First and foremost, let us clarify (synchronize) terminology for the sake of debate.
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.
Easy person/one who enjoys sex a lot: This is a person who is easy to convince to have sex with, this is slightly different from the above as it doesn't imply multiple sexual partners. These two may or may not coincide in the same person. For instance, people might exist who don't feel like sex often at all, but when they feel, the partner might be anyone, such a person could be a slut, but not easy.
Person who dresses revealingly: Basically someone who reveals a lot of flesh in his or her clothing, often exposing some-what intimate parts. Almost only applies to women in practice.
It stands to yet be proven that there is any significant correlation between any of these categories. A belief in this is a self-fulfilling prophecy until a real statistical research into this surfaces. There may be a lot of promiscuous people who dress modestly, of whom you are then not aware that they are relatively promiscuous, thus propagating the fallacy.
The controversial quote of the officer:
“Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,”
Obviously, with more precise terminology, the officer meant to say 'avoid dressing revealingly'
Aside the consideration if people are responsible for their own likelihood of being raped. It still is to be proven if people who dress revealingly are more prone to being raped, anyone who believes this has the burden of proof in this case. I have never seen any proper statistical research that alone establishes a correlation between how much flesh people reveal and how likely they are to being raped. Let alone a causation. In fact, most studies seem to indicate that people who are shy and insecure (and thus could be said to not show their flesh a lot) are more likely to be raped as they can be more easily controled.
As 'common sense' as it may be that you incite rape by dressing revealingly, such 'common sense' things haven proven to be wrong throughout history a variety of time. Punishing people hard for their crimes doesn't teach them not to do it no matter how much 'common sense' this idea might hold. Putting people on a tight schedule doesn't increase productivity at work and so forth. The situation might be more complicated than this and there might be no correlation at all between how much people reveal and how likely they are to be raped, maybe even the reverse.
If you look at these people, and in the 'related vidoes', they don't at all look like sexpots, they look like typical people in the end.
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!'?
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
That's basically the tone of the OP. People always assume that dressing like that incites rape, but it's far from proven, and if you look at rape victims, they don't at all dress like that it seems.
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
There isn't actually any statistical data that support the theory that dressing provocatively increases your likelihood to being raped. Over 70% of reported rapes have a situation where the attacker knows the victim personally so unless some new outfit a women is wearing is super special one day I don't think it significantly. affects things
On April 05 2011 02:50 turdburgler wrote:
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
Stop, stop it now. People always use the "well it makes sense when you think about it " line of reasoning but history has proven that wrong AGAIN AND AGAIN.
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
Like the OP said, things that are obvious by common sense are quite wrong quite often in practice.
The human inference organ of 'common sense' is simply a very bad tool to draw conclusions in comparison to tangible research.
There isn't any data supporting this as far as I know, I've searched a lot, if it were so easy to prove it should exist, there exists a lot more data to the contrary.
Most rape victims are insecure and shy people, rape is usually an issue of control. Or do you think you can just pick a sexpot from the street and she doesn't start screaming?
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
Of course they have the right to either way, but IF it does incite rape they should be aware of the repercussions of doing so. It's sort of a rights vs responsibility sort of question. I have the right to free speech but if I go out on the street and slander a group of gang members I should be aware that they might try to retaliate in some way or another.
In my opinion dressing more revealing is a way to advertise promiscuity or "being easy", which by itself does not incite rape however I would not at all be surprised if dressing in such a fashion increased one's chance of being sexually assaulted for a myriad of reasons.
Notice how the officer said victimized. What I believe he said is truth, he could have used dress more revealing over dress like a slut. People who dress more revealing are often times become the victims of sexual assault and scapegoating among other things. Is it their fault? of course it isn't but they should be aware that some males will be strongly attracted to someone who dresses revealingly because that is a way to advertise "being easy" or being promiscuous.
YES there is NO justification for rape or sexual assault.
I think it should be made clear that dressing provocatively or like a slut will certainly make that person appear less professional in his/ her surroundings (jokes aside, please). People will judge others based on many things, clothing included.
However, there is never a justification for rape (i.e. "She was asking for it; look how she was dressed!"), since everyone has a right to dress how they please (assuming it agrees with any given dress code), and no one has a right to force sex on another person.
On April 05 2011 02:51 Nothingtosay wrote: There isn't actually any statistical data that support the theory that dressing provocatively increases your likelihood to being raped. Over 70% of reported rapes have a situation where the attacker knows the victim personally so unless some new outfit a women is wearing is super special one day I don't think it significantly. affects things
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
Stop, stop it now. People always use the "well it makes sense when you think about it " line of reasoning but history has proven that wrong AGAIN AND AGAIN.
What about the other roughly 30%? The ones where the victim doesn't know the attacker. Sorry, I can't edit my tone in type, but that is supposed to be more of a serious question. Does anyone know the statistics on "random" rape? Also, do you guys have any sources for the argument that the common sense explanation is wrong? People keep posting it like it's a fact. And, it very well might be, but sources help.
One isn't to blame for being sexual harassed by another because of how they dress, but it's just common sense that dressing promiscuously is going to increase your odds of being a victim of sexual harassment.
Also, you can argue that there is no evidence that dressing promiscuously increases one's chances of being raped, but rape is just one form of sexual harassment (probably one of the, if not the most extreme).
It seems like if you want to argue that dressing promiscuously has no effect on one's probability of sexual harassment, then you probably don't recognize sexual desire as a contributing factor to any form of sexual harassment. You'd probably have to deny conformance to the cultural norm and looking down upon those who publicly reject it as a factor as well.
Also, the post below me makes a good point for the rape case.
I think it is worth exploring more deeply why people think dressing more revealingly increases the chances of being raped.
Many people believe the following: Man sees provocatively dressed woman, Man's animal instincts are inflamed, woman is raped. The provocative clothing, by inciting the man, has in some sense caused the rape.
What is far more likely is that the desire to rape already exists in the mind of the rapist. Wearing provocative clothing may make him more likely to strike, but the reason is not because it arouses him - the reason is because he knows that it will enable him to cast aspersions on the character of the victim if he is ever caught and brought to trial. Their clothing did not "cause" the rape - it simply made them an easier target.
The policeman's statement is offensive because historically, discussions of the behavior of the victim in rape cases have operated more on the first set of assumptions given above than the second. The fact that he used the word "slut" shows that he is continuing in this shameful tradition.
An analogy:
Someone who walks alone into a dangerous neighborhood at night may be displaying poor judgement, but no one believes that the robber deserves a lighter sentence because of this. Unfortunately, in rape cases, many times, the rapist has gotten a lighter sentence or been able to convince the jury that he is really not culpable after all, due to the decisions of his victim. This is why criticizing the dress of women is such a loaded issue.
The protest sounds like big success - its appearance of absurdity has sparked debate. The goals of the protesters are of the kind that can only really be achieved by educating society, not simply by passing laws, so this debate can only help them.
(Edited after more closely reading the OP - my apologies)
I think you are mistaken about the relationship between how someone dresses and rape.
You seem to be positing something like the following: Man sees provocatively dressed woman, Man's animal instincts are inflamed, woman is raped. The provocative clothing, by inciting the man, has in some sense caused the rape.
What is far more likely is that the desire to rape already exists in the mind of the rapist. Wearing provocative clothing may make him more likely to strike, but the reason is not because it arouses him - the reason is because he knows that it will enable him to cast aspersions on the character of the victim if he is ever caught and brought to trial. Their clothing did not "cause" the rape - it simply made them an easier target.
The policeman's statement is offensive because historically, discussions of the behavior of the victim in rape cases have operated more on the first set of assumptions given above than the second. The fact that he used the word "slut" shows that he is continuing in this shameful tradition.
An analogy:
Someone who walks alone into a dangerous neighborhood at night may be displaying poor judgement, but no one believes that the robber deserves a lighter sentence because of this. Unfortunately, in rape cases, many times, the rapist has gotten a lighter sentence or been able to convince the jury that he is really not culpable after all, due to the decisions of his victim.
The protest sounds like big success - its appearance of absurdity has sparked debate. The goals of the protesters are of the kind that can only really be achieved by changing people's minds, not by passing laws, so this debate can only help them.
I really don't get what this protest is about. If it's about the justice system and allowing "provocative dress" as a legitimate defense, then sure. Protesting half-naked seems kinda hot so go for that too, wouldn't know 'cause I didn't see it, though.
If it's about people being unable to face the fact that provocative dress might increase the likelihood of being targeted for sexual assault, then why the hell do you need a protest? "Hey rapists, please start raping women dressed in sweaters too." I don't think so. The police officer was probably right, despite the poor delivery. If something reduces the chances of being assaulted and you don't do it, well, that's a tough one. A few bad people shouldn't make everyone live in fear, but by the same token, the way any justice system works is that you can commit any crime you want, if you're willing to take the risk of being prosecuted.
By all appearances, people need to be educated in how to avoid being sexually assaulted. If people protest against the police when they make a comment suggesting that sexual assault is not a crime committed against random women, that's an even greater reason to lay out the common sense for people who don't seem to have much of it. If going out wearing next to nothing is dangerous, people have the right to know it is, even if they choose to act on it by being careful, staying with friends, etc. instead of dressing differently.
You get what you ask for. I don't really get the point of this protest. I mean would you rather rape someone who dresses revealing then someone wearing sweaters and jeans?
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 ends this thread. Also while women do fantasize about being overpowered by a strong man, there is a big difference between that and being actually forcefully raped by someone. The psychology article above pretty much outlines that.
However, the cop's statements were completely out of line IMO, doesn't matter what anyone is doing with regards to ANYTHING, they should be protected by the police and not blamed.
That police officer is a total tool. If he was in charge of an assault would he say "Well that guy should not have had such a punchable face". I agree with most of what people here have been saying, but i just cant shake how disgusted i am with that police officer.
well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
I'm astonished at the lack of people's ability to go to wikipedia in this thread.
