|
Here goes. I worked for a domestic violence shelter as an intake counselor, working directly with clients which are, quite often, victims of rape. I also worked at a women's center, providing legal services and referrals to the LGBTQ population, as well as victims of rape. Often, I would be the first person to approached by the victims for help or advice, with several occasions I can recall where the crime occurred the same day. As a result of this work, I had to know the official statistics that reached beyond the limited population I served.
First, I'm happy to see the number of people in this thread that understand how victim blaming in any way (in cases of rape) not only enables rapists, but romanticizes the notion, in however small an extent, that rape is defensible or excusable in ANY way. Also, what I say here applies to male victims as well, as rape is not an issue limited by gender or sexuality, and I have had a large number of male clients.
Second, I'm going to start addressing issues and posts in this thread. Obviously I can't get them all.
If there is one you would like me to answer, please ask.
On April 05 2011 04:36 checo wrote:
I think this data you guys are providing are kinda missleading. Some of you say dressing doesn't matter at all because most of the rapes hapend in the house of the victim or in the house of the criminal(a trust must been there for someone to enter or let enter in their home)
But thats only the data you get from the reported rapes that are way less than what is really hapening out there, yea its all especulation, but then again how do they decide if the victim was or not dress in a revealing way?
It's not speculation. The only thing underreported is the number of rapes. "Causes," or false justifications for rape, remain consistent across cases that go immediately reported and cases that don't. As stated before (statistics are available earlier in the thread), the vast majority of rapes occur in the home, and the assailant is either a friend or family member. In all my time at both the shelter and the women's center, I have had only two cases (I've had many more cases than two) where women were raped by someone they just met. Only one where a woman was raped in public at night, and even then, it was a roommate that knew where she was going.
On April 05 2011 04:35 meeyoop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:25 Torte de Lini wrote:On April 05 2011 04:23 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
In the article: "Just like sexual assault is not about appearance."
That made me lol, I'm 100% sure appearance has some relevance to it. No one is going to sexually assault a 400 pound gorilla of a women as opposed to someone more attractive. Anyways I agree with the officer, I'm not saying that it's the sole reason for rape because it isn't but, stop dressing like damn sluts, it doesn't help matters at all. That's a misconception, women are often raped based on their status, their relationship with the rapist and their position socially and/or in the workplace. It's almost never about looks and the incite such an idea is actually perpetuating the "blaming the victim" card. Often times, men who rape are attracted and aroused by the idea of submission, control and domination of the woman and not by her attire, looks or weight. They get even more excited when they resist or even eventually submit. Blaming the victim is enabling rapists. This is similar to allowing police officers to entice crimes from citizens. EVERYONE LISTEN TO THIS GUY. You have hit the nail on the head here, Torte. Whatever a rape survivor is wearing at the time has fuck all to do with the rapist's actions. To suggest otherwise is to blame the victim. Please put the focus on ending the kind of thinking that makes rapists think that they are allowed to victimize others, and not on the victims who did NOTHING AT ALL to provoke an attack. JFC, guys, this is the reason why so many rapes go unreported. Even the people who are supposed to be supporting victims the most are going to say things like "Well, what were you wearing?" 
Exactly this. When the issue of clothing is brought up, I bring up this case. The school of thought that this officer, judge, and millions of people around the world adhere to allows cases like this to be judged in this way.
On April 05 2011 04:09 travis wrote:wow im not gonna bother anymore, some things are just common fucking sense. why do you even think guys rape women in the first place. Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:58 Torte de Lini wrote:On April 05 2011 03:56 Gene wrote:On April 05 2011 03:55 Mastermind wrote:On April 05 2011 03:43 Zorkmid wrote: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. I don't really agree with either of these statements. 1. I can't see how any level of horniness could bring on rape. 2. A girl that dresses like a slut may get more attention, but that's about all. 1. What other reason would someone rape for? power Bingo, it's a question of power, and not sexual restraint. riiight. it might be, sometimes, but ... jesus, uthink that even accounts for the majority of rapes? wtf?
