|
There are TWO type of rape situation.
One: Date rape victims, the girls that go to parties/bars and get drugged by guys and wake up in the morning in some stranger's place or outside on the street. This type of rape is the one that contains the factor of sluttiness because guys are "raping" purely on sexual urges.
Second: the calculating type, the one that actually go out and study the victim before making a move, that type usually contains little to minimum of "slut factors" involved.
So in the discussion, it would be nice to include which type are we discussing.
But to be honest, girls that dresses up provocatively and go to bars raises at least twice the chance of getting raped than those who wear normal jeans/sweat.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On April 05 2011 09:17 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:00 Redmark wrote:On April 05 2011 08:49 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 05 2011 08:35 419 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Come on, it's basic freedom. How can some people suggest that victims should not have dressed "slutty"... Alright, let me generalize your argument. The fact that something is a right invalidates all criticism of said thing. Just because reproducing the stunts in Jackass is your First Amendment right doesn't mean that its morally wrong to advise against doing such. Replace "stunts" with "having unprotected sex", "insulting strangers on the street", "not doing your homework", "playing with matches", etc. Same point. Once a crime happened, *why* the victim has been involved is irrelevant. In the eyes of the prosecutor, yes. In the eyes of citizens looking to protect themselves, no. This thread is not about "how to avoid getting raped". It's around the affirmation : "are people responsible for their own likelihood of being raped". Yes, but society is also responsible for making the choice less necessary to begin with. what choice are you talking about ? the choice to rape ? is it necessary ??? Show nested quote +
It might be the case that dressing promiscuously raises the risk of being raped, and in that case dressing promiscuously isn't really a good idea. The point is though that this shouldn't be the case, which is I believe what these women are saying.".
you are saying : "There will always be rapes... Victims should learn to not to incite them." This is ridiculous. Try with murder : "There will always be murder... Victims should learn to not to incite them."
Can you just answer the 8 questions I posed in my post? They are all yes/no so it shouldn't take long. The questions also illustrate the difference between assigning guilt and correlative fact.
It'd be more effective than torching strawmen, you know.
|
While it may be possible that some rapists are more likely to rape someone wearing slutty clothing, in fact it may be fairly likely, I think that psychology leads us to the conclusion that there are other more important factors. Many rapists have sexual dysfunctions. A naked woman for example might have little to no affect on a rapist, whereas a woman on the receiving end of violence or bondage would get his blood flowing.
When the average person on TL.net sees a hot girl dressing provocatively, this will most likely make them horny. But the average person is nothing like your typical rapist. The average person would likely be disgusted by the act of rape, the violence, the crying, and all the blood. But this is what gets the rapist off. It's not the sex itself, and it's not necessarily the girls hot body, either. I think there are definitely far more important things that should be on your radar than the way you dress if you want to avoid being raped. Such as traveling in groups at night, carrying yourself with confidence, and being careful who you drink with.
|
On April 05 2011 09:38 Xiphos wrote:
There are TWO type of rape situation.
One: Date rape victims, the girls that go to parties/bars and get drugged by guys and wake up in the morning in some stranger's place or outside on the street. This type of rape is the one that contains the factor of sluttiness because guys are "raping" purely on sexual urges.
Second: the calculating type, the one that actually go out and study the victim before making a move, that type usually contains little to minimum of "slut factors" involved.
So in the discussion, it would be nice to include which type are we discussing.
But to be honest, girls that dresses up provocatively and go to bars raises at least twice the chance of getting raped than those who wear normal jeans/sweat.
This. There is a big distinction between the two.
Here's a thought experiment. Say you really don't like black people. You wear a shirt saying i hate n*ggers. A group of black people see you and beat the shit out of you. A few people start blaming you for inciting the crime. You pull out the freedom of speech card and how you should be able to express your opinion without fear of physical harm.
EDIT: imagine this happened in Southern USA like 200 years ago.
|
Gotta say I am loving the shirts they made to support this event..
"We've Had Enough"
You're not fooling anybody sluts, we all know you never get enough, that's why you keep coming back for more dick.
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 05 2011 04:51 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 04:49 PanN wrote:
So someone says rape is about power.
Someone else says rape is about just wanting to fuck that person.
Argue argue argue argue argue, you're making me yawn. The correct answer would be everyone is different, every rapist is different, every rapist will have different motives. It's concurred that the primary reason is power.
But that doesnt even matter!
