?
Its wrong. Its bad. Anyone who even thinks seriously about it should be beaten to a pulp and never let within society again.
Oh look i just /closed the thread.
I only skimmed so i may have the wrong end of the stick here.
No, there are some sick people here who want to rationalize things that are wrong. This thread went to hell in a hand-basket. It was supposed to be about anti-rape pants, but somehow we got to talking about bullshit like "Provocative clothing" and the exact definition of "Violent crime", and what primitive humans may have done for mating, like saying "Well, primitive people must have raped to reproduce, and so it's natural, hur hur hur I'm so smart". Well, guess what? There are animals that engage in sexual cannibalism, and the female eats the male. Nature doesn't sound so appealing now, does it? We have a society now, and the justification for sexual violence is deplorable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