Travis, throughout this thread you have been 100% dead wrong. It does, as plainly as I may state it, account for the vast majority of rapes. Also, cases where women are raped by friends or family members (which again, accounts for the vast majority of rapes,) revolve entirely around exerting power and control over someone that cannot successfully fight back. Rape has always been motivated by power and control, which are both synonymous with forced gratification. Your stance here is erroneous because it avoids the fact that regardless of circumstances, the assailant, male or female, is entirely to blame. Blaming the clothes is blaming the victim, and excuses the criminal.
Furthermore, consent is not situational. A man or a woman does not even need to say no. If no consent is given, and intercourse occurs anyway, it's rape. Which brings me to this poster.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote:
I believe the vast majority of police officers are total idiots, so arguing about a statement they made, whether right or wrong, is laughable.
But for the sake of argument, i'm gonna assume his statement "women shouldn't dress like such sluts and they complain about being raped" stems from his inner frustrations. His history of violence (natural from the profession he chose) coupled with his mediocre IQ and the fact that his primal animalistic brain takes priority over this intelligent side, leads me to believe he actually lusts deep down to "force his way" upon some hot, slutty girls he would normally never have acces to, being the lowly person that he is in society.
What do i think about this particular subject? While i don't approve of rape, some sluts simply have it coming for them sometimes. Let's not glorify women and say they are pure, innocent creatures who deserve only affection. I'm sure many of these girls, if they were put in a position of power and raw strength compared to men, they would abuse the hell out of us.
tl;dr skip to the story below
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?
Yes. You raped a woman who had no way of giving consent. Were you living in the state of California, and had I personally known you had done this, I would be obligated by law to report you to the police, and I would fully support them in a court to put you behind bars for a very long time. I had a girlfriend once that smoked a lot of pot when she was younger, and had this exact rape inflicted upon her. Whenever a movie advertisement, show, or situation (like reading a post like this) reminded her of that abuse, I sat up with her late into the night as she cried herself to exhaustion. She was the strongest personally I had ever met.
This forum is not an appropriate platform for me to really say what I think of people like you. It's not a gray area. It's not ok because she dated you after. It's disgusting and horrible.
To other posters, please feel free to ask questions if you have them.
|
IMO the TRUE cause of rape is this.
We men are not taught what to do, what to say, what not to do, and what not to say, when approaching a woman we're interested in.
Stop for a second. I'm not saying we're complete anti-social morons. What I AM SAYING is, took a look around you, the friends you have who never seem to have issues finding girlfriends or good social groups who have a nice mix of boy/girl ratio.
Then take a look at rapist profiles and when you look at them, there's a very big difference between a man who's learned all the necessary keys to success when it comes to good social interaction. My point is this. Not everyone has a huge group of friends to associate themselves with and thus have tons of social interaction with girls. Not everyone is even that social by nature, but still crave female companionship all the same.
Seriously this whole rape thing is so completely unnecessary if there was just something out there, some kinda mandatory course for all men who gives them a huge life "how-to" guide to successfully interacting with women. Am I talking about becoming some kind of player, NO way. Notice how so many of these players are just all about keeping score and having this vengeful feeling in their heart, lying and manipulating as many women as they can, and justifying their dirty deeds, in the end only making those worse for everyone concerned.
Essential but difficult skills to master for the regular guy who doesn't have very many friends:
- What to say, how to start a conversation, but most importantly what not to say or do
- Importance of keeping up with current events and news around him
- Always learning and remembering, filing away cool things for future reference
- Learning to tell the difference between feigned interest and real interest(tough as hell)
- Your resources are valuable, knowing when to conserve versus splurging on a girl
This list can go on forever but my take is, when someone is sexually frustrated but has no way to release those urges, has high aggression, lacking all the above skills, it's a racecar in the red, ready to blow. No this was not meant to sound funny, I am dead serious.
