|
It seems somewhat weird that this 'protest' was really needed. It seems like you're almost giving credit to the concept that dressing a certain way legitimizes the assaults by arguing that it shouldn't.
Although I do need to do more research to understand everything being said, I guess I wasn't aware of a 'pro-rape' camp that was being taken seriously.
I've seen a lot of nude people, and I can honestly say I've never once thought 'that person wants to be sexually assaulted.'
I guess you could extend that train of logic to people who ARE wearing clothes... regardless of how much clothing they are wearing and assume that they probably also do not want to be raped.
I don't know... I guess I just do cannot wrap my head around the counter-argument that demands a 4000 person protest.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
The whole situation reminds me of this hilarious piece from the inimitable Ann Coulter during the infamous Duke lacrosse scandal (entitled "Lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas" -- its an enjoyable read...even if you are a liberal):
However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.
Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money.
Another analogy:
In any case, if I leave my laptop out in the open, and someone steals it, that doesn't absolve the thief, but it does mean I showed poor judgment in my actions.
The issues of "guilt" and "poor judgment" are entirely separate, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist.
In any case, its a sad day when saying blindingly obvious things is condemned so harshly. Maybe the police officer should have said "if you aren't a prostitute, you decrease your chances of getting murdered by a serial killer greatly", or "getting drunk and getting in stranger's cars elevates your chances of getting raped" -- same point, far less "controversial".
Of course, getting drunk or being a prostitute or making any number of stupid decisions may be your right (alright, only in Nevada for the second one), but that doesn't mean its a good decision. And I think this is what the police officer was trying to get at.
|
On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:
In any case, its a sad day when saying blindingly obvious things is condemned so harshly. Maybe the police officer should have said "if you aren't a prostitute, you decrease your chances of getting murdered by a serial killer greatly", or "getting drunk and getting in stranger's cars elevates your chances of getting raped" -- same point, far better less "controversial".
Not necessarily, this is Canada we're talking about.
The Supreme Court will be hearing soon whether Canada's laws against brothels and living off the avails of prostitution are the things that increase the risk of harm to prostitutes, not the profession itself.
Just saying.
|
On April 05 2011 05:33 Flanlord wrote:
It seems somewhat weird that this 'protest' was really needed. It seems like you're almost giving credit to the concept that dressing a certain way legitimizes the assaults by arguing that it shouldn't.
Although I do need to do more research to understand everything being said, I guess I wasn't aware of a 'pro-rape' camp that was being taken seriously.
I've seen a lot of nude people, and I can honestly say I've never once thought 'that person wants to be sexually assaulted.'
I guess you could extend that train of logic to people who ARE wearing clothes... regardless of how much clothing they are wearing and assume that they probably also do not want to be raped.
I don't know... I guess I just do cannot wrap my head around the counter-argument that demands a 4000 person protest.
It's not that there's a counter-argument, it's that there's a pervasive stereotype and lack of human decency in some people's behavior and thoughts about sexual assault.
Very few people in modern societies are going to argue that women who do the same work as a man deserve to be paid significantly less, but it's still important for people to speak out against it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:The whole situation reminds me of this hilarious piece from the inimitable Ann Coulter during the infamous Duke lacrosse scandal (entitled "Lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas" -- its an enjoyable read...even if you are a liberal): Show nested quote +However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.
Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money. Another analogy: In any case, if I leave my laptop out in the open, and someone steals it, that doesn't absolve the thief, but it does mean I showed poor judgment in my actions. The issues of "guilt" and "poor judgment" are entirely separate, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist. In any case, its a sad day when saying blindingly obvious things is condemned so harshly. Maybe the police officer should have said "if you aren't a prostitute, you decrease your chances of getting murdered by a serial killer greatly", or "getting drunk and getting in stranger's cars elevates your chances of getting raped" -- same point, far better less "controversial". Of course, getting drunk or being a prostitute or making any number of stupid decisions may be your right (alright, only in Nevada for the second one), but that doesn't mean its a good decision. And I think this is what the police officer was trying to get at.
