|
United States42695 Posts
On April 06 2011 05:46 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:44 KwarK wrote: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?
That'd be a case by case question. The reason it's such a hot topic with rape is because of the shockingly low conviction rate for rapists and the use of rhetoric such as "she had multiple partners", "she was dressed like she wanted sex", "she went out drinking" or "she was a tease" as if they have any relevance on the decision of another person to force his will on someone and violate them. If there was a circumstance that mitigated it then that'd be brought up in the court that time and treated appropriately. However, at present, circumstances that in no way mitigate the crime are used to confuse juries and get guilty rapists lighter sentences. As such it'll justifiably piss people off to talk about it.
|
On April 06 2011 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:46 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 05:44 KwarK wrote: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? That'd be a case by case question. The reason it's such a hot topic with rape is because of the shockingly low conviction rate for rapists and the use of rhetoric such as "she had multiple partners", "she was dressed like she wanted sex", "she went out drinking" or "she was a tease" as if they have any relevance on the decision of another person to force his will on someone and violate them. If there was a circumstance that mitigated it then that'd be brought up in the court that time and treated appropriately. However, at present, circumstances that in no way mitigate the crime are used to confuse juries and get guilty rapists lighter sentences. As such it'll justifiably piss people off to talk about it. Did you honestly not notice that I simply reposted the original post you were replying to as subtle hint? I'm impressed...
Anyway, it's innocent until guilt is proven eh, it's not an ideal system, but otherwise you could just claim of a random guy you had sex with that he raped you as a means of extortion or something like that. This is one of the tacky parts of legal systems, you either underconvict, or you convict the innocent.
It's pretty easy for someone in hindsight to charge you with rape, see the Assange case, there was a lot of politics involved in that.
And still, that was all besides the point, I was simply addressing the point that someone said that "crimes [not rape crimes per se] shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
|
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
It is harmfull, people can dress whatever damn way they want. If i wanted the moral police to be telling people how they should dress then i would buy a ticket to Iran.
It just stinks of "we can't beat the rapists, let's beat the victims". IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS FAULT! No matter how you try to spin it that's what it keeps coming down it, to suggest that a girl can be blamed for her fate in even the slightest is utterly repulsive.
The police is there to arrest rapists, not to send out a signal that rapists are sad people that can't control their urges because evil women try to look good.
Women pay taxes just like men, women pay for that damn police force and the police has a very simple fucking job, catch criminals. They catch the rapists and lock them up, they don't make judgements on it and they certainly don't speak them to the press.
Until there is definitive evidence that dress has a direct relation to the liklihood of being raped i am not going to pretend like any women that doesn't wear a burqa is essentially asking to be raped.
|
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
|
Here we go again...
That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +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. It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
In many places in the world it's still the case...
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
But i agree that it is not enough.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. Show nested quote +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?
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS.
What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
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.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Show nested quote +
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.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing.
In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
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? Show nested quote +
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. Then why quote it? What does it say when you quote it? What does it prove? It's just giving your opinion and saying another person approves without giving a real argument.
I prefer repeat it rather than trying to say it with my own words, because he says it really better than me. I put the name because I don't like to deceive people into thinking that's my own words.
You just learned what a quote is. You're welcome.
Show nested quote +
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
at least i've had learned something.
Show nested quote +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.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
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.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
|
This thread is just so disgusting. Some of you people are just so morally backwards I can't even find a common point to discuss with some of you.
As a smart poster said many pages ago, technically if you ever leave your bunker under mordor then you are "asking to get raped". Its our job to guarantee certain freedoms, and one of those is dress. It doesn't really matter if they carry risks, and telling people they should have managed their risk and never left their bunker is clearly retarded.
Furthermore, for anyone who isn't just talking out their ass (ie. common sense) they know that dress is not a primary factor. The truth is that anything could be a factor. Maybe rapists like blondes, or they like fit bodies, so all women should be fat. Even if there was a 100% correlation, there are all sorts of freedoms we have that we have because we refuse to live in fear. Should we all convert to Islam to avoid terrorists?
Let's give our women the same respect.
On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
Well said.
|
I had a long discussion with a female friend of mine today where I spent my time belittling her (in a joking manner obviously) because she supported the women in this "movement."