|
On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It is their responsibility to manage their risk. This isn't a world where people can do whatever they want with no consequences. There are fucked up people out there. People who can and will hurt you for particular types of behavior. I'm not saying to cover yourself up from head to toe at all times and constantly have a body guard at all times. All I'm saying is that it does indeed increase the risk and you would be wise to be aware of that. An example.....You live in a war torn country and are a young twenty something. For whatever reason, you have no choice but to live in this area. Something holds you to this location that is not your fault at all. You are that if you go out at night, you are more likely to be attacked. For whatever reason one night you find yourself out late and need to get home. The sun is coming down and it will be dark before you get home. Was it your fault this happened. No. Maybe you were booted from your own house for a time or some other weird circumstance. Anyway, on your way home you are kidnapped. Again not your fault. You had no choice but to go out at night but still the attack happened. At the same time, you could go through the night and have no worries whatsoever. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an increased risk in going out at night. The attack was still the fault of the people who attacked you.
|
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape? Not a good question. It not only answers itself (no), but the assumption is too ridiculous to swallow.
I think it is important to clear up the meaning of "fault". Sex offenders bear overwhelming responsibility for the harm they caused to their victims. But after that point, there is a dispute in this thread regarding the significance of the victims' dress.
On April 05 2011 06:25 Magic_Mike wrote:
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.
|
On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How the hell is it not peoples' own responsibility to manage their risk? Obviously I'm sympathetic toward rape victims and I would never blame them, but not informing people of risks that their behavior entails and/or people completely ignoring that information is immature at best.
For example, one of my good friends was raped while traveling in a foreign country when she was 19 after accepting an offer from someone who seemed friendly to sleep in his house (it was late and all the hostels and things were closed or something). I don't blame her or say that it was her fault, but to say that she didn't increase her likelihood of being raped by doing what she did is flat out incorrect.
In what possible way is it beneficial to not acknowledge this fact? If I have daughters in the future traveling alone, should I just tell them "Yes it is okay to hitchhike, stay at strangers' houses, etc?" No, I'm going to inform them of the risks. I'm also going to sympathize with them and help them through any difficulties they experience, but teaching them to do whatever they want and not manage their risk is so childish.
|
On April 05 2011 06:44 Magic_Mike wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote: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. It is their responsibility to manage their risk. This isn't a world where people can do whatever they want with no consequences. There are fucked up people out there. People who can and will hurt you for particular types of behavior. I'm not saying to cover yourself up from head to toe at all times and constantly have a body guard at all times. All I'm saying is that it does indeed increase the risk and you would be wise to be aware of that. An example.....You live in a war torn country and are a young twenty something. For whatever reason, you have no choice but to live in this area. Something holds you to this location that is not your fault at all. You are that if you go out at night, you are more likely to be attacked. For whatever reason one night you find yourself out late and need to get home. The sun is coming down and it will be dark before you get home. Was it your fault this happened. No. Maybe you were booted from your own house for a time or some other weird circumstance. Anyway, on your way home you are kidnapped. Again not your fault. You had no choice but to go out at night but still the attack happened. At the same time, you could go through the night and have no worries whatsoever. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an increased risk in going out at night. The attack was still the fault of the people who attacked you.
Nope, not your responsibility. Your burden of suffering, but not your responsibility. They are not the same thing.
|
On April 05 2011 06:46 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote: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. How the hell is it not peoples' own responsibility to manage their risk? Obviously I'm sympathetic toward rape victims and I would never blame them, but not informing people of risks that their behavior entails and/or people completely ignoring that information is immature at best. For example, one of my good friends was raped while traveling in a foreign country when she was 19 after accepting an offer from someone who seemed friendly to sleep in his house (it was late and all the hostels and things were closed or something). I don't blame her or say that it was her fault, but to say that she didn't increase her likelihood of being raped by doing what she did is flat out incorrect. In what possible way is it beneficial to not acknowledge this fact? If I have daughters in the future traveling alone, should I just tell them "Yes it is okay to hitchhike, stay at strangers' houses, etc?" No, I'm going to inform them of the risks. I'm also going to sympathize with them and help them through any difficulties they experience, but teaching them to do whatever they want and not manage their risk is so childish.
Amen
|
So a marine is over in a foreign country, gets taken POW style and torturted. Raped even, by men with guns. raped by the guns, that is.