So, with regards to the "70%" know their victims, wikipedia at least cites this for a US statistic: "Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars". I cite this because it's kind of more relevant--a person is not forced into a home. They plan to go to a person's home. And going to someone's home really implies more knowledge about someone than if, say, women were all raped at parties ("yeah, I knew him because I met him ONE time at this bar").
I don't have a citation for these, but at my university the health department at least advertise that 90% of all campus rapes occur when assailant, victim or both have been using alcohol, and cite some study of "3303 urine samples collected from women who believed they were raped after being drugged 61.3 % positive for some substance with 67.0% alcohol 30.3% marijuana."
So really, instead of saying "oh yeah it makes sense", half of an effort on wikipedia really suggests two things: 1) provocative dressing does not really encourage it. Vast majority rapes occur at a person's home or a party (presumably in a home of some sort) and most women say they knew the assailant beforehand (again from wikipedia). You're inside someone's home: maybe you are dressed like a slut, but you really shouldn't blame the victim for perhaps dressing slutty if they are in a home of someone they know and (hypothetically) trust. 2) alcohol is largest contributing factor to rape attempts/successful rapes.
So really, instead of saying "oh yeah it makes sense", half of an effort on wikipedia really suggests two things: 1) provocative dressing does not really encourage it. Vast majority rapes occur at a person's home or a party (presumably in a home of some sort) and most women say they knew the assailant beforehand (again from wikipedia). You're inside someone's home: maybe you are dressed like a slut, but you really shouldn't blame the victim for perhaps dressing slutty if they are in a home of someone they know and (hypothetically) trust. 2) alcohol is largest contributing factor to rape attempts/successful rapes.
This is a useful contribution to the thread. But it is important to remember what is really at stake here. The issue being protested is not whether the policeman made an accurate statement about how one can reduce the risk of being raped. I think it is very likely that the protesters also believe that dress can be a factor.
The issue is the insensitivity it displays towards the victim. If he had read the studies you quote and said "Women who want to avoid being raped should avoid drinking alcohol" the issue would be exactly the same.
According to a Manitoba judge, not only is it intuitive that promiscuous attire leads to rape - but it is a compelling enough force to reduce the sentence for the rapist. This decision is from February, 2011.
"A legal expert says a Manitoba judge's comment during a rape sentencing that "sex was in the air" is a troubling legal throwback.
Justice Robert Dewar of Queen's Bench Court made the remark when he gave a man a two-year conditional sentence which allows him to remain free in the community.
The judge also pointed to the way the victim and her friend were dressed — tube tops, no bras, high heels — and noted they were wearing plenty of makeup..."
"...Rhodes pleaded not guilty at his trial on the basis he thought the woman had consented. Dewar rejected that defence in convicting him, but said he could consider some of that argument during sentencing.
“This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” said Dewar. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.”
Dewar said he didn’t want to be seen as blaming the victim but that all of the factors in the case had to be viewed to assess “moral blame worthiness.""
Edit: I should probably mention that this case is being appealed; probably for the best.
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?
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
So, with regards to the "70%" know their victims, wikipedia at least cites this for a US statistic: "Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars". I cite this because it's kind of more relevant--a person is not forced into a home. They plan to go to a person's home. And going to someone's home really implies more knowledge about someone than if, say, women were all raped at parties ("yeah, I knew him because I met him ONE time at this bar").
1) provocative dressing does not really encourage it. Vast majority rapes occur at a person's home or a party (presumably in a home of some sort) and most women say they knew the assailant beforehand (again from wikipedia). You're inside someone's home: maybe you are dressed like a slut, but you really shouldn't blame the victim for perhaps dressing slutty if they are in a home of someone they know and (hypothetically) trust. 2) alcohol is largest contributing factor to rape attempts/successful rapes.
1) ok if we accept that 70% are known by the attacker and say that dress is not a factor what about the 30%? Are they not important?
2) Ok lets say alcohol is the largest factor in attempts. That says nothing about why the person targeted someone (perhaps partly because of how they dressed) it only tells us how they tried to accomplish it.
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. By itself no add in alcohol or drugs and perhaps
2. More attention of a certain nature? Perhaps attention of someone inclined to be a rapist?
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?
First of all that wasn't what the officer said at all. He didn't say they shouldn't complain about rape if they dress like sluts. He said that not dressing slutty would reduce their risk of rape.
And yes, you did rape her. If she pressed the issue you would be in some serious trouble.
lol idk if "horny guys will rape" was a troll or not
do you guys think to-be-rapists walk down the street and rate women 1-10, then when they find a 10 they say imma rape her? that's retarded, rape is not based on sexual attraction.
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.
Now this is just psychoanalysis, even if you did know the guy, this would be a silly statement to make, not even offensive, just far fetched grabbing.
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.
True, a factor in that rape happens mostly one way might be just pure physical strength.
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.
Well, good for you that it went that way, not something you could know in advance, you could have yourself an angry woman and possible legal difficulties.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
Yes, but it didn't matter apparently.
Not all people mind to be raped. From a simple point of view, I wouldn't mind to be fed a spiked drink and then raped while being unconscious, after all, I don't notice it, right? Just don't get me any STD's.
Though I appreciate the idea that not many people view this matter in such a simple way. Like my ex told me 'You either don't cheat on me, or you do cheat on me but be pro enough to make sure I don't find out, either's cool with me.'
On April 05 2011 03:54 Gene wrote: lol idk if "horny guys will rape" was a troll or not
do you guys think to-be-rapists walk down the street and rate women 1-10, then when they find a 10 they say imma rape her? that's retarded, rape is not based on sexual attraction.
which also lends itself to saying provocative attire is irrelevant when talking about rape
Ah yes, blaming the victim. That makes a lot of sense.
Too bad most rape cases are more a question of control, domination and submission of the woman that excites the male and not the idea of sexual temptation.
Additionally, telling people how to dress to avoid become a victim is illogical and commonly used in courts (and it works, unfortunately).
Another good line people argue is that "victims should not walk outside alone late at night". This comes with the misconception that most rapes occur from strangers in dark alley, which isn't true. Most rape cases occur from people we are familiar with, like stalking, by people we usually go on a date with (date-rape) and it can occur anywhere, anytime.
if i were gonna rape, i would deff pick a hot slut over some fat chick. Think about it would you rather fuck a pornstar or the lunch lady??? that being said im not a rapist so maybe convenience is a huge factor or something? maybe something like a vegas hooker would be both hot and convenient (if your in vegas).
Look at it this way, walking to class you see some hot skank and you think to yourself "i would fuck that bitch soooo hard". You see some ugly fat bitch and think "man that was a hard lecture" . . . She doesnt have to be ugly and/or fat so much as not visually stimulating, and sluts are hot. Thats life.
On April 05 2011 03:56 methematics wrote: if i were gonna rape, i would deff pick a hot slut over some fat chick. Think about it would you rather fuck a pornstar or the lunch lady??? that being said im not a rapist so maybe convenience is a huge factor or something? maybe something like a vegas hooker would be both hot and convenient (if your in vegas).
Look at it this way, walking to class you see some hot skank and you think to yourself "i would fuck that bitch soooo hard". You see some ugly fat bitch and think "man that was a hard lecture" . . . She doesnt have to be ugly and/or fat so much as not visually stimulating, and sluts are hot. Thats life.
you would pick a slut over some innocent cute 20 y/o?
On April 05 2011 03:38 N.geNuity wrote: I don't have a citation for these, but at my university the health department at least advertise that 90% of all campus rapes occur when assailant, victim or both have been using alcohol, and cite some study of "3303 urine samples collected from women who believed they were raped after being drugged 61.3 % positive for some substance with 67.0% alcohol 30.3% marijuana."
I'm not 100% sure what to make of this, but it sounds more like people are getting high or drunk, having "consentual" sex with equally high or drunk men, then waking up and assuming they were drugged and raped. Something I've definitely heard of happening at my college is guys getting their lives ruined and being tagged as rapists for doing things just as stupid and irresponsible as the people they're accused of assaulting. I wonder at what portion of these cases where people believed they were raped were actually concluded with real charges.
Either way, obviously promiscuity shouldn't be a huge factor in rape cases where the victim knows the perpetrator, but I think, by far, the more "scary" cases are were it comes from a stranger. These are the violent ones that you hear about on the news, and these are also the cases where you hear the guilty using excuses like promiscuity. If any rational person was going to try to see if there was a link between dress and sexual assault, you'd have to cut out the majority of cases and see what you got, then.
On April 05 2011 03:38 N.geNuity wrote: I'm astonished at the lack of people's ability to go to wikipedia in this thread.
So, with regards to the "70%" know their victims, wikipedia at least cites this for a US statistic: "Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars". I cite this because it's kind of more relevant--a person is not forced into a home. They plan to go to a person's home. And going to someone's home really implies more knowledge about someone than if, say, women were all raped at parties ("yeah, I knew him because I met him ONE time at this bar").
I don't have a citation for these, but at my university the health department at least advertise that 90% of all campus rapes occur when assailant, victim or both have been using alcohol, and cite some study of "3303 urine samples collected from women who believed they were raped after being drugged 61.3 % positive for some substance with 67.0% alcohol 30.3% marijuana."
So really, instead of saying "oh yeah it makes sense", half of an effort on wikipedia really suggests two things: 1) provocative dressing does not really encourage it. Vast majority rapes occur at a person's home or a party (presumably in a home of some sort) and most women say they knew the assailant beforehand (again from wikipedia). You're inside someone's home: maybe you are dressed like a slut, but you really shouldn't blame the victim for perhaps dressing slutty if they are in a home of someone they know and (hypothetically) trust. 2) alcohol is largest contributing factor to rape attempts/successful rapes.
You've misinterpreted the stats. Let's look at the campus rapes first. 41% of rapes occur under the influence of alcohol. 100% of these might have been dressed provocatively, or 1% of them might have been. There is no evidence here to indicate whether dress makes any difference.