Simplification 4 scenarios (only regarding attractiveness & power):
1. It's about power, attractiveness does matter
2. It's about power, attractiveness doesnt matter.
3. It's not about power, attractiveness does matter.
4. It's not about power, attractiveness doesnt matter.
It's just conditional probability.
You say: "Given that it's not about attractiveness, it's more about power".
But we still now nothing about "Given it's not about power, it's [not] about attractiveness".
I mean let me make up a statistic (if you can provide one that would be better of course):
"90% of all rapes are about power".
"If it's about power, 90% of rapes are because of attractiveness."
"If it's not about power, 90% of rapes are because of attractiveness."
Sure, your statement would still be true but it doesnt even concern attractiveness.
Of course this simplicifaction disregards a lot of other factors ("does the victim know the rapist", "is anyone / both drunk", ...). But just saying "It's more about power" doent say anything at all to the problem if being attractive is making anyone more likely to being raped.
(I think I should mention that "being attractive" is another simplification of "dressing like a slut". You could split it up in "people who think dressing like a slut makes someone attractive" or not).
|
To those saying, power.....
That's only for people with bad childhood that end up becoming rapist and become very cold and calculating.
But the VAST MAJORITY of rape comes from date rape drugs!!!
|
On April 05 2011 09:54 braheem wrote:
Gotta say I am loving the shirts they made to support this event..
"We've Had Enough"
You're not fooling anybody sluts, we all know you never get enough, that's why you keep coming back for more dick.
ban plz
User was warned for this post
|
On April 05 2011 09:53 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:38 Xiphos wrote:
There are TWO type of rape situation.
One: Date rape victims, the girls that go to parties/bars and get drugged by guys and wake up in the morning in some stranger's place or outside on the street. This type of rape is the one that contains the factor of sluttiness because guys are "raping" purely on sexual urges.
Second: the calculating type, the one that actually go out and study the victim before making a move, that type usually contains little to minimum of "slut factors" involved.
So in the discussion, it would be nice to include which type are we discussing.
But to be honest, girls that dresses up provocatively and go to bars raises at least twice the chance of getting raped than those who wear normal jeans/sweat. This. There is a big distinction between the two. Here's a thought experiment. Say you really don't like black people. You wear a shirt saying i hate n*ggers. A group of black people see you and beat the shit out of you. A few people start blaming you for inciting the crime. You pull out the freedom of speech card and how you should be able to express your opinion without fear of physical harm. EDIT: imagine this happened in Southern USA like 200 years ago.
Yeah, being a racist and wearing a skirt are totally equivalent. This whole fucking thread makes me /facepalm repeatedly.
Here's a thought experiment for you: We all magically agree that it is a woman's responsibility to never be sexually appealing. Life is now a pale shadow of its former glory and women are still getting raped.
The truth could not get more fucking obvious.
|
On April 05 2011 10:06 Xiphos wrote:
To those saying, power.....
That's only for people with bad childhood that end up becoming rapist and become very cold and calculating.
But the VAST MAJORITY of rape comes from date rape drugs!!!
A man who date rapes is trying to assert power as well. He's taking out the possibility of being rejected by introducing a drug that makes it nearly impossible for the woman to fight off his advances. His conscious motivation might still be sex. But there is also the fact that he removes the power of the woman to say no so he can have his way with her. (This also applies to female rapists, of course.)
Date rapists are just as cold and calculating as those who rape strangers. The ONLY difference between these two types of rapists is that one of them knows their victim and the other doesn't.
|
First: I think there is a bit of a category mistake going on here in the debate regarding whether women have any responsibility in rape cases regarding their choice of clothing. Moral responsibility and practical responsibility are two separate things. Someone may have no moral responsibility for something, but may still practically be responsible. For instance, if I leave my car unlocked and someone breaks into it, I hold no moral fault for the action (I didn't 'deserve' it). However, practically speaking, I was at fault for leaving my car unlocked. These two different 'faults' need to be separated into different categories. I hold no moral blame for leaving my car unlocked, but yes, I do hold practical blame. Just because an act by someone else was immoral doesn't mean that I hold no practical obligation to prevent it, especially if it was predictable. Of course, clothing may or may not have this effect on people.