Whatever, his fault. he forgot to manage his risk
Or is the argument that is comes with the territory
Or maybe he shouldn't feel he was violated because it was a forseeable outcome of being outside the united states
|
On April 05 2011 06:50 Gene wrote:
So a marine is over in a foreign country, gets kidnaped and torturted. Raped even, by men with guns. raped by the guns, that is.
Whatever, his fault. he forgot to manage his risk
I'd like to be civil, but you're a fucking idiot. Stop attacking strawmen and shut the hell up.
|
k i was born there and this is just weird haha
but the judge's decision is quite discriminatory -.-
|
are you kidding? people are legitimately finding fault with a woman dressing in a particular way essentially saying it provokes rape. It was the best analogy I could draw, and I believe it's pretty damn analogous.
Maybe not the best i could have come up with, but i felt it sufficient. and lastly, i wasn't attacking your argument at all, just stealing your choice of words. I liked it.
|
On April 05 2011 06:21 Half wrote: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. Show nested quote +
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.
No one is arguing FOR rape. I don't think anyone is that crazy. I also doubt any rapist would ever use such an argument.
I feel bad for everyone involved in this situation. The victim obviously, because dressing or acting in any way does not merit rape; and the officer, because I think his comment wasn't that off and I feel he just expressed himself badly... (dressing provocatively most likely has a small correlation with victims in SOME cases where a rapist picks a random girl over a girl he knows where it wouldn't matter how she dressed because it wasn't his motivation for his actions).
And finally, for the people who felt the need to make this event happen. It's OK to be offended by the officer's comment, I can sympathize with that. But to hold this protest to say you're proud to be slutty and etc etc, what point does it prove? That you can dress however you want? Well good, you can already do that. But people are allowed to have a different opinion, for example respecting a well dressed woman more than a one wearing a revealing outfit. People are judgmental; it happens millions of times every day that people judge others based on how they are dressed or look overall. Does that really offend you? Or is it just because this officer said it out loud?
I really dislike this protest. It in NO WAY does anything to prevent rape or punish the officer. It doesn't raise awareness of help any potential victims. I just don't get it. I would support them if they did something more useful to raise awareness instead.
|
On April 05 2011 06:46 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote: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. How the hell is it not peoples' own responsibility to manage their risk? Obviously I'm sympathetic toward rape victims and I would never blame them, but not informing people of risks that their behavior entails and/or people completely ignoring that information is immature at best. For example, one of my good friends was raped while traveling in a foreign country when she was 19 after accepting an offer from someone who seemed friendly to sleep in his house (it was late and all the hostels and things were closed or something). I don't blame her or say that it was her fault, but to say that she didn't increase her likelihood of being raped by doing what she did is flat out incorrect. In what possible way is it beneficial to not acknowledge this fact? If I have daughters in the future traveling alone, should I just tell them "Yes it is okay to hitchhike, stay at strangers' houses, etc?" No, I'm going to inform them of the risks. I'm also going to sympathize with them and help them through any difficulties they experience, but teaching them to do whatever they want and not manage their risk is so childish.
Informing people of risks and declaring that they are responsible are two different things. Surely, people can be informed (though I have seen little evidence to support this "info"), but that hardly makes them responsible. Situation 1: Person gets raped in their bedroom. Situation 2: Person gets raped after running through the worst neighbourhood in town naked. Same responsibility = 0.
|
On April 05 2011 06:54 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:46 PJA wrote:On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote: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. How the hell is it not peoples' own responsibility to manage their risk? Obviously I'm sympathetic toward rape victims and I would never blame them, but not informing people of risks that their behavior entails and/or people completely ignoring that information is immature at best. For example, one of my good friends was raped while traveling in a foreign country when she was 19 after accepting an offer from someone who seemed friendly to sleep in his house (it was late and all the hostels and things were closed or something). I don't blame her or say that it was her fault, but to say that she didn't increase her likelihood of being raped by doing what she did is flat out incorrect. In what possible way is it beneficial to not acknowledge this fact? If I have daughters in the future traveling alone, should I just tell them "Yes it is okay to hitchhike, stay at strangers' houses, etc?" No, I'm going to inform them of the risks. I'm also going to sympathize with them and help them through any difficulties they experience, but teaching them to do whatever they want and not manage their risk is so childish. Informing people of risks and declaring that they are responsible are two different things. Surely, people can be informed (though I have seen little evidence to support this "info"), but that hardly makes them responsible. Situation 1: Person gets raped in their bedroom. Situation 2: Person gets raped after running through the worst neighbourhood in town naked. Same responsibility = 0.