13% of rapes (bars, outdoors and at parties) are places where you'd expect people to be dressed provocatively. You have no idea how many of these rapes in these places were because of dress. Provocatively dressing could increase rapes 10000% in these places. You don't know because you haven't given any evidence either way.
You've jumped to conclusions that are not even based on the evidence you've presented.
On April 05 2011 03:56 methematics wrote: if i were gonna rape, i would deff pick a hot slut over some fat chick. Think about it would you rather fuck a pornstar or the lunch lady??? that being said im not a rapist so maybe convenience is a huge factor or something? maybe something like a vegas hooker would be both hot and convenient (if your in vegas).
Look at it this way, walking to class you see some hot skank and you think to yourself "i would fuck that bitch soooo hard". You see some ugly fat bitch and think "man that was a hard lecture" . . . She doesnt have to be ugly and/or fat so much as not visually stimulating, and sluts are hot. Thats life.
you would pick a slut over some innocent cute 20 y/o?
Oh hell ya, some tight miniskirt and tits bouncing up and down is way hotter then some conservative-looking 20 year old. Obviously the slut can be blue iris, or some other granny, but anywhere from 17-39 seems reasonable.
God i feel like a rapist now. . but you asked my opinion.
*edit* actually since rape is about power, maybe the rapist would prefer innocence? i dont know, i just know thats what id do and im NOT a rapist, except in sc2 where i rape people all day long
the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
Rape is commited by many differernt kinds of people for many different reasons. The feminist perspective centers on male agression and violence, traditionally clinicians treat it as a form of sexual deviance, Infact in the DSM-IV-TR rape was being considered to be listed under the paraphilias. Current efforts try to divide these sexual offenders into 2 catagories, those who are motivated primarly by deviant sexual fantasy's verses those who are motivated by anger and violence.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
Alright, i should mention that the vibe of that night was that it was definitely ON between us. If she hadn't passed out, we would have sex anyway.
But let's say she would later decide to be a total vengeful bitch afterwards and pressed charges, and also keep in mind where i live, a country known for it's skewed morals and justice system. How would she explain her being alone willing at my house, stoned out of her mind and then not fighting me or trying to resist me while i was having my way with her. With a good lawyer, i could totally spin it in my favor and walk off with ease.
BTW, if you're interested in this subject and love movies, i definitely recommend the movie Irreversible, with Monica Bellucci. It has the most amazing and shocking rape scene of all time.
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?
2. She is getting more attention because men are getting horny seeing here in revealing clothes.
Dear god.
Most guys have been horny a number of times approaching infinity → ∞ Most guys have also never had the thought of raping someone to satisfy said urge. Sounds like you may have.
There's a big difference between getting a glimpse of a girls goods and "getting horny"
On April 05 2011 04:04 Gene wrote: the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
I don't exactly understand how you can argue this point.
Rape comes from a variety of scenarios but it's very rare that a very ugly woman is raped because of how ugly she is, nor is a woman walking around in a parka more likely to be raped than one in a miniskirt and tube top.
Despite what reason a man decides to rape a woman it's not going to be because he isn't attracted to her. That's just obvious.
On April 05 2011 04:04 Gene wrote: the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
I don't exactly understand how you can argue this point.
Rape comes from a variety of scenarios but it's very rare that a very ugly woman is raped because of how ugly she is, nor is a woman walking around in a parka more likely to be raped than one in a miniskirt and tube top.
Despite what reason a man decides to rape a woman it's not going to be because he isn't attracted to her. That's just obvious.
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.
On April 05 2011 04:04 Gene wrote: the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
I don't exactly understand how you can argue this point.
Rape comes from a variety of scenarios but it's very rare that a very ugly woman is raped because of how ugly she is, nor is a woman walking around in a parka more likely to be raped than one in a miniskirt and tube top.
Despite what reason a man decides to rape a woman it's not going to be because he isn't attracted to her. That's just obvious.
Ive heard of "orderlies" who rape old women in retirement homes, maybe they got a granny fetish or maybe they're fucked up in the head.
orderlies = people who look after old people (spelled wrong probably)
On April 05 2011 04:04 Gene wrote: the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
I don't exactly understand how you can argue this point.
Rape comes from a variety of scenarios but it's very rare that a very ugly woman is raped because of how ugly she is, nor is a woman walking around in a parka more likely to be raped than one in a miniskirt and tube top.
Despite what reason a man decides to rape a woman it's not going to be because he isn't attracted to her. That's just obvious.
So does that mean the only guys getting raped in jail are the prettier ones? Just a thought...
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.
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.
On April 05 2011 04:04 Gene wrote: the fact is a rapists motivations are much more often purely psychological, and so their victims physical appearance is much less relevant as is everything else about her.
*quote moltke's list of reasons he would marry a woman*
I don't exactly understand how you can argue this point.
Rape comes from a variety of scenarios but it's very rare that a very ugly woman is raped because of how ugly she is, nor is a woman walking around in a parka more likely to be raped than one in a miniskirt and tube top.
Despite what reason a man decides to rape a woman it's not going to be because he isn't attracted to her. That's just obvious.
So does that mean the only guys getting raped in jail are the prettier ones? Just a thought...
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: actually this post was sutpid when i think about it. but I still highly disagree. rape results primarily by a desire to fuck someone.
if someone is that desperate to get laid they can get a hooker, not physically violate another human being and face life in jail.
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: If it's so much about "power" and not about being really fucking horny and wanting to get laid, then why is it that the vast majority of rapes are done by men to women?
Do we talk about the patriarchal skewed side of this capitalist world.
Or do we go with the idea of men being abused as children by their mothers or their insecurities about not being able to acquire any female companions and construing ideas that women are intentionally avoiding them or making fun of them (giggling, pointing, etc.).
How about the idea that they're so narcissistic that they think the women want to be raped and this perpetuated by certain adult films?
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: actually this post was sutpid when i think about it. but I still highly disagree. rape results primarily by a desire to fuck someone.
if someone is that desperate to get laid they can get a hooker, not physically violate another human being and face life in jail.
are you just trolling or serious
ninja edit so i quoted wrong post
Why not rape the hooker??? criagslist killer style (ted bundy style)
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.
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?
You oversimplify the problem and fail to see its complexity, or you see its complexity and you ignore the many factors choosing one which you feel is the 'common sense' cause. No need to bother, as we are discussing a bigger issue then what you comment on (rape as simply a man asserting sexual dominance over a famale)
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: actually this post was sutpid when i think about it. but I still highly disagree. rape results primarily by a desire to fuck someone.
if someone is that desperate to get laid they can get a hooker, not physically violate another human being and face life in jail.
are you just trolling or serious
ninja edit so i quoted wrong post
Why not rape the hooker??? criagslist killer style (ted bundy style)
seriously? Why, becuase its easy? You're right. I want to get laid and im cheap, so im going to actually violate adn fuck up this girl for life because i cant spare a few dollars.
Some of you act like your average shmuck can be a rapist simply by changing his mind, like there is no altered state of mind required to overpower someone, and abuse them against their will.
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: If it's so much about "power" and not about being really fucking horny and wanting to get laid, then why is it that the vast majority of rapes are done by men to women?
Do we talk about the patriarchal skewed side of this capitalist world.
Or do we go with the idea of men being abused as children by their mothers or their insecurities about not being able to acquire any female companions and construing ideas that women are intentionally avoiding them or making fun of them (giggling, pointing, etc.).
How about the idea that they're so narcissistic that they think the women want to be raped and this perpetuated by certain adult films?
You're right woman should take to walking around naked and then we should lock up all men to make sure the sick freaks with no control of themselves don't do anything stupid.
I literally cannot wrap my head around this argument that some people in this thread are making that rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction. RAPE IS SEX! Yes there's an aspect of domination. Some people "get off" on that. Do you know what that's called? A Fetish! Something different from the norm of consensual sex in the missionary position with the lights off that gives you sexual pleasure. Not that it's a socially acceptable fetish, but some people get their jollies from raping a woman. That's totally sexual and if you argue otherwise i think you're completely lacking in the common sense you say is useless. Do you want me to show you statistics that say men enjoy sex?
On April 05 2011 04:12 travis wrote: If it's so much about "power" and not about being really fucking horny and wanting to get laid, then why is it that the vast majority of rapes are done by men to women?
Do we talk about the patriarchal skewed side of this capitalist world.
Or do we go with the idea of men being abused as children by their mothers or their insecurities about not being able to acquire any female companions and construing ideas that women are intentionally avoiding them or making fun of them (giggling, pointing, etc.).
How about the idea that they're so narcissistic that they think the women want to be raped and this perpetuated by certain adult films?
You're right woman should take to walking around naked and then we should lock up all men to make sure the sick freaks with no control of themselves don't do anything stupid.
I literally cannot wrap my head around this argument that some people in this thread are making that rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction. RAPE IS SEX! Yes there's an aspect of domination. Some people "get off" on that. Do you know what that's called? A Fetish! Something different from the norm of consensual sex in the missionary position with the lights off that gives you sexual pleasure. Not that it's a socially acceptable fetish, but some people get their jollies from raping a woman. That's totally sexual and if you argue otherwise i think you're completely lacking in the common sense you say is useless. Do you want me to show you statistics that say men enjoy sex?
Uh... I'm on your side, not sure why you're quoting me. I'm on the side that blaming the victim is wrong.
Edit: wait, no I'm not.
Yes, rape is intercourse, a force coercion started by the male. By engaging in intercourse, they not only degrade the woman, but they feel better about themselves.
The act of intercourse is a symbolic one, for example, some rape women to "spread their seed and better the world", a narcissistic approach.
I think you're looking at things two-dimensionally, take a forensic psychology course or a simple introductory sociology course and you'll begin realizing that seeing things so simply is not that simple.
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.
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.