Second: Does anyone have evidence regarding the motivation/causes behind rape? I always have been skeptical of the claim that rape was primarily about control and power, not about lust/horniness. It strikes me as more of an ideologically based argument (patriarchy being about power/control, etc) than a factually based one.
|
On April 05 2011 09:48 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:17 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 05 2011 09:00 Redmark wrote:On April 05 2011 08:49 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 05 2011 08:35 419 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Come on, it's basic freedom. How can some people suggest that victims should not have dressed "slutty"... Alright, let me generalize your argument. The fact that something is a right invalidates all criticism of said thing. Just because reproducing the stunts in Jackass is your First Amendment right doesn't mean that its morally wrong to advise against doing such. Replace "stunts" with "having unprotected sex", "insulting strangers on the street", "not doing your homework", "playing with matches", etc. Same point. Once a crime happened, *why* the victim has been involved is irrelevant. In the eyes of the prosecutor, yes. In the eyes of citizens looking to protect themselves, no. This thread is not about "how to avoid getting raped". It's around the affirmation : "are people responsible for their own likelihood of being raped". Yes, but society is also responsible for making the choice less necessary to begin with. what choice are you talking about ? the choice to rape ? is it necessary ???
It might be the case that dressing promiscuously raises the risk of being raped, and in that case dressing promiscuously isn't really a good idea. The point is though that this shouldn't be the case, which is I believe what these women are saying.".
you are saying : "There will always be rapes... Victims should learn to not to incite them." This is ridiculous. Try with murder : "There will always be murder... Victims should learn to not to incite them." Can you just answer the 8 questions I posed in my post? They are all yes/no so it shouldn't take long. The questions also illustrate the difference between assigning guilt and correlative fact. It'd be more effective than torching strawmen, you know.
ok.
Is it unreasonable to communicate this fact to responsible women? Yes / no?"
no.
"In a less inflammatory context, is suggesting people lock their bikes an implicit 'blaming the victim' of bike thefts? "
Once it's done, yes. It's irrelevant. "Of course, the guy stole your bike, you incited him."
And this example is miles away from rape...
"And if so, should these suggestions be discouraged?"
again, what suggestions are you taking about ?
locking a bike ? same as above.
avoiding rape ? same as above too. But your comparison is flawed.
"In a slightly more inflammatory context, is suggesting children not to get in the cars of strangers an implicit 'blaming the victim' of abductions? And if so, should these suggestions be discouraged?"
These are separate things.
1 : Tell children not to trust unkown person : yes
2 : suggest that "they asked for it" : no
edit : well you may have not suggest that directly, but you seem to support people who do.
|
On April 05 2011 09:34 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:22 garlicface wrote:
There is something I want to address after skimming through the comments:
There is no sure way to conduct research in hopes of finding legitimate statistical evidence that correlates victims of rape to their attire. You would need a control group (easy), and then the group dressed like sluts... who would then maybe or maybe not be raped. It's just an unethical trial and can never happen. That said, when someone says they believe the clothing can affect the crime, don't jump in and say something like, "where's your proof?" or, "there aren't any statistics proving it".
Well the fact that "clothing can affect the crime" *is* "common sense" knowledge. It means it worth nothing. Reality is rarely how we expected it to be before looking at it. There are statistics strongly suggesting that rape doesn't correlate with slutty-dressing. But ok, go with your "common sense". Indeed, it's called "how you want the world to be" : Show nested quote +
My opinion is that women should take it upon themselves to dress appropriately, or at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped. I don't mean to sound harsh, but let me use another example: don't expect to cross the road without getting hit by a car if you don't look both ways first.
Regardless, rape is rape, and the victim should not be held accountable. The accused should receive the full punishment and be held fully responsible for his actions.
the common flawed "not the victim responsibility, but..." arguement... My opinion is that men should begin to support women against rape rather than tell them to dress properly.
My "common sense" was to shut people up who wanted statistics that could never be attained. I left my paragraph hanging in a way that should have implied that I also know that clothing can affect the crime.
And when did I specifically say that it's not the victim's responsibility? The victim should be responsible for their own safety and prevention of the crime, but not for the crime itself.
Of course there are men willing to help women against rape, and many men do. However, it's impossible to ally with all men, so the women would be best to take it upon themselves that they are as safe as can be (I know it's not always 100%).
|
On April 05 2011 03:28 Silmakuoppaanikinko 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. If this is that obvious? Then why has no one been able to produce even the slightest statistical evidence or indication for it? There is no statistical evidence for this, and indeed, far more evidence for the inverse case.
I can't recall a study where rape victims were asked if they were dressed like a slut at the time of the incident. I'm not sure it would go over well. Could you propose an effective method?