The latter person is clearly not the person I want handling my stock portfolio.
Just saying.
|
On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't think people are 'not getting it.' It's apparently just a difference in philosophical opinion regarding the post earlier about people who harbored jews knowing it was at great risk to them(among other examples he gave).
If you have a best friend who is black and lived in the early 1900s, would you tell this friend of yours to go into a KKK meeting and ask them if he can be allowed to inform them of the benefits of dropping their racially charged hatred? I would hope you would tell your friend that's a horrible idea because he will fucking die. Even MLK himself didn't do anything like that(although he obviously did put himself in danger).
Breaking down the barrier of society to allow people to wear whatever they want(which may never actually happen...) doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to people recognizing that AT CURRENT TIMES, wearing whatever you want may not be the best thing to do.
I also think what this discussion has turned into is actually completely counterproductive to the case it originated from. Everyone(I would hope) arguing these 2 points would find a rapist guilty and want the fullest charges possible regardless of the attire of the victim, and that is something that is possible to do while at the same time telling people to make rational decisions that may help them not end up on the stand being cross examined by the defense lawyer in a rape case.
|
Hum thought this would be a tick but nope this is exactly what it sounds like in the title of the thread.
On rape/sexual assault per to how a person dresses
When a person dresses up they have something in mind maybe it is a little attention a sense of pride in ones own body or place in the world. To be numb about assault of any kind just due to goading or any-sort is well wrong, it is a violation of one self as the person being assaulted is being ignored as a person. Which is why if i annoy the hell out of my neighbors they can't come over and kick my face in and expect no punishment. On the other hand i was being a dick so that is taken into account but i am not ignored as a person just for that. And an added point is that if i was annoying a person for the sake of annoying them that is my intention if i dress provocatively in order to feel sexual and desired my desire is not necessarily sex but rather the feeling of being desired, be that of a potential sexual partner or just to be admired physically. In both those cases this is not directed at the other person doing the assault, as it would be if i was shouting at them all day long. Dress in itself is not prediction of sexual encounters with any one person, there is more to presentation then just clothing.
Faculty and students at the university had been on guard since a wave of sexual assaults on the campus in 2008. But the police officers' visit in January, part of a community awareness initiative, was overshadowed by the constable's widely reported remarks.
Seems college sexual assault is still as high as ever. In the US the DOJ assigns the value to be about 20% or 1 in 5 which is higher then the nationally reported avg. Most cases are predatory cases not just omfg i must have you but a rather long drawn out process working to the assult, where it's the person going to an event meeting someone the person usually drugging them usually with alcohol then assaulting later on most common among 1st and 2nd year students as victims.
I think of the problem of a rather systemic change in culture about dating, the trend over the years is people don't look for people to date and stay with in college as much as it used to be but what is on the rise is one night stands or just a sexual relationship which leads people to take advantage of that as an excuse for actions of questionable moralities.
|
On April 05 2011 06:57 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:32 ToxNub wrote: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. I don't think people are 'not getting it.' It's apparently just a difference in philosophical opinion regarding the post earlier about people who harbored jews knowing it was at great risk to them(among other examples he gave). If you have a best friend who is black and lived in the early 1900s, would you tell this friend of yours to go into a KKK meeting and ask them if he can be allowed to inform them of the benefits of dropping their racially charged hatred? I would hope you would tell your friend that's a horrible idea because he will fucking die. Even MLK himself didn't do anything like that(although he obviously did put himself in danger). Breaking down the barrier of society to allow people to wear whatever they want(which may never actually happen...) doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to people recognizing that AT CURRENT TIMES, wearing whatever you want may not be the best thing to do. I also think what this discussion has turned into is actually completely counterproductive to the case it originated from. Everyone(I would hope) arguing these 2 points would find a rapist guilty and want the fullest charges possible regardless of the attire of the victim, and that is something that is possible to do while at the same time telling people to make rational decisions that may help them not end up on the stand being cross examined by the defense lawyer in a rape case.