I never support making a gigantic deal over nothing. The cop should have chosen his words more carefully, but there is some merit to the idea behind it. Is he saying women deserve it? No. Is he saying that wearing slutty clothes makes a rape 99% more likely? No, but his basic implication can't be far from the truth, even if only a little. How much a woman decides to guard her vajayjay is up to her in taking steps to prevent problems, just as it's up to individuals who own homes to lock their doors and windows when they're gone.
|
Lol this is what happens when the comfort of the first world goes to a woman's head
User was warned for this post
|
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote:Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread. Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: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. Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ? Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case... Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ? No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ?
You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison. No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom... It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote :
"Of course there are laws... lol
You think freedom is not compatible with laws ?
You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything.
Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk."
That's why there are LAWS. Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ?
What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?" Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ? Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?"
It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"... It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting. Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"... It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
|
On April 06 2011 06:36 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing. It is harmfull, people can dress whatever damn way they want. If i wanted the moral police to be telling people how they should dress then i would buy a ticket to Iran. So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
It just stinks of "we can't beat the rapists, let's beat the victims". IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS FAULT! No matter how you try to spin it that's what it keeps coming down it, to suggest that a girl can be blamed for her fate in even the slightest is utterly repulsive.
The police is there to arrest rapists, not to send out a signal that rapists are sad people that can't control their urges because evil women try to look good. Rape is hardly about lust as has been said times before, it's about control, and many rapists have come from troubled homes and suffer from some psychological traumas which were inflicted upon them beyond their control.
Also, newsflash, retributive justice hardly ever works, it's just to satisfy some primal urge for revenge.
Turns out that getting rapists a psychologists to talk to them, council them, and try to find the cause of the problem works a lot better than just locking them up, after which they become even more bittered and try it again.
Women pay taxes just like men, women pay for that damn police force and the police has a very simple fucking job, catch criminals. They catch the rapists and lock them up, they don't make judgements on it and they certainly don't speak them to the press. Police is understaffed, you don't want to pay the taxes you'd need to pay for the police to be able to lock up every single criminal.
Also, please, don't act like rape legislation isn't extremely sexist in the female favour in about every country. Women enjoy a lot more protection against rape than men. The mere fact that you seem to speak here that only women get raped illustrates that.
If a guy is 90% unconscious and a girl does him, it's very hard to press charges or even get some sympathy. If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
Until there is definitive evidence that dress has a direct relation to the liklihood of being raped i am not going to pretend like any women that doesn't wear a burqa is essentially asking to be raped. Straw man.
And there is no evidence, like I said.
|
United States42695 Posts
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
|
On April 06 2011 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him. I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line. So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
|
United States42695 Posts
On April 06 2011 07:29 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him. I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line. So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes? Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
It makes it slightly less ambiguous if they flat out say "funny story, I once raped a guy, LOL". Would insta perm for that.
|
On April 06 2011 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:29 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 07:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him. I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line. So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes? Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems. It makes it slightly less ambiguous if they flat out say "funny story, I once raped a guy, LOL". Would insta perm for that. Well it was quite obvious that he didn't see it as rape but something on the line and wanted to know if this counted as rape.
Basically, from his perspective, he had sex with someone under influence he would have had sex with anyway.
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
|
You seem very confused about a lot of things. It's probably because you're drawing your samples from television and movies.
If the guy is not ok with it then it is sexual harassment.
|
On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
|
On April 06 2011 07:47 ToxNub wrote:
You seem very confused about a lot of things. It's probably because you're drawing your samples from television and movies.
If the guy is not ok with it then it is sexual harassment. Yeah, that's how it should be, but try getting this to court.
A lot of people have already offered their opinion on the both 90% out story, saying that in this case apparently 'legally' (no idea what jurisdiction) the guy still rapes the girl.
|
On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
|
On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
|
On April 06 2011 07:29 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him. I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line. So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes? Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
The guy who shared that 'anecdote' said 90% out, but what he described was 100% out, i.e. the girl was unresponsive/not conscience/unable to make any sort of decision or act of will.
I thought about pointing this out when you kept asking people "what about 2 people that are 90% out". If they are actually able to decide to have sex and physically perform it, it's mutual consent. If they are as wasted as ADL described the girl to be, I guarantee they aren't getting it on and your hypothetical question is meaningless.
Anyway, yes, I believe kwark that he would ban a girl for claiming to have raped a guy, especially if the story was told in the same nonchalant manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