I'm not sure it's relevant to on the street rapes (like, just utterly random), but I think the way you dress probably has correlations to the kind of sexual attention you can expect at parties and clubs and what not. In some cases, that attention being attracted to you could result in deeper consequences.
Not to imply that "sluts deserve it" or something, but purely from a safety standard the way you dress can effect the kind of attention you get. It would be extremely ignorant to claim otherwise.
|
Isn't what the judge said setting some kind of precedent? I thought it was established that the way a woman dress has no bearing on whether she is partly responsible or not if she is raped.
Having said that, I really don't see how dressing provocatively is necessarily asking to be raped. Normal human beings know that women don't want to be raped. That's just basic common sense. But again, the way you present yourself attracts certain kinds of people. Also, most of the time the rape victim knows the perp. Does that mean that victims tend to hang around guys with a propensity for rape?
|
On April 05 2011 09:34 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:22 garlicface wrote:
My opinion is that women should take it upon themselves to dress appropriately, or at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped. I don't mean to sound harsh, but let me use another example: don't expect to cross the road without getting hit by a car if you don't look both ways first.
Regardless, rape is rape, and the victim should not be held accountable. The accused should receive the full punishment and be held fully responsible for his actions. Edit2 : "at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped" ?? Are you jocking ? Am i being trolled ? His "unless they want to get raped" comment was certainly insensitive.
But in the process of going after his head, you've overlooked his prudence about exercising safety. Obviously, a measure such as carrying a pepper spray could be invaluable to women in protecting themselves from sexual assaults.
On April 05 2011 09:34 PrincessLeila wrote:
My opinion is that men should begin to support women against rape rather than tell them to dress properly. They already do so, whenever they see foreseeable dangers. It's not uncommon for women to ask men that they know well - boyfriends, partners, husbands, brothers, friends or relatives - to accompany them because they are worried about their safety. And men oblige. Often, men are the ones who insist on accompanying them.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
These are separate things.
1 : Tell children not to trust unkown person : yes
2 : suggest that "they asked for it" : no
Thank you for finally admitting that the two are very different things.
Applying this to the situation at hand:
Is it unreasonable to communicate this fact to responsible women [that dressing in certain ways increases the chances of getting raped]? Yes / no?
Does that suggest that "they asked for it"
|
I think it has more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women should try to avoid going to dangerous places alone, hanging out too much (drinking lots of alcohol) during nighttime, etc.
edit: Women can dress provocatively in public places like department stores but they won't get raped there. It really depends more on the location they are in and the types of people that hang out there.
|
On April 05 2011 10:34 domane wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:34 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 05 2011 09:22 garlicface wrote:
My opinion is that women should take it upon themselves to dress appropriately, or at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped. I don't mean to sound harsh, but let me use another example: don't expect to cross the road without getting hit by a car if you don't look both ways first.
Regardless, rape is rape, and the victim should not be held accountable. The accused should receive the full punishment and be held fully responsible for his actions. Edit2 : "at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped" ?? Are you jocking ? Am i being trolled ? His "unless they want to get raped" comment was certainly insensitive. But in the process of going after his head, you've overlooked his prudence about exercising safety. Obviously, a measure such as carrying a pepper spray could be invaluable to women in protecting themselves from sexual assaults. Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:34 PrincessLeila wrote:
My opinion is that men should begin to support women against rape rather than tell them to dress properly. They already do so, whenever they see foreseeable dangers. It's not uncommon for women to ask men that they know well - boyfriends, partners, husbands, brothers, friends or relatives - to accompany them because they are worried about their safety. And men oblige. Often, men are the ones who insist on accompanying them.
To accompany girls is actually great, and i would if i felt someone in danger.
But i am fighting against the "dress properly" thing. That is not the problem when you look at the facts.
Also, like it has been said, statically the girl has more chances to be raped by the friend/familly member that accompany her that being raped by a stranger who kidnap her.
The "dress properly" doctrine has no support other than "common sense" and sexism, and it is so common that victims tends to keep quiet. 15 out of 16 rapists never go in jail. Please read this : http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/24/blaming-an-11-year-old-victim
|
Something interesting to note: While there is no proven correlation (that I know of) of the state of dress affecting the likelihood of rape, there is a distinct correlation in the court room of whether or not the rapist is convicted. Women who dress more provocatively are far less likely to have their rapist convicted. It probably would be in women's best interest to watch their state of dress in this case, but at the same time it seems apparent that the idea "she deserved it" if a girl dresses in a sexual way has spread throughout our culture quite widely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