I still can't agree. Would I tell my black friend to do that. No. Would he be entitled to do it if he so chose? Yes. Is it his responsibility to avoid being killed by racial prejudice? No. Is it in his best interests to not go? Yes. But again, burden of suffering != responsibility.
You claim that everyone more or less espouses your view, but that is provably false. Just look at the rapist that quoted on the last page. People absolutely do not "get" the subtleties of this issue, and use those tiny misconceptions to justify themselves as NOT BEING RAPISTS. That's why it's pretty fucking important that I don't just go "whatever, close enough" and roll over.
Moreover, living in fear is bullshit. If women are actually better off dressing less revealingly, then that is a sure sign that something must be done. It is not their responsbility. It is our responsibility to guarantee them the ability to dress however they like. The moment you tell them to avoid risks is the moment you move the burden from society onto them, and that is not where it belongs. I could say americans should have never "provoked" 9/11, and that you should manage your "risks" by all converting to Islam, but some of us would rather be free. Same shit.
|
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.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about rape. Your very first thought, "a horny guy is more likely to rape someone," belies this misunderstanding.
Let me explain it by analogy.
Consensual sex is like a game. Maybe after work, you get together with your friends to shoot some hoops or play football or bowling or whatever. A fun time is had by all. If some of them don't feel like it that day, or have prior engagements, nothing is made of it and they'll be back next time.
But perhaps the best analogy is 1v1 Starcraft. You get together with one of your friends and say, "let's play some Starcraft." You build some Zerglings, do a little macro, do a little micro, and a fun time is had by all. Maybe you're talking to each other on Skype or whatever, or maybe you're even in the same room, getting down with a little LAN action.
Ooh, kinky!
Now, imagine yourself being really, really hard-up for some Starcraft action. You really want some Starcraft. And you know someone who plays, but they say that they're not interested.
If consensual sex is like playing 1v1 with a friend, rape is like breaking into someone's house, tying them to the chair, booting up SC on their machine, and holding a knife to their throat to force them to 1v1 with you.
Consider that situation. You're holding a knife to them. That means you now need to play SC one-handed; you won't exactly be putting on the best performance. Also, you have to sit very awkwardly, holding a knife to someone while playing SC on a machine right next to theirs.
Your opponent doesn't even want to be there. They're not exactly going to be playing like oGsMC, even if they actually are oGsMC. Not to mention, you have to pay attention to what your opponent is physically doing. Remember: at this point, they would like nothing better than to slip their bonds, wrestle that knife away from you, and leave you lying in a pool of your own blood.
So what does this mean? It means that if you're really hard-up for some Starcraft action, you don't do this! You won't be able to play SC well, and neither will your opponent. In terms of game quality, you'd be lower-mid Bronze, regardless of how good you could actually play. You'd have more fun doing laddering with strangers on Battle.Net. Or maybe paying someone to play Starcraft with you.
Therefore, if someone does this, it wouldn't specifically be about the Starcraft. But look at the situation: you've got someone tied up and forced to do something that they don't want to do. If you were interested in a good game of Starcraft, this would be a stupid idea. But if you got your jollies off by controlling what another person does whenever you want, then this is exactly the kind of thing you might do. The Starcraft is just an excuse, the instrument of the control.
Now replace "Starcraft" with "intercourse". That's what rape is. It's not about the sex; it's about the control and power. Rape is the Platonic ideal of misogyny, the pure, distilled form: your body belongs to me, and you will make yourself available to me whenever I so desire whether you like it or not.
Dressing provocatively is only conducive to rape if the rapist has a misogynistic mindset that says that women should not dress that way, and that he is now punishing you for doing so. And while that is something that certain rapists feel, it's far from the standard mode of thought of a rapist.