If some people here are claiming that the attractiveness of a woman's dress makes her more like to be raped, that alone makes it partially true. If out of all the billions of men in the world, some of them think that they would be more likely to rape a woman they found more attractive, it only makes sense that somewhere out there, there is a rapist or would-be rapist thinking the exact same thing. Even if dressing up like a "slut" only increases the likelihood of being raped by that one individual a tiny percent. It still raises it.
This thread has me worried about the influence of starcraft and starcraft2 on one's perception of the female gender, and the ability to form relationships with the fairer sex.
On April 05 2011 04:22 Gene wrote: "some people get their jollies from raping a woman"
why raping? Why not casual sex? Is it the lack of consent? how do you ahve sex with a woman without consent? by over powering them?
whats the difference between consensual sex and rape that gets your jollies off?
the only difference i can see is the overt display of power
Current theory is that due to some childhood experience (bad mom?, sexual abuse? w/e)the individual is unable or unwilling to form 'normal' adult relationships. At some point sexual arousal is paired and conditioned with a specific inappropriate event or object which leads to a fettish or obsession. Eventaully this obession will lead to some compulsion (ie voyerism, frotteurism, pedophilia w/e) and this is where we get sex offenders.
On April 05 2011 04:26 Magic_Mike wrote: If some people here are claiming that the attractiveness of a woman's dress makes her more like to be raped, that alone makes it partially true.
I certainly hope that there aren't any rapists on Teamliquid, but in the case that there are I will submit to their opinions as experts in the matter.
Otherwise all of the "if I were a rapist" posts don't really amount to much.
On April 05 2011 04:22 Gene wrote: "some people get their jollies from raping a woman"
why raping? Why not casual sex? Is it the lack of consent? how do you ahve sex with a woman without consent? by over powering them?
whats the difference between consensual sex and rape that gets your jollies off?
the only difference i can see is the overt display of power
Current theory is that due to some childhood experience (bad mom?, sexual abuse? w/e)the individual is unable or unwilling to form 'normal' adult relationships. At some point sexual arousal is paired and conditioned with a specific inappropriate event or object which leads to a fettish or obsession. Eventaully this obession will lead to some compulsion (ie voyerism, frotterism, pedophilia w/e) and this is where we get sex offenders.
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.
Why should a woman be restricted in her attire to seemingly "ward off" potential rapists?
They should be able to wear anything they want and not be blamed when on the off-chance some chauvinistic douchebag rapes them because in almost all cases of rape, the motivations of the rapists have little to do with pure sexual desire.
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.
On April 05 2011 04:22 Gene wrote: "some people get their jollies from raping a woman"
why raping? Why not casual sex? Is it the lack of consent? how do you ahve sex with a woman without consent? by over powering them?
whats the difference between consensual sex and rape that gets your jollies off?
the only difference i can see is the overt display of power
Yep, exactly as i said, the difference is an overt display of power. Also known as a fetish for domination.
Yeah, because any man on this planet can have sex with any woman he pleases, right?
...
It's mostly a display of power and dominance, sure. But it's also a factor caused by frustration, childhood trauma perhaps and inability to attract those respective women.
p.s. only slightly related to topic: i read somewhere that about 10% of the men (alpha men, players) have sex with nearly 80% of the world's women. The majority of the rest are beta males with a very scarce sexual life and who generally end up getting married to some woman they attracted through a fluke they themselves cannot understand how it worked out (some might call it fate)
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.
Why should a woman be restricted in her attire to seemingly "ward off" potential rapists?
They should be able to wear anything they want and not be blamed when on the off-chance some chauvinistic douchebag rapes them because in almost all cases of rape, the motivations of the rapists have little to do with pure sexual desire.
Nobody is saying that these people deserved what they got. People are just being overly sensitive and taking it that way. They are saying that it increases the risk. Just like someone who drives a lot more is more likely to experience a car wreck caused by someone else. It's still not their fault but if they weren't driving it wouldn't have happened.
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?"
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.
I'll concede to that, makes sense.
I just wanted to post to tell you that I really appreciate you agreeing with me and seeing my side of things, it's very rare on the internet and to have you say this makes me extremely happy.
Of course, if you disagreed and had an equally logically argument, I would've been equally appreciative!
Blaming women for being raped based on how they dress is just simply wrong. Its simply used as an excuse by the individual who sexually assaults the woman who was assaulted and reinstating this stereotype simply takes blame away from the assaulter. That is all this shouldnt even be a topic of discussion IMO as it perpetuates a terrible stereotype that the woman "deserved it" because she dressed a certain way which is terribly wrong and a harmful mindset.
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? I mean is not like you can ask the victim if she was showing her stuff to the public or if she flirt with the guy that atack her... most of them will say no, but how you know if that's true? does someone looks at the cloths and says: Yes it was slutty outift... what i mean is there is no real way to know. Yes your using real data but this hapends to be so afected by all the stuff i just metion that is of not value for me atleast.
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.
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?
Actually I've learned in my sex offenders class in college is that the consensus from the therapists, social workers, psychologists, etc. (my professor is one) is that power is one of the PRIMARY reasons behind acts of sexual violence.
Now, this isn't to say that the rapist doesn't have to be attracted to the person they are raping, but that a person's underlying motive in the rape (whether he/she understands or knows this) is that they crave the power behind it.
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? I mean is not like you can ask the victim if she was showing her stuff to the public or if she flirt with the guy that atack her... most of them will say no, but how you know if that's true? does someone looks at the cloths and says: Yes it was slutty outift... what i mean is there is no real way to know. Yes your using real data but this hapends to be so afected by all the stuff i just metion that is of not value for me atleast.
Alright, so let's go on your assumption that no data at all about the issue is reliable then (even the accounts of the people involved). Where does this leave us?
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.
Why should a woman be restricted in her attire to seemingly "ward off" potential rapists?
They should be able to wear anything they want and not be blamed when on the off-chance some chauvinistic douchebag rapes them because in almost all cases of rape, the motivations of the rapists have little to do with pure sexual desire.
Nobody is saying that these people deserved what they got. People are just being overly sensitive and taking it that way. They are saying that it increases the risk. Just like someone who drives a lot more is more likely to experience a car wreck caused by someone else. It's still not their fault but if they weren't driving it wouldn't have happened.
There is no increase of risk. Car accidents are unintentional, rape is an intentional act due to the psychological problems and distorted thoughts of the rapist, the victim's choice of clothes doesn't alter or change these thoughts because the clothes or the physique of the women isn't the core issue or the trigger of the rapist's thoughts.
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.
I'll concede to that, makes sense.
I just wanted to post to tell you that I really appreciate you agreeing with me and seeing my side of things, it's very rare on the internet and to have you say this makes me extremely happy.
Of course, if you disagreed and had an equally logically argument, I would've been equally appreciative!
Thanks!
Well that's the whole point of an argument, go back and forth until one person is right! Lot's of people are too stubborn, I'm reasonable though and like to learn new things anyways, I should be thanking you!
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.
It's fallacious to equate a (perhaps incorrect) belief that outfit has a correlation with chance of being raped with blaming the victim. If we accepted that no one could believe this without blaming the victim, we would also have to accept that no one could believe that any voluntary factor might increase the chance of rape. We would just be applying the same accusation to different factors, e.g. "You think women being friends with males makes them more likely to be raped? You're blaming the victim. Women have the right to befriend whoever they want!"
Blaming the victim is a non sequitur extrapolation from certain (perhaps unbacked) statistical hypotheses. It is not exclusive to those hypotheses, nor is it synonymous with them.
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.
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.
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.
It's fallacious to equate a (perhaps incorrect) belief that outfit has a correlation with chance of being raped with blaming the victim. If we accepted that no one could believe this without blaming the victim, we would also have to accept that no one could believe that any voluntary factor might increase the chance of rape. We would just be applying the same accusation to different factors, e.g. "You think women being friends with males makes them more likely to be raped? You're blaming the victim. Women have the right to befriend whoever they want!"
Blaming the victim is a non sequitur extrapolation from certain (perhaps unbacked) statistical hypotheses. It is not exclusive to those hypotheses, nor is it synonymous with them.
The fact that what a woman is wearing factors into the justice system's treatment of victims and perpetrators in rape cases (as demonstrated by the second link in the OP, also from Canada) means that there is a systemic effect of the belief in question, and that effect is to lift responsibility from the perpetrator and place it on the victim. I understand your point, but the treatment of rape victims by the justice system makes it superfluous.
Wow, this is a lot to read... I read most of the postings and agree with most of them; however, provacative dress may just increase the rapists' desire to go through with a rape. The attire may incite him to rape, but being the (for lack of a better term) crafty SOB he is, just takes out his desire on some poor woman who isn't dressed provacatively because she is an easier target than the woman who fueled his desire by her provacative dress in the first place. This might explain why the statistics in the above postings show that a lot of rape victims are modestly dressed people.
I am just musing, but it seems like provacative dress does increase the chances of a rape happening, and unfortunately, the shy and vulnerable usually end up being the victim.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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):
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 05:39 419 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".
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?
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.
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
If a man falls to the temptation without a thought he is a boor/glutton, but in the case of the lady he commits a horrific crime on another human being and denies her the control of her body's intimacy.
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.
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):
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.
"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 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!"
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.
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!
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 04:23 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.
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.
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 06:25 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 06:25 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 06:25 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 06:25 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 06:50 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.
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.
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 06:25 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 06:25 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.
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 06:25 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.
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 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?
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?
2. She is getting more attention because men are getting horny seeing here in revealing clothes.
It is absolutely astounding the amount of people who believe rape is predominately brought upon by horniness. People who rape others are not "more horny" than other people. They have other serious issues. Most noteably, control issues. And it's another reason why the overwhelming majority of rapes are not "random".
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.
"Its your fault" and "you had poor judgment" are two completely different things (in practice, mode of dress should not be a mitigating factor in rape prosecutions). Just because you conflate the two doesn't mean that other people rationally don't. Oh, and accusing others of being pro-rape / enablers of such really doesn't add to the discussion. Its a complete red herring.
