|
On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
Western society tends to place the blame in these situations on the male, if it is a male - female situation that is. Just look at the laws passed in the UK a year (?) back, under which you, as a male, could be guilty of rape while you were thinking you were just having a night of really drunk sex. The law places more of the burden on males in this situation, simply because (generally speaking ofc) men have an easier time to force a woman physically to do something then the other way round.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
As for the general topic: Even if dressing up revealingly increases risk, it is irrelevant. You have the full rights to express yourself, and dressing any way you want is part of that liberty. The guilt lies for the full 100% with the offender, and governments shouldn't suggest that people limit their own liberties in order to appease potential sex-offenders.
|
Suppose for argument's sake it is like this: someone willing to rape women picks a girl from a crowd based on how revealing she dresses. In this case he was clearly going to pick some girl, and even if attire plays a big role in who eventually ends up being raped, it's still clearly irrelevant, because it merely decides who the victim was, not that rape was commited.
This is different from leaving your bike unlocked at the trainstation at night, because there will be criminals people picking up all unlocked bicycles there. A rapist on the other hand, doesn't end up raping more or less women based on their attractiveness. (not to excuse bikethieves, I lost 3 bikes the last year >.<)
|
On April 06 2011 04:06 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
Western society tends to place the blame in these situations on the male, if it is a male - female situation that is. I'm aware that it does. I'm asking a member of this western society who believes this to explain it, actually, I'm trying to get them to realize that they have no rational explanation.
Just look at the laws passed in the UK a year (?) back, under which you, as a male, could be guilty of rape while you were thinking you were just having a night of really drunk sex. The law places more of the burden on males in this situation, simply because (generally speaking ofc) men have an easier time to force a woman physically to do something then the other way round. Another thing I think is silly, these 'indirect rules', yeah, statistically males are stronger, but not always. Why not cut out the indirectness and just say that the stronger party of both is guilty hmm?
Anyway, it's sexual discrimination, no doubt about that.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.) Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
As for the general topic: Even if dressing up revealingly increases risk, it is irrelevant. You have the full rights to express yourself, and dressing any way you want is part of that liberty. The guilt lies for the full 100% with the offender, and governments shouldn't suggest that people limit their own liberties in order to appease potential sex-offenders.
You misread the officer, it's not as much about guilt as just offering people some advice in how to stop it if they want to follow it.
It's just that the advice is bad because there is no proven correlation let alone causation and the term 'slutty' is misplaced, 'revealingly', would be better.
|
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping."
If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
|
On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
|
On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping." If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
It takes a special type of person to enjoy a rape. There has to be a fetish of forcing someone to do something uncomfortable, seeing a woman cry or something along those lines (I'm imagining rapists being "broken" like pedophiles are "broken"). In any case, a rape being a turn-on has to be there for the rapist. If a rape would instead be a giant headache, sexual release through masturbation would be more comfortable.
|
On April 06 2011 03:30 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 22:55 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On April 05 2011 22:48 Kalingingsong wrote:"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV. so what does it mean then? She's loose with her body and doesn't respect herself sexually, but at least she wants the final say on whether she has sex or not. I think it's like the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan. She likes her salad tossed, but doesn't want the cream dressing. If you know what I mean. What does it all have to do with 'respect' man? The reason I'm a 'slut' is ridiculously simple, I don't believe it's a bad thing to be. Seriously, it's like some arbitrary stupid rule which says that you can't play that many computer games or something. No one's getting hurt (unless those who want it, hurr durr), it's like saying you don't respect yourself when you prefer to play computer games over having sex. Also, slut doesn't mean dressing n a particular way. It's just for me that whenever the oppertunity arises I'm not going like 'Yeh ehh, I have sex with too many different people, that's bad you know, better not do it.' Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 00:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 05 2011 21:07 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote:Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread. On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote:
Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it. I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk. So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism. In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice. So is taking cover if people are randomly shooting at you. Yeah, let's be courageous, let's be defiant, let's say we aren't going to live in fear and just continue walking like usual and get a bullet in the head.
Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you 
I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
Sorry for using a quote again, but someone said "You don't know yourself until you have been deprived of your freedom ". I think it is very true. We are born free, we don't know what freedom really means.
Saying one shouldn't be cowardly is as stupid a moral idiosyncrasy as saying that one can't have sex with many people.
the cowardice was in the context of free speech. We know have free speech because some people had the balls to say something like "Even if i don't agree with you, i am ready to die for you to have the rights to say it.". But they were idiots and idealists that don't know how the worlds really works.
Show nested quote +B. Franklin once said
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Silm once said: "Source?"
Try google it, it's every where on the web
first google links :
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/982
http://www.kevincraig.us/tempsec.htm
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1566977
Quoting random historical figures doesn't make it true.
Of course lol.
It's a quote, you know. It had never prooved anything.
I just agree with it, and i found it well phrased. That's it.
"Dressing revealingly is wrong." "Having sex with many different people is wrong." "Women not knowing their place is wrong." Moral dogmata, ugh.
Yes, it is a moral dogmata, and what ?
My moral dogmata is focused on freedom.
The moral dogmata you quotes are just moronic and sexist to me.
Show nested quote +The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime.
Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks". I'm going to say to you what I've said to everyone, show me some evidence or indication that this actually works as desired.
I have no indications, I think that we just don't try fighting rape enough because there is this whole "women should not put themselves in a rape risk situation" bullshit.
How comes rapists get away with it so easily ?
|
On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Well killing someone in self defense is a considerable factor, clothing really isn't.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/519/
|
On April 06 2011 03:31 Dismantlethethroat wrote:
Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
" Look at the majority or rape victims "
Oh, so you surely have looked.
Where have you looked ? Around you ?
|
On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
|
On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Your comparison is meaningless...
You may kill someone because he was trying to kill you, (self-defense legitimate)
But you don't rape someone for your security...
Well, let's try :
"If you proved you raped someone because that person was out to rape/kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free."
see ?
|
On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping." If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
Of course there are different kind of rapists, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe it's the sexual act itself that drives all of them. In many cases it's the "kick" they get out of dominating another human being, making them do things against their will and the sexual part is secondary. And that is in the perpetrators head, and it doesn't really matter how the victim looks or dresses (victim often just in the wrong place at the wrong time). The women becomes a substitute for something else, something for the rapists to deal with his anxiety or whatever lies beneath his actions.
And your last question doesn't really make sense.
|
Atticus.axl, you seem to be very knowledgeable about sex issues. Thanks for reminding everyone that this is what rape culture looks like, and TeamLiquid / the gaming community is often so blind on these issues. Why can't most of the angsty, scared, entitled cishet manchildren in this thread recognize a rapist, even one who boasts of it, as a threat to women? This thread makes me so sad. And it highlights how we gamers fulfill the backwards thinking mouth-breather stereotype and drive any sort of reasonable, female or adult opinions out of our communities (to the great detriment of esports). For those that still have the energy to fight on, please do so ... EDIT: I noticed that AlexDeLarge has been banned. Thank you, mods.
Thank you for the kind words. I am very, very glad to see that ADL has been banned, and I hope that everyone reading this thread will be fully able to understand why he was.
|
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote:Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to. No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ?
Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ? Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms".
But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you. No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom.
But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"... I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
It's like it is in every other country, there's freedom, as long as you don't use it. Believing that you live in a free world is nothing but a sign of never having to deal with the idiocracy and encountering your, or the freedoms of others, limited by moral chauvinism despite ratio being on your side.
Sorry for using a quote again, but someone said "You don't know yourself until you have been deprived of your freedom ". I think it is very true. We are born free, we don't know what freedom really means. There is no freedom in this world, nowhere.
Can I go to work naked? No, I can't, that's illegal by law, to refuse to put some artificial skin over my own body. I can't walk around the way I was born, I'm forced by law to wear some cloth over me. How is this honestly different from forcing women into some niqaab?
And to make it more interesting, it's allowed here for men to walk while exposing their chest, but not for women, sexual discrimination much?
Morals will always limit freedom.
the cowardice was in the context of free speech. We know have free speech because some people had the balls to say something like "Even if i don't agree with you, i am ready to die for you to have the rights to say it.". But they were idiots and idealists that don't know how the worlds really works.