This kind of logic is frowned upon in our society today. You'd be hard pressed to find an intelligent individual that will claim the victim is in any way responsible for the crime, but to suggest a casual relationship between poor judgement and undesirable outcomes is to incite anger.
If I get assaulted, am I guilty of assault? Of course not, only the assaulter can be guilty of the crime or be responsible for the assaulting action. That doesn't mean that I'm not an idiot for going into the bronx with a huge sign saying that "I dislike black people". Why is it not acceptable for somebody to tell me, "Nick, you're an idiot for doing what you did. I'm sorry you got hurt, but you're still an idiot. You should avoid going into the bronx and insulting people in the future, it will decrease your chances of getting assaulted." Why is this not ok?
|
On April 05 2011 05:51 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:
In any case, its a sad day when saying blindingly obvious things is condemned so harshly. Maybe the police officer should have said "if you aren't a prostitute, you decrease your chances of getting murdered by a serial killer greatly", or "getting drunk and getting in stranger's cars elevates your chances of getting raped" -- same point, far better less "controversial". Not necessarily, this is Canada we're talking about. The Supreme Court will be hearing soon whether Canada's laws against brothels and living off the avails of prostitution are the things that increase the risk of harm to prostitutes, not the profession itself. Just saying.
Obviously if brothels were legal it would be easier for prostitutes to be safe and not be murdered, etc., since they wouldn't have to set up shop in crime-ridden areas and get in cars with strangers, since they could just have sex in the brothel.
That's completely besides the point that being a prostitute is currently dangerous.
It's like trying to argue that doing heroin isn't dangerous, because it's only the impurities, hanging out with drug dealers and possible being arrested that make it so. Well, maybe you're right, but that's what doing heroin entails for almost everyone who does it.
|
There is no reason to rape anyone!!! I was so sad when I saw that video.
LIke some of the people in here said" a horny guy get's more horny when he sees skin" ... Well, every 16-17 year old kid is horny as fuck whole the time. That does not give him an extra excuse just because he is horny as fuck. There are no excuses to rape somebody.. It's much better to pay for sex then...
|
On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:
Obviously if brothels were legal it would be easier for prostitutes to be safe and not be murdered, etc., since they wouldn't have to set up shop in crime-ridden areas and get in cars with strangers, since they could just have sex in the brothel.
That's completely besides the point that being a prostitute is currently dangerous.
It's like trying to argue that doing heroin isn't dangerous, because it's only the impurities, hanging out with drug dealers and possible being arrested that make it so. Well, maybe you're right, but that's what doing heroin entails for almost everyone who does it.
So the optimal solution would be to remove the negative social systems that result in prostitution, heroin and provocative dress being dangerous, right?
|
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
slut/promiscuous person: These basically mean the same thing, the former term being loaded, the latter politically correct. It's basically a person who has more sexual partners than is normal in his or her culture, leaving gender destinctions out of it for the moment. I'd like to point you to a more refined definition of the word slut as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." The term has been 'reclaimed' by people under such banners as sex positive, slut positive, whore positive, escort positive, sex worker positive, etc. (Bing away for more info). The overarching umbrella of such groups is non-judgementalism of personal sexual choices.
Now, to the topic of the OP - I feel like it's quite difficult to have a mature discussion about this just like it's difficult to have a mature discussion about moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. At the root of this idea - "provocative dress provokes" - is the rescission of volition from both of the parties. If we deny people their consciousness, we reduce them to meatsacks of impulses without controls. Though not without precedent, it is assumed that one who retains his faculties also retains his self-control/self-determination.
Then comes the issue of if one is responsible for being raped? I don't know? If we say that a woman showing off her T&A presents a degree of temptation, what of it? So does a cheeseburger. It is widely ... no, universally realized that controlling one's 'natural' (id?) impulses is fundamental to socialization, the ability to interact with other human beings in the social order.
+ Show Spoiler +Rape, obesity and rudeness statistics may have something to say about the American condition
There are a lot of cases where you incite crimes against you in some way. ... Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape? Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally. Driving a Porsche into [insert dangerous neighborhood here] presents a temptation but is not a command to steal; fighting words do not command a person to put his fist into your face; even the hottest woman in the world has the right to prance down the street buck naked if she likes without the fear of being violated physically.