Also, the legal case you bring up also fairly irrelevant. The article makes no mention of the prosecution's argument (surely he/she must have had one relating to the jeans issue?), almost as if its intended to stir up public opinion than to actually present a factual account of the case...
Of course, a reporter would never do that, right?
In any case, let me draw the discussion back to the policeman's words, which say read:
Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized
The "should" can either be interpreted as a moral judgment or a suggestion -- I think its the latter but maybe I'm being overly charitable.
"You shouldn't do X, to avoid Y" is very different from "If you do X, you deserve Y".
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:
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.
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.
Thanks for educating me.
So many people still have to learn the basic human rights and forget their "common-sense"...
If nobody implies that dresses justify the rape, why are we talking about how victims are dressed ? It sounds like hypocrisy...
I'm tired of reading "Yes it's not the victim fault at all, blah blah blah, *but* if she didn't blah blah blah... increase risks blah blah blah"
Sorry, one can't say : "100% not the victim fault , but...". The word "but" means one don't agree 100%.
Like someone said "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." Come on, it's basic freedom. How can some people suggest that victims should not have dressed "slutty"...
Everything is in the "should not".
Speaking generally, everyone have the freedom to make mistakes and take dumb risks if it's not against the law... Once a crime happened, *why* the victim has been involved is irrelevant. What is relevant is *what* happened and what the law says about it.
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.
the problem with this arises through INDIVIDUALS political ideologies: conservatives would agree more with the oppinion that: it is partially the woman's fault for dressing the way she does whereas, a liberal ideology would agree more that: it is solely the perpetrators fault because people have the freedom to express themselves how they please (if dressing like a "slut" is one of those ways of expression.)
counter-intuitively, the conservatives actually believe in longer jail times for the perpetrator whereas liberals believe in less jail time which still boggles my mind but thats besides the point.
my personal take on it: people have the freedom to do what ever they want, and it shouldn't be infringed upon (by anyone including the government) unless the commonwealth of the people is in danger (within good reason). However, women [as this is the main group that are categorized as sluts] shouldn't be AS surprised if they get raped while wearing something scantily clad as they are basically being a "tease", which most guys hate teases first off and rapist obviously have no objections to violating someone else's personal freedoms. As for the punishment of the perpetrator: i believe that (he or she) should receive repressions of the fullest extent how many ever years in prison it may be.
edit: as for the official's word choice, it was probably the poorest word choice he could have made and should have made a public apology and done something else to prove he didn't mean what he said (although it is obvious he did).
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. [...]
No. If there are risks related to criminal behavior, it is not people responsibility to avoid crime ! It is the State responsibility to punish criminals. The State should not suggest that people have to avoid getting in trouble in order to lower crime.
Like, you know, don't dress "slutty"... When all we see on TV is slutty-dressed singers...
In that thread, a girl shares a picture of her signed cleavage from MLG (Huk and Destiny each got to sign a boob). What follows is a horde of horny responses which demonstrate that to many posters in that thread, this girl is in fact a nothing more than a sex object.
On April 05 2011 07:23 Draz wrote: So is there no headshot so we can see if this girl was attractive or not?
On April 05 2011 07:19 redFF wrote: Need some response from either HuK or Destiny here, was she hot?
On April 05 2011 07:19 Arterial wrote: Yep, this queen's definitely got a bit of meat on her. She should be spewing creep tumors or at least larva injecting. Might wanna transfuse some of it off too.
On April 05 2011 07:41 Martyandborg wrote: she's fat and has veiny spider web tits. fucking gross
User was temp banned for this post.
On April 05 2011 04:53 ShotgunMessages wrote: oh man she better have sucked huks dick off. Go Canada hahahahahaha :D
On April 05 2011 04:37 Gemini_19 wrote: What a gigantic picture.
Other than that that is hilarious xD
Yet the fat chick still doesn't fit in the picture...
User was warned for this post
One girl was grossed out and said so, which was followed by the horde attacking her, one guy even saying if she wants to share her feelings 'blog it' wtf?
Now the reason I'm posting in this thread is because it's the same kind of issues. A girl behaves in a manner that is risque. This is followed by an evidently testerone-induced response from many of the male respondents.
Now, assuming that this sexual attention was unwanted and unwarranted (yeah it's not rape, just harassment and objectification in this case), who's fault is it that this girl got so many demeaning and objectifying responses?
I'm pretty sure I can piss off almost everybody with my take on it. On the one hand, it's insulting to me and males in general to suggest that we can't behave civilly towards women if they engage in 'risque behaviors'. On the other hand, it's fairly obtuse to ignore the fact that if this girl had her arm signed instead of her rack, the response would have been less sexualized.
check out this exchange between a well-meaning guy and a grossed out girl.
On April 05 2011 06:51 stephls wrote: I said I wouldn't post again, but I just want final thoughts.
1) I started this because I saw a post saying "gotta love girl gamers". It offended me as a girl gamer. Can anyone understand that? 2) I don't care about this girl whatsoever. She can do what she wants to do. 3) I admit what I said has flaws. I was just speaking my feelings, not trying to make an argument (like I said 5 times) 4) This has taught me that I will no longer say anything about women on team liquid
Now please, lets drop all this?
There are thousands of men on this forum. I understand what you feel. I respect that. But what I will suggest to you -by the way reading your opinion I have more respect to you- let the people get treated the way they want. You don't have to be Einstein to know getting your boobs signed is not something that has zero sexuality. Why not your forehead or arm but your boobs ? It is not MEN trying to turn women into META, unfortunately it is the women themselves. About being a sexy symbol, if you do this and post a picture of your signed boobs, I am sorry, even the most modest man will have a blood flow to his penis regardless of the context. Even if this girl was doing this to help the sick from radioactiveness in Japan, the moment I look at it -it is basic biology- the moment I forget about Japan.
So don't take offence for what all the women do, like I don't care what all men say or write here. You are individual, protect yourself
Note : A Man's body contains a limited amount of blood, and unfortunately it is not enough for the brain and the weewee at the same time (at least for a decent sized one - jk jk) we should stop posting for a while (jk jk)
Essentially he says "don't hold us guys responsible, it's just our biology". On that much I call BS. At the same time however, he's absolutely right that 'getting your boobs signed is not something that has zero sexuality'. And by posting this pic on the internet, she was directing this sexualized action at a mass of horny nerds...which was kinda dumb if you think about it.
Just to be clear about my opinion. Women are not in any way responsible for the actions of violence or harassment made against them by men. When it comes to harassment or unwanted sexual attention or sexual objectification, women would be well advised to take common-sense actions and precautions before dressing/behaving lewdly.
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 question : "are people responsible for their own likelihood of being raped".
I am totally in support of the destigmatization of "slutty" behavior for women. The fact that promiscuous women are "slutty" while promiscuous men are "players" is one of the most obnoxious double standards in modern Western society. And along with that double standard goes the idea that a woman that gets raped is ever "asking for it." That idea is totally ridiculous.
What does annoy me, however, is the women that go out partying all the time in "slutty" clothes and hook up every weekend, and then turn around and act all uppity and complain about all guys are douchebags who are only interested getting in their pants. But that's another topic...
Women should be able to wear anything they want without being blamed for their own rape. By saying that "dressing slutty" incites rape, you're by extension declaring that women should only dress covered up and conservatively otherwise they're asking to be raped. Isn't that was Muslim women are forced to do with wearing a hijab that only shoes their face and hands? Do you think that is the "right" way for women to dress and should be forced upon all women otherwise they're just asking for rape? Not that it stops rape, women wearing hijabs are raped all the time, and they're stoned for reporting it since their culture blames the woman for being raped. Do we want to adopt that same cultural oppression of women?
A man who intends to rape a woman is going to do it regardless of what she wears. Rapists often know and stalk their targets, it isn't just a "hey you look slutty" whim out of nowhere. Even rapists who go hunting for victims doesn't pick women based on slutty clothes, rapists pick victims based on vulnerability. If it's a small woman alone at night with no one around, she's more likely to get raped regardless of what she's wearing, simply due to her vulnerable position. You always hear about the rapist that assaults a woman walking alone somewhere. You don't hear about the rapist who grabs a slutty girl out of a crowd because he wouldn't put himself in the crowd where he is likely to get caught.
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".
from the linked article:
Speaking to students at York University about community safety tips, Sanguinetti said, “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,” according to media reports.
This is what set off the whole debate. "how to avoid getting raped". I think 419 has a point, in fact.
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. If you drive really slowly and carefully you don't need really good brakes. That doesn't mean car makers can stop researching brakes. 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. I doubt any of them would go waddling around half-naked in a back alley saying "la la la la you can't rape me".
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".
Speaking to students at York University about community safety tips, Sanguinetti said, “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,” according to media reports.
This is what set off the whole debate. "how to avoid getting raped". I think 419 has a point, in fact.
And what point does it makes about the question "are people responsible for their own likelihood of being raped" ?
Edit : and no, i'm sorry, this thread is not about "how to avoid getting raped"... Edit2 : I'm sure there are plenty of things you can do to avoid getting raped... This is not the point...
the problem is with the men who want to rape people not with the women who dress like sluts. i don't respect sluts (not the same as dressing like one mind you) but to act like women who are raped at fault because of what they wore is really retarded when they're the victims
Women should be able to wear anything they want without being blamed for their own rape. By saying that "dressing slutty" incites rape, you're by extension declaring that women should only dress covered up and conservatively otherwise they're asking to be raped.
Non sequitur. No one's claiming any inciting of actions, or, if so, that such inciting is a valid legal defense.
What I'm arguing here:
However, there may well be a correlation between women choosing to dress in certain ways and their chances of getting raped. Yes / no? If yes:
Is it unreasonable to communicate this fact to responsible women? Yes / no?
***
In a less inflammatory context, is suggesting people lock their bikes an implicit 'blaming the victim' of bike thefts? And if so, should these suggestions be discouraged?
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?