Don't be that naïve, we don't have free speech. Even in the Netherlands, supposedly the epicentre of 'tolerance', people are charged every day for making outrageous comments that cross the line. You can't even insult the queen on paper.
And those people may have said that, but they've never done it. There's only freedom of speech to the point that you don't say something people don't really agree with or find 'morally wrong'. There isn't a country in the world where people haven't been tried for expressing a controversial opinion.
I know the quote, I'm actually educated, I was addressing the good fellow Benjamin himself.
I mean, where does he get the idea from that people will then lose both, does he have some study or research into it?
Of course lol. It's a quote, you know. It had never prooved anything. I just agree with it, and i found it well phrased. That's it.
Yes, it is a moral dogmata, and what ?
My moral dogmata is focused on freedom.
The moral dogmata you quotes are just moronic and sexist to me.
All moral dogmata are moronic to me. The point about a moral dogma is that, inherent to being a dogma, it's just something you say without argument, it doesn't show anything.
I'm just saying that stating a dogma really doesn't further debate anywhere.
Also, dogma is singular, dogmata is plural
I have no indications, I think that we just don't try fighting rape enough because there is this whole "women should not put themselves in a rape risk situation" bullshit.
How comes rapists get away with it so easily ? Rapists hardly get away with it easily, there are quire severe punishments for rape, and the laws are extremely sexist, in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will get you a harder punishment than beating someone up.
Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape? Do you think that harder punishments will make it go away more? If anything has been shown is that it often doesn't work that way? I'm not sure there is a concrete way available to effectively fight it.
|
On April 06 2011 04:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:52 GeneticToss wrote:On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 03:38 Arnstein wrote:On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post. What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it: What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape? And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts. No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have. In that case I'd say it's mutual consent. How does that spin together? Surely someone who is out for 90% can't consent? If it's mutual consent, then the girl could consent to his doing her while she was out for 90%. At max you can say that both parties have not consented, but because both were out, both were not responsible for their own actions. But in that case,you can extend this to saying that people who are out for 90% are no longer, or much less so, responsible for their own actions.
To answer your question, in the case you stated, no rape is occurring, as no one party is taking direct, premeditated advantage of the other. Your case is two intoxicated people having very dumb sex.
|
On April 06 2011 05:06 winter017 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free. Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable. No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
|
United States42693 Posts
On April 06 2011 05:35 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:06 winter017 wrote:On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free. Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable. No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with. I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people. I'm responding to this: "While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors" If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this: "While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors" Simple, nay?
Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress.
|
On April 06 2011 05:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:35 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 05:06 winter017 wrote:On April 06 2011 04:52 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 04:44 InsaniaK wrote:On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote:
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications. While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) Why not? They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free. Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable. No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with. I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people. I'm responding to this: "While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors" If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this: "While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors" Simple, nay? Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress. I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
|
Rape is almost never about the sex, and always about the control it gives the rapist. The thinking that revealing dressed women arouse a man to the point that he loses control is more of a way for the rapist to justify himself when in court or when he feels guilt. There is also an issue in my eyes with society thinking that the way one dresses somehow turns into them inviting rape upon themselves, which really doesn't make much sense.
|
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
Yea I agree. Even if the perp knows the victim, he's probably more likely to act on his feelings if the victim is dressed really revealingly as opposed to covered up.
Also, even if you discount the 70% where the perp knows the victim(I still think they are more likely to act on people they know that dress like sluts than people they know that dress really conservatively)
The other 30% of cases will probably be more likely acted out on someone they don't know that dresses revealingly over someone that they don't know that dresses conservatively. 30% is also a huge amount, so you really can't discount it and conclude that it's barely ever going to make a difference with how revealingly one dresses.
I also don't really understand the purpose of this 'slutwalk'. The police officer never said that women dressing like sluts want to get raped; he said that women who dress like sluts are more likely to get raped. So why they're protesting his remarks by saying that they don't want to get raped is beyond me. I don't think the rapist particularl cares if they want to get raped or not either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