Rape is not about being horny, in the sense that most people get horny. Rape is not about sexual gratification; it's about power gratification via forced sex.
|
United States41942 Posts
A lot of people seem to be confusing responsibility for an event with random actions that indirectly allow it to happen. Obviously if you're sitting in a room by yourself with the door locked then you can't get raped. From that standpoint any voluntary interaction with another human is a deliberate choice to massively increase your chance of getting raped. By choosing to leave that room you have enabled the rapist and therefore it is a cause of the rape. That does not however make you in any way responsible for it, the blame is still 100% on him because he chose to do it. The "she was asking for it" defence is exploits the confusion between cause and responsibility but you can apply the same defence to anything because the victim will always have enabled the crime through some action.
|
On April 05 2011 07:33 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +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. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about rape. Your very first thought, "a horny guy is more likely to rape someone," belies this misunderstanding. Let me explain it by analogy. Consensual sex is like a game. Maybe after work, you get together with your friends to shoot some hoops or play football or bowling or whatever. A fun time is had by all. If some of them don't feel like it that day, or have prior engagements, nothing is made of it and they'll be back next time. But perhaps the best analogy is 1v1 Starcraft. You get together with one of your friends and say, "let's play some Starcraft." You build some Zerglings, do a little macro, do a little micro, and a fun time is had by all. Maybe you're talking to each other on Skype or whatever, or maybe you're even in the same room, getting down with a little LAN action. Ooh, kinky! Now, imagine yourself being really, really hard-up for some Starcraft action. You really want some Starcraft. And you know someone who plays, but they say that they're not interested. If consensual sex is like playing 1v1 with a friend, rape is like breaking into someone's house, tying them to the chair, booting up SC on their machine, and holding a knife to their throat to force them to 1v1 with you. Consider that situation. You're holding a knife to them. That means you now need to play SC one-handed; you won't exactly be putting on the best performance. Also, you have to sit very awkwardly, holding a knife to someone while playing SC on a machine right next to theirs. Your opponent doesn't even want to be there. They're not exactly going to be playing like oGsMC, even if they actually are oGsMC. Not to mention, you have to pay attention to what your opponent is physically doing. Remember: at this point, they would like nothing better than to slip their bonds, wrestle that knife away from you, and leave you lying in a pool of your own blood. So what does this mean? It means that if you're really hard-up for some Starcraft action, you don't do this! You won't be able to play SC well, and neither will your opponent. In terms of game quality, you'd be lower-mid Bronze, regardless of how good you could actually play. You'd have more fun doing laddering with strangers on Battle.Net. Or maybe paying someone to play Starcraft with you. Therefore, if someone does this, it wouldn't specifically be about the Starcraft. But look at the situation: you've got someone tied up and forced to do something that they don't want to do. If you were interested in a good game of Starcraft, this would be a stupid idea. But if you got your jollies off by controlling what another person does whenever you want, then this is exactly the kind of thing you might do. The Starcraft is just an excuse, the instrument of the control. Now replace "Starcraft" with "intercourse". That's what rape is. It's not about the sex; it's about the control and power. Rape is the Platonic ideal of misogyny, the pure, distilled form: your body belongs to me, and you will make yourself available to me whenever I so desire whether you like it or not. Dressing provocatively is only conducive to rape if the rapist has a misogynistic mindset that says that women should not dress that way, and that he is now punishing you for doing so. And while that is something that certain rapists feel, it's far from the standard mode of thought of a rapist. Rape is not about being horny, in the sense that most people get horny. Rape is not about sexual gratification; it's about power gratification via forced sex.
There is a huge fallacy in the correlation between your analogy and your conclusion. (coupled with the fact that the aggressor couldn't play Starcraft while holding a knife to the victim's throat; unless the aggressor is Goro from mortal kombat) :
In your analogy, the aggressor has a huge sudden URGE to play Starcraft. He is willing to do anything, even abuse another person to play with him, so that he can satisfy that URGE, or DESIRE. How is this in any way related to getting power gratification, as stated in your conclusion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