***
Not that it stops rape, women wearing hijabs are raped all the time, and they're stoned for reporting it since their culture blames the woman for being raped. Do we want to adopt that same cultural oppression of women?
This is what happens when you double down on a very tenuous line of the argument. Slippery slope arguments are valid if used carefully -- but I have never seen this rare creature on the TL forums, unfortunately...
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."
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".
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.
Edit: It upsets me when certain groups will only pull the negative aspects from a situation like this and turn it into a shitstorm. I wish they could turn it into a learning experience. Taking my crossing the road example again:
Let's say a kid crossed the road without looking and was killed by a passing car, and someone called him stupid for doing so. Some people ("certain groups" from above for the sake of consistency in the analogy) would only criticize the person who called the kid stupid. I just wish they would use that energy to educate kids about looking twice before crossing the road.
Female: Age Gender Race Social Status Predictability of Schedule Their normal attire/Appearance
I believe that the rapist filter out all the women until they find one that fits their likes from the list above. Then they find an opportune moment to take them.
This is the typical kidnapping rape case not the date rape ones.
This is yet another one of those sad few thread that make me ashamed to have 1k posts on this forum.
It's hard enough to explain ESPORTs to females without having the argument "it's a great and mature community" swept from under your feet time and time again.
The ignorance displayed by some becomes the shame of all.
Imagine for a second that all you say is true. That the cause of rape is lust and that lust is triggered by female clothing. You do realize that if we lived in a matriarchal society and that was how things work - every single male would be castrated at puberty save for a few selected specimen who would be kept for breeding purposes. Young boys would be brought up by their eunuch fathers and there would be inquisitorial squads tracking down uncastrated males.
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" :
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.
Edit : i know that not all rape victims are women, but it seems to me that the debates revolves around proper female behavior. It's sad. Edit2 : "at least exercise some safety unless they want to get raped" ?? Are you jocking ? Am i being trolled ?
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.
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 ?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 09:22 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" :
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 03:15 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 09:22 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I specifically stated that I didn't mean to sound harsh with that ultimatum of sorts, but I wanted to make it as black and white as possible. Obviously, there's a lot of grey area in this matter, which is why we're getting to such lengthly discussions.
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.
Again and again... 1 of course, the way you dress effect the kind of attention you get, but it doesn't correlates to the number of rape victims... Rape victims are not all young pretty girls... Rape is more about control. Please read the whole thread. Sorry if it don't fit what you expected. But you will ignore it. Goes with your intuition, and your reasoning, it's probably closer to the truth.
2 Even if the way you dress effect the chances of getting raped, we should promote reporting rape and putting rapists in jail rather than promoting how to avoid rapes. If all rapes were reported, there would probably be a lot less. But some people in this thread focus on "dressing properly" rather than "fight against rapists" and "report rapes to police".
3 This "common sense" bullshit is something that prevent victims from reporting rapes...
I think i may have successfully been trolled for 2 hours. All have been said... I wish i could stop responding... sigh...
On April 05 2011 11:19 shinosai wrote: 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.
Very interesting. Could you give the source please ?
1 of course, the way you dress effect the kind of attention you get, but it doesn't correlates to the number of rape victims... Rape victims are not all young pretty girls... Rape is more about control. Please read the whole thread. Sorry if it don't fit what you expected. But you will ignore it. Goes with your intuition, and your reasoning, it's probably closer to the truth.
What's your evidence of this claim that rape is mostly about control? If rape is more about power and control than sex, why isn't male on male rape more common? The percentage of older rape victims is very low as well. 80% of rape victims are under age 30, which again points to a different picture than one of rape as primarily power/control.
On April 05 2011 11:19 shinosai wrote: 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.
Very interesting. Could you give the source please ?
Begin reading at page 85 under "Myths, stereotypes, and definitions of rape." While this particular source does not specifically talk about the state of dress, I believe it implies it. At the very least, it argues that in the court room anything that might suggest that the woman deviated from her gender role as virtuous would result in doubt of the defendant's guilt.
"And in his study of actual rape trials, Lafree (1989) found that in cases where the major defense issue centered on whether a sexual act had occurred or been attempted or on whether the victim consented, the victim's life-style and her gender role behavior were more important even than measures of physical evidence and seriousness of the offense in determining jurors' evaluations. LaFree states that any evidence of a victim's drinking, drug use, sexual activity outside of marriage, or prior acquaintance with the defendant led jurors to doubt the defendant's guilt."
On April 05 2011 11:56 furymonkey wrote: Might be off topic, how how often do male get raped by female? Can't seems to find any stats about this.
How come I got a feeling that alot more males will be happy to get raped by females.
It would probably be difficult to find because most cases aren't taken very seriously. Men much moreso than women are extremely unlikely to report a rape. Also, males are not happy to be raped by females. The definition of rape excludes this possibility. If the sexual advance made the male happy, it seems to me that he would be consenting. If he's not consenting, why would he be happy?
I can't help but think that the reason you think men will be happy to get raped by females is that men like sex more than women do. So much that any type of sex would be welcomed, even rape. This is a myth. Women are more selective about sex, but they do enjoy it just as much as men if not more.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
On April 05 2011 11:56 furymonkey wrote: Might be off topic, how how often do male get raped by female? Can't seems to find any stats about this.
How come I got a feeling that alot more males will be happy to get raped by females.
It would probably be difficult to find because most cases aren't taken very seriously. Men much moreso than women are extremely unlikely to report a rape. Also, males are not happy to be raped by females. The definition of rape excludes this possibility. If the sexual advance made the male happy, it seems to me that he would be consenting. If he's not consenting, why would he be happy?
I can't help but think that the reason you think men will be happy to get raped by females is that men like sex more than women do. So much that any type of sex would be welcomed, even rape. This is a myth. Women are more selective about sex, but they do enjoy it just as much as men if not more.
So where did you find the statistics to back up these claims? How do you know men are extremely unlikely to report a rape? How do you distinguish a man not reporting a rape from the rape having never occurred in the first place?
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
On April 05 2011 11:56 furymonkey wrote: Might be off topic, how how often do male get raped by female? Can't seems to find any stats about this.
How come I got a feeling that alot more males will be happy to get raped by females.
It would probably be difficult to find because most cases aren't taken very seriously. Men much moreso than women are extremely unlikely to report a rape. Also, males are not happy to be raped by females. The definition of rape excludes this possibility. If the sexual advance made the male happy, it seems to me that he would be consenting. If he's not consenting, why would he be happy?
I can't help but think that the reason you think men will be happy to get raped by females is that men like sex more than women do. So much that any type of sex would be welcomed, even rape. This is a myth. Women are more selective about sex, but they do enjoy it just as much as men if not more.
So where did you find the statistics to back up these claims? How do you know men are extremely unlikely to report a rape? How do you distinguish a man not reporting a rape from the rape having never occurred in the first place?
The same way you distinguish a woman not reporting a rape from the rape having never occurred in the first place. Generally it comes out long after anything can be done about it, or from anonymous surveys. Anyways, simply googling "male rape victim statistics" can give you this information, but an even faster route is to go to wikipedia.
^nah man it's more like the murder victim was planning to suicide the next day anyway. But it's still not a great analogy.
If the girl doesn't press charges, i don't think it would be a case, unless it's statutory rape or another case where the state is obligated to represent the victim
edit: however, I believe it's still morally wrong and if the girl had not liked it (which I would assume to be normal) then you (alexdelarge) would have been in deep legal shit as well. But to be honest that story seems quite difficult to believe, mostly because of the cavalier style of telling.
No analogy is ever good unless it's the exact same situation in which case it's no longer an analogy. That being said, the point is that the guy had no idea what the outcome was. So, the moral nature of his action cannot be determined after the fact. We have an obligation to judge him for his actions based on what he knew at the time.
If it were any other way we would be able to say the most heinous of crimes were okay if the result ended up being a morally favorable one.
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?
LOL. Yeah technically you committed the criminal act of rape. From our point of view it's totally different from shoving a stranger against an alleyway and raping her. But in the eyes of the court, both are rape. And you'd be in deep shit if that girl wasn't cool.
So yeah, you're a funny guy, but sadly also a despicable one. Yeah sure she turned out to be a slut, but you didn't know that until after she sobered up
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
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:
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.
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.
Thanks for educating me.
So many people still have to learn the basic human rights and forget their "common-sense"...
If nobody implies that dresses justify the rape, why are we talking about how victims are dressed ? It sounds like hypocrisy...
I'm tired of reading "Yes it's not the victim fault at all, blah blah blah, *but* if she didn't blah blah blah... increase risks blah blah blah"
Sorry, one can't say : "100% not the victim fault , but...". The word "but" means one don't agree 100%.
Like someone said "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." Come on, it's basic freedom. How can some people suggest that victims should not have dressed "slutty"...
Everything is in the "should not".
Speaking generally, everyone have the freedom to make mistakes and take dumb risks if it's not against the law... Once a crime happened, *why* the victim has been involved is irrelevant. What is relevant is *what* happened and what the law says about it.
I think when investigating a crime, everything should be relevant. "Why" the victim was involved is actually very important, and should be made known in the courtroom. Obvious example is a guy committing murder in self-defense. Everything has to be taken into account in order to determine whether one's actions were justified or incriminate.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future. And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
He didn't perceive shit. Didn't you read what he wrote "I felt kind of horny, so I said ah what the hell... I fucked the shit out of her".
In a utilitarian sense, putting that guy behind bars would be protecting future victims. Yeah, sounds iffy and I would never wish for a TL user to go to jail for something that "could happen". But I also would never wish for some nice girl to get raped because he thought she'd be alright with it.
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.
Thats a strong statemate i disagree with Rape is about control not arousal they get off on control they dont feel it otherwise
I agree. The only evidence that rape is more likely to occur if a woman dresses revealingly is that some people think it's 'pretty obvious'. Which is, of course, not evidence at all. Nor is it logical given that, as you pointed out, the motivations for rape are not the same as the motivations for sex.