Perhaps I am naive but how many rapes have happened in strip clubs? Even men seeking sexual release, in a dark room with uncovered lady parts being waved about close enough to smell them, do not pounce like beasts (the team of 400lb security gorillas helps!). This seems to indicate that saying provocatively dressed women bring anything more than attention to themselves is just a convenient excuse for rapists to blame the victim in a socially acceptable way (for the religious/moralist set, anyway). Does that attention convert to sexual interest then convert to rape? The fact that most rapists know their victims puts the kibosh on that logic.
|
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.
|
On April 05 2011 05:55 Fission wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:The whole situation reminds me of this hilarious piece from the inimitable Ann Coulter during the infamous Duke lacrosse scandal (entitled "Lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas" -- its an enjoyable read...even if you are a liberal): Show nested quote +However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.
Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money. Another analogy: In any case, if I leave my laptop out in the open, and someone steals it, that doesn't absolve the thief, but it does mean I showed poor judgment in my actions. The issues of "guilt" and "poor judgment" are entirely separate, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist. In any case, its a sad day when saying blindingly obvious things is condemned so harshly. Maybe the police officer should have said "if you aren't a prostitute, you decrease your chances of getting murdered by a serial killer greatly", or "getting drunk and getting in stranger's cars elevates your chances of getting raped" -- same point, far better less "controversial". Of course, getting drunk or being a prostitute or making any number of stupid decisions may be your right (alright, only in Nevada for the second one), but that doesn't mean its a good decision. And I think this is what the police officer was trying to get at. This kind of logic is frowned upon in our society today. You'd be hard pressed to find an intelligent individual that will claim the victim is in any way responsible for the crime, but to suggest a casual relationship between poor judgement and undesirable outcomes is to incite anger. If I get assaulted, am I guilty of assault? Of course not, only the assaulter can be guilty of the crime or be responsible for the assaulting action. That doesn't mean that I'm not an idiot for going into the bronx with a huge sign saying that "I dislike black people". Why is it not acceptable for somebody to tell me, "Nick, you're an idiot for doing what you did. I'm sorry you got hurt, but you're still an idiot. You should avoid going into the bronx and insulting people in the future, it will decrease your chances of getting assaulted." Why is this not ok?
It is not ok because you give up the laws and rights we have fighted for. I recon black people who advocated equal rights had a harder time than those who didnt. I recon people who hid jews in the second world war had harder times than those who didnt. Yet we are proud they did.
|
Then comes the issue of if one is responsible for being raped? I don't know? There are a lot of cases where you incite crimes against you in some way. Can you say to someone who's expensive car is stolen 'Well, don't get a nice Porsche like that then and don't display it with pride everywhere!', can you say to Blizzard when their games are pirated, 'Well, don't make such damned good games then!'?
I think that when people make claims like this, they are missing the point. They're basically saying "there is a risk that something bad will happen to you if you do X, therefore X is bad." And if something bad happens to you AFTER you do X, or because you are X and something bad happens to you, they will assume it is because of X. What these critics should be saying is that if you decide to dress provocatively/buy a nice car in a bad neighborhood etc., you should be more aware of the risks and manage them appropriately. But as it stands, putting blame on people for consequences related to their personal choices (which don't negatively affect others) is retarded.
|
i find this op pretty offensive
"It seems like you're almost giving credit to the concept that dressing a certain way legitimizes the assaults by arguing that it shouldn't. " < -- says it well
if there was a 100% causal relationship between dressing revealingly and being raped, it's still not ok in 100% of the cases. And 100% of those people should dress however the fuck they want.
|
On April 05 2011 06:03 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:39 419 wrote:
Obviously if brothels were legal it would be easier for prostitutes to be safe and not be murdered, etc., since they wouldn't have to set up shop in crime-ridden areas and get in cars with strangers, since they could just have sex in the brothel.
That's completely besides the point that being a prostitute is currently dangerous.