Plus people seem to be thinking of rape in terms of night time attacks by strangers, when in reality the majority of such crimes are committed by people who are known to the victim.
Bottom line is women should be able to wear what they want, there's no reason to think that dressing provacatively makes a woman more likely to be a victim of a sex crime, and finally, the officer quoted in the OP chose his words very very poorly if he did indeed intend it differently.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future.
Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future.
Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable.
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future.
Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable.
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
I think you're going a little far with the "he raped her" thing. She consented after the fact, thanking him for the intercourse; therefore, it was not rape. It could have been rape if she didn't want it, but she did so she obviously consented rite? That's just how I look at it. Though I'm not saying you can just have sex with a girl without consent and hope she says she likes it afterwards, cuz if she doesn't well have fun with the rape charges.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future.
Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori.
No, I'm using this quote of his:
'Alright, i should mention that the vibe of that night was that it was definitely ON between us. If she hadn't passed out, we would have sex anyway.'
I know, I can read, a rare skill, fortunate to posses it, don't flatter me, I'm still a normal person otherwise.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable.
I know, that's why I make the point, but where do you draw the line, second date,third date, fourth?
I take it that if someone concedes to sex with me once that doesn't give me a free ticked to do them whilst being 90% out, right?
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her.
Legally? Accordingly what jurisdiction?
You do realize that laws are different in different countries regarding this right?
We also don't know who started the 'advances', it just started as cuddling and went from there.
And why did I rape her? Are you assuming that I'm a man, is that the reason in some jurisdictions, what if I'm not? What if it was a lesbian encounter? What happens then?
Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape.
Ah, but here a contradiction comes. Because intoxication in most legal systems doesn't absolve one from the responsibility not to rape, and if having sex with an intoxicated person who can't say no is raping, then surely adding both results into two intoxicated people having sex is both raping each other?
I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
Why not? If you can with one being 90% unconscious?
I mean, sex is a pretty simple thing, one of the most primary human urges. Even mental retards with an IQ of 50 have been shown to know how to do it.
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 also raises an interesting situation, if you had reported him when she clearly didn't mind, what would that accomplish? Who's the victim in this scenario, who's helped by getting that guy behind bars?
I dunno man, people quite often seem to live in the mentality 'I mind, so you should mind as well, else you're not protecting yourself.', clearly the woman liked it, there isn't any harm done.
Also, one to some extend senses and knows these things, that people aren't going to mind that. I sometimes give strangers hugs out of nowhere to which they react pleased. You simply recognise a person that likes it when you see it.
I believe you're engaging in a logical fallacy here. You are letting the end justify the means. Just because she happened to like it is completely irrelevant. She also could have not liked it. Who cares? The fact is that he engaged in rape, and while the girl might not be a victim in the sense that she didn't mind, what would you say about some girl in the future that he might do this to?
Let's say I murder someone because they pissed me off. This person is to the best of my knowledge a perfectly normal, innocent person. After the fact, I find out that the person I killed was a serial killer. Are my actions suddenly justified, just because I found out after the fact that the person was a serial killer?
Or even better: Imagine that I murder someone because they pissed me off, and I find out after the fact that they had a terminal illness that would have killed them the next day anyways. Is the murder okay, now?
I'm not talking about 'okay', I'm asking what the punishment would accomplish in an utilitarian sense.
The girl obtains no satisfaction from his punishment, far worse, her boyfriend goes to jail.
And like I said, one perceives these things to some extend, it could be that he wouldn't have proceeded if he didn't perceive in some way that the girl would like it.
In the utilitarian sense it would stop him from raping other women in the future.
Like I said, he might not do this if there wasn't already an obvious vibe going on.
And you're full of shit if you think you can "perceive" if a girl would like to fuck while she's 90% unconscious on your first date.
She wasn't 90% unconscious at the start.
Like he said, there was already definitely a vibe going on.
I mean, where do you draw the line? What if it was the second date and they already fucked, what if it was the 7th? What if it's his girlfriend for 4 years and they have sex when she's drunk?
What if she's simply sleepy I had sex with a girl once when we were both so sleepy we hardly knew what we were doing, we were definitely out for 90% and I barely knew her. Who raped whom here?
What if they both were out from pot for 90% and had sex, they then raped each other and should both go to jail?
In many legal systems, intoxication isn't absolving from rape.
He already stated the reason he did it was because he felt horny. In no instance did he indicate that he thought she'd be okay with it, nor would he have any reason to. A vibe? A slutty vibe, perhaps? My, aren't we getting close to the "she deserved it" thing again. You're using the evidence from after the fact to make up justifications a priori.
As to your questions: If you're already in a sexual relationship, rape is typically harder to prove. I would say if you've already slept with her consensually, future intercourse is probably acceptable unless there was some sort of break up or circumstance that would make the sex not justifiable.
If you were both 90% out of it, legally speaking you raped her. Morally speaking, neither of you were capable of taking advantage of the other, as you were both in the same state. I wouldn't call that rape. I am curious how two people would successfully fornicate while 90% unconscious, though.
I think you're going a little far with the "he raped her" thing. She consented after the fact, thanking him for the intercourse; therefore, it was not rape. It could have been rape if she didn't want it, but she did so she obviously consented rite? That's just how I look at it. Though I'm not saying you can just have sex with a girl without consent and hope she says she likes it afterwards, cuz if she doesn't well have fun with the rape charges.
Hmm, I'm heading to bed but before I go I'll drop one last nugget of opinions. I'm not really sure how one can consent to something after the fact. He did knowingly have sex with her without her consent at the time, so I would definitely consider that rape. She approved of the sex, she didn't mind the sex, but she didn't consent to the sex. Consent is something you give prior to an act, not afterward.
Why not? If you can with one being 90% unconscious?
Well, see, when there's only one person 90% unconscious, the other person is capable of doing the work. If you were both 90% unconscious I don't see how you'd be doing much other than laying there thinking about how totally plastered you are. But maybe our definitions of "90% unconscious" differ.
Why not? If you can with one being 90% unconscious?
Well, see, when there's only one person 90% unconscious, the other person is capable of doing the work. If you were both 90% unconscious I don't see how you'd be doing much other than laying there thinking about how totally plastered you are. But maybe our definitions of "90% unconscious" differ.
Nahhh, like I said, sex is a pretty simple thing to do, it's not like it addresses the higher functions of the brain.
Also, address the other points, I'm especially interested in why I legally raped her, in what jurisdiction, and an excerpt of the relevant law.
Also, I'd like you to get on your knees and admit that AlexDeLarge did indeed say that the vibe was going on.
I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote: I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote: I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us.
Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote: I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us.
Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
Belief in gravity doesn't get rapists lighter sentences or put blame on victims, the idea that certain behaviors cause rape does.
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote: I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us.
Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
Belief in gravity doesn't get rapists lighter sentences or put blame on victims, the idea that certain behaviors cause rape does.
If rapists are getting lighter sentences, I'd happily throw my belief out the window. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and I was just reading the ban list.
If a person cannot control himself or herself, he should be locked up for as long as we can manage - in that way the belief is nothing but harmful. However, if the reasoning behind the belief is only to ensure the maximum safety of every person, then it should remain.
I apologize if my posts came through as expressing sympathy for the rapist/belief they should get lighter sentences - I was not aware of this portion of the belief, and I am disgusted in myself for implying they should get any leniency in this (even through ignorance).
On April 05 2011 14:10 Aequos wrote: I suspect what the police officer meant was "don't provoke people." I suspect that the police do intend to capture this man and send him to jail, but that doesn't mean they can't give advice to protect people.
An example, as I'm not being as clear as I hope to be - Imagine that there was a murderer who killed, say, caucasians, and that is the only demographic he targeted. The police would probably offer advice such as "if you are a caucasian who needs to move around after dark, be sure to stay in a group and avoid drawing emphasis to yourself."
This is similar, it's just badly phrased on the officer's part. I think the people who are upset enough to protest this are probably taking the far more - for lack of a better word - obsolete viewpoint that the victim is responsible for being sexually assaulted, or at least believe that the officer is taking that viewpoint.
Yeah, but the debate I started here centres more on the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that dressing revealingly does incite rape.
Fair enough. Although as the current belief seems to imply such, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? I mean, there isn't definitive proof on many things (such as evolution, gravity, etc) but we choose to believe them because they make sense to us.
Likewise, although there isn't proof that dressing in exposing clothing encourages sexual assault, it's believable. Why not take every precaution possible?
What a strange comparison you made. No one said anything about definitive proof, there isn't any proof, definitive or otherwise. Just 'common sense'.
But common sense, as much as I tire of that phrase, is wrong. It might be 'believable' but that's no reason not to give the idea proper scrutiny. As someone already brought up, rape is not about conventional arousal. It's about control and power.
Slightly off topic but still relevant; I remember watching a documentary where a girl was describing the event of her own rape (if i remember rightly, it was a BBC doc on the disproportionate level of sex crimes committed by young black males in London). She recounted that her attackers said 'We are doing this because you are uglier than your friends. If you were pretty like them this wouldn't be happening.'
Power, control, humiliation. Rape is not sex. The motivations are seperate.
While they were protesting I was trying to get to campus to work on a project so that I can graduate as an engineer to try to make the world a better place for these very same people.
Instead the TTC street cars were shut down and why? For a bunch of goofy-looking people with signs saying 'I LOVE SLUTS' trying to make a point that most of them didn't really understand. Just an excuse to have a Halloween party downtown in April, and to shout provocative sayings at a building... that was empty....
Seriously. The Police HQ was empty. It was Sunday.
This is feminism at its worst. The kind that makes adults shake their heads and wonder where this generation went wrong. Fighting against 'The Man' while carrying iPhones, designer brand clothing and Coach bags.
Great job, girls! You showed that one police officer. Now please never do this again.
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.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
Like I said above - there is no proof it's true, but common sense suggests it is, and it makes sense as an option.