It's like trying to argue that doing heroin isn't dangerous, because it's only the impurities, hanging out with drug dealers and possible being arrested that make it so. Well, maybe you're right, but that's what doing heroin entails for almost everyone who does it. So the optimal solution would be to remove the negative social systems that result in prostitution, heroin and provocative dress being dangerous, right?
I don't know, that's a difficult and complicated question. Especially since it's not clear that prostitution or illicit drugs are so benign. In any case, I'm not trying to make any argument about those things, I was merely pointing out that you were completely missing the point and that your argument was invalid.
I think it would be naive and do a disservice to people to not teach them about the actual dangers of illicit drug use and becoming a prostitute. Even if neither is inherently dangerous, they are dangerous merely due to being illegal, and ignoring this doesn't help anyone.
|
The first thing we have to make clear is that sex is something that will make our herritage to go on and that is in our genes, it doesn´t matter if you are a boy or a girl... And that is most of what our lifes circle about...
Girls want to look sexy because that will probably make that they will meet a better guy that they probably wouldnt have met if they where somewhat more shabby...
This comes downs to guys looks for a girl that has the looks more then girls... Yes girls say that they want someone that is goodlooking and everything but girls doesnt care that much about looks when it comes down to it...
How many good looking girls have you seen with ugly guys ? and how many ugly girls have u seen with good looking guys ?
Rape is so fucking ugly and i hate it... But if you have read the book sperm wars by Robin Baker, you realize why many of the rapes happens... Its all in our genes and if you cant reproduce some people will take matters in theyr own hands and rape...
I think the most important thing in life is to reproduce and i am not defending the rapers no way... I think if we give the children a good childhood we will not see any rapists because they will feel good and dont need to reproduce through the wrong way!
|
Lol was reading the comments and some of them are surprisingly intelligent, not the kind of stuff you'd expect to find on internet news comments.
Posted by: Tally9
February 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM
I'm going to try shoplifting something. When I get caught I'll say "But it's not my fault! The product was packaged and marketed to make me want it so badly I had to!"
Pretty much sums it up.
|
People have a right to do what they want, without fear of being harmed, as long as they are not harming anyone.
It was my understanding that the majority of rapes happen from someone that the women knows and its done for the feeling of 'power' and not because of pleasure. Dressing provocatively doesn't have a one to one correlation with rape.
|
It seems people keep repeating the same arguments over and over without listening to the other side. LOOK!! I agree with you. Rape is the fault of the attacker only. Nobody else. Nobody is saying that here but one side of the argument seems to think we are. We are not. We are simply saying that by doing certain things, acting a certain way, saying certain things, or doing certain things for a living could raise the likelihood of a sexual attack. Should you be able to do whatever you want, act however you want, say whatever you want, and do whatever you want for a living? Hell yes. You SHOULD be able to. But this is reality. And in reality sometime certain things carry certain risks. It doesn't mean that it is your fault. That is not in any way, shape, or form what anybody that I've read in this thread so far is trying to say.
|
On April 05 2011 06:25 Magic_Mike wrote:
It seems people keep repeating the same arguments over and over without listening to the other side. LOOK!! I agree with you. Rape is the fault of the attacker only. Nobody else. Nobody is saying that here but one side of the argument seems to think we are. We are not. We are simply saying that by doing certain things, acting a certain way, saying certain things, or doing certain things for a living could raise the likelihood of a sexual attack. Should you be able to do whatever you want, act however you want, say whatever you want, and do whatever you want for a living? Hell yes. You SHOULD be able to. But this is reality. And in reality sometime certain things carry certain risks. It doesn't mean that it is your fault. That is not in any way, shape, or form what anybody that I've read in this thread so far is trying to say.
No, you still don't get it. You're suggesting that people change their behaviour (that you admit they are entitled to) as if this is their responsibility to manage their risk. You can avoid calling this their "fault" but you are still making it their responsibility. It is not.
|
"if it incites rape"
as if men are all automatons, unable to make judgement calls or control their actions, only responding to stimulus? And therefore it's the women's fault?
Anyone who thinks this way should be raped. If you didn't want to be anally violated you shouldn't have had an ass as part of your body!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