Edit: Fixed a terrible typo that invalidated my argument by making me look like an idiot who can't type worth a damn.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
i think, from what i read in the links, that it's a pretty immature understanding of female agency and that their energy might be better spent reading some foundational feminist theory, but anything meant to draw attention to lazy policework seems good enough to me, even if the spirit is flawed
Most of these links simply reiterate the same theme without any evidence or ciation whatsoever. Just because everyone says it is the case, doesn't make it true. Looking at the first PDF linked from Utah State (I have to chuckle a touch since I'm from Utah):
1) "Most convicted felons do not remember what their victims were wearing": Irrelevant. Men aren't attracted by clothing. They are attracted to women. Skimpy clothing doesn't mean the clothing is remembered, it means the woman is.
2) "Victims range in age from days old to those in their 90s": While true, what is omitted is the fact that 80% of rape victims are under 30. Very, very few are over 40, and one should look at the vast majority of cases when determining motivation for an activity in general. This is a highly misleading statement that is clearly made for ideological reasons.
3) "A federal commission on Crime of Violence Study found that 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior": First of all, provocative behavior has little to do with whether rape is based primarily on sexual desire or on a power/control basis. Second of all....22% of murders have to do with provocative behavior? What?? I have to assume that they aren't only talking about sexually provocative behavior here.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
Like I said above - there is no proof it's true, but evidence suggests it is, and it makes sense as an option.
there is no proof it's true, but evidence suggests it is
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
Like I said above - there is no proof it's true, but evidence suggests it is, and it makes sense as an option.
Sorry, that was badly phrased - what I meant to say is that common sense suggests it is. I'll go edit the previous post (haven't slept much, I know it's not an excuse, but hopefully it explains my poor wording).
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
I don't follow the logic here. Why is it the case that, since rape happens most often between people known to each other, they are about power and not about sex?
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
I don't follow the logic here. Why is it the case that, since rape happens most often between people known to each other, they are about power and not about sex?
Although I don't know all of it myself, I'll try and explain to the best of my abilities.
Because rape is most often preformed between people who know one another, it is most often about power due to the sexual release being available from essentially anyone. A person looking for sexual release, but who doesn't want to be caught, would probably choose a victim who has the smallest chance of identifying him (yes, I'm using the male stereotype, so what?). That would imply a random stranger, as most family members/friends are able to identify people they know. In the absolute WORST case scenario, it would imply that there would be close to an even distribution of rape between random strangers and known targets (as people are simply looking for release, and don't care if people know).
However, because the vast majority of rape cases are between people who know each other, it implies that something else is at work here. Again, there is no proof that it's a power issue, but logic suggests (as well as some accounts from rapists) that it is a power issue.
Rape is about control/power, not sexual desire. Why do you think people use the terminology "you got raped" in video games? Does it imply I dominated you utterly, or that you were sexually desirable? Horny guys can just touch themselves.
Still waiting for evidence of this claim that is repeated ad nauseum. If rape was just about power, male/male rape would be more common, and 80% of rape victims wouldn't be under 30. The word choice of immature dorks isn't exactly a compelling argument.
There is a post a few pages back by someone who works in a battered women's shelter. He argued that it was most often a power issue, and that is why most rapes happen between people already known to each other (ie. not complete strangers).
Like I said above - there is no proof it's true, but evidence suggests it is, and it makes sense as an option.
there is no proof it's true, but evidence suggests it is
no proof
but evidence suggests
What?
Sorry, that was badly phrased - what I meant to say is that common sense suggests it is. I'll go edit the previous post (haven't slept much, I know it's not an excuse, but hopefully it explains my poor wording).
Don't worry dude, I can relate. I thought since I have work at 9am and I went out drinking last night it'd be easier to just stay up all night rather than get only a few hours sleep then wake up with a hangover.
I don't believe dressing revealingly is directly related to the chance of a rape. You have to remember a person who would resort to such a thing is probabily a deviant of some sort.
As some other ppl said a person dressed like 25yo virgin coming back from church may not necesarily seem provocative in a sexual way, however they may get pleasure from depriving them of their innocence rather then the sex itself.
If anything affects your chances of geting home safe it's the road you walk, the hour you're there and beeing alone. Since promiscuous women may be chilling at night at the street corner that makes them easy targets. Completely unrelated from the dresscode. Also a slut is far less likely to go to the police and form a complaint because they're probabily just going to thing a client may have gone a bit overboard and when you have sex with more then 1 person that day evidence might be hard to come by.
TLDR - The way you dress is irelevant, however it can be indirectly related in the sense that ppl who dress this or that way may be EASIER targets rather then tempting targets.
Just gonna chime in with my only experience on the matter. I am a male, heterosexual American. When I went to India with my University class, there were 18 women and 4 men (myself included) with the trip. Several of the women experienced varying degrees of sexual objectification and violence, up to and including rape. My girlfriend, who was on the trip with me, made a point to dress un-provocatively, ie covering skin at all times. She is convinced this contributed to the fact she was not assaulted in any way. My instinct is to agree with her.
I wish we lived in a world where women were free to do and dress as they pleased. I do what I can to contribute to that world. But in the world we currently have, the one where we really live every day, the simple fact of the matter is that the way a woman dresses influences the amount of respect she gets from random males in public settings, which in turn influences the chances she'll be sexually victimized.
I find this unjust and repulsive, but it's the way it is. When my girlfriend goes to shady neighborhoods to tutor, I encourage her to wear a hoodie because I think it makes her less likely to be targeted. To all young people, I encourage you to do your part to change the world so that our children do not have to deal with such a travesty. But in the meantime I prefer to deal with the real world, not the ideal one, when thinking about the people I love.
TLDR; It sucks, but the way a woman dresses does influence her chance of being targeted for sexual violence IMO.
the way a woman dresses influences the amount of respect she gets
That goes for both men and women. Though having no respect for somebody will most certainly not affect rape probability. One of the reasons is a great deal of rapers feel insecure and small, raping a woman who qould seem out of their league is exactly what some would want.
When my girlfriend goes to shady neighborhoods to tutor, I encourage her to wear a hoodie because I think it makes her less likely to be targeted.
That's smart and in reality that's not gona change untill those people have a decent lifestyle, slums lead to criminality. But that's not different from men to women, if you're a skinny guy dressed to impress in there the chance that somebody will sap you on the back of the head and steal your wallet go sky high. Sadly from women they can steal more then just that.
If anything affects your chances of geting home safe it's the road you walk, the hour you're there and beeing alone. Since promiscuous women may be chilling at night at the street corner that makes them easy targets. Completely unrelated from the dresscode. Also a slut is far less likely to go to the police and form a complaint because they're probabily just going to thing a client may have gone a bit overboard and when you have sex with more then 1 person that day evidence might be hard to come by.
Promiscuous women get more attention from men because they seem more sexually available. The odds are thus lower that such a women would be going home alone, thus making her shielded from possible rapists because popular targets are lone women.
Thus we must conclude that infact it is no promiscuous women but infact shy wallflowers that are more likely to be the target of rape.
In reality i have no idea what i am talking about and whilst my conclusion can sound logical, it need not be true. It sounds logical that being in the cold gives you a cold, but the reality is that this isn't true.
Women who dress revealing are still looked down upon like most women who flaunt their sexuality. Society deems that behaviour to be negative because the worshipped ideal is the pure and innocent girl next door.
It's easy for people to project that dislike by suggesting that they are in a way responsible for their own fate.
Wether it's true or not (and it's not) to even entertain the notion that a women holds any responsibility for becoming the victim is wrong. The only person who has done anything wrong is the rapist. No matter how you bring it, any other story is blaming the victim. How would you go about telling a rape victim that her clothes contributed to her ordeal?
Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
Yes. We have to respect each other's individual freedom, this includes dressing up.
Of course it somewhat depresses me if I see a nice woman with a revealing outfit, implying the statement "This is what you will never have, nub!"
If someone "excuses" rape by beeing "provoced", he is trying to make him the actual victim. This is wrong.
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 agree with the last one, but not with the first line. Just because I get stimulated and could use ... relief, does not mean I rape her. I assume that raping a girl is more a sign of deficient respect for her.
On April 05 2011 15:00 gibbons_ wrote: One slip of the tongue caused all this... :/
While they were protesting I was trying to get to campus to work on a project so that I can graduate as an engineer to try to make the world a better place for these very same people.
Instead the TTC street cars were shut down and why? For a bunch of goofy-looking people with signs saying 'I LOVE SLUTS' trying to make a point that most of them didn't really understand. Just an excuse to have a Halloween party downtown in April, and to shout provocative sayings at a building... that was empty....
Seriously. The Police HQ was empty. It was Sunday.
This is feminism at its worst. The kind that makes adults shake their heads and wonder where this generation went wrong. Fighting against 'The Man' while carrying iPhones, designer brand clothing and Coach bags.
Great job, girls! You showed that one police officer. Now please never do this again.
I understand your frustrations. Fucking Toronto, eh?
Edit:
Fighting against 'The Man' while carrying iPhones, designer brand clothing and Coach bags.
This part may be true, but I've noticed that the people who usually get involved in these things are the lower ranged middle-class student, probably majoring in a media program with too much time on their hands (a friend comes to mind), wearing nothing too chic. Just hipster/neo-hippy garb. The hardcore activists are more like what I've described, at least.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
That's really not worth quoting for the girls' defense. It makes perfect sense in the ideal world, but you can't be so naive.
The reality is, people (strangers) would only "defend" the girl in hindsight, post-rape. Why would I look at a girl dressed like a "slut", on the subway for example, and think, "yeah, you go girl! You show 'em you can dress like a slut!". In the real world, I'd either stare for a few seconds and get a bit turned on, or if she wasn't my type I'd dismiss her.
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
She's loose with her body and doesn't respect herself sexually, but at least she wants the final say on whether she has sex or not. I think it's like the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan. She likes her salad tossed, but doesn't want the cream dressing.
...I myself believe he still should be employed; He is entitled to his opinion and it is most likely alot more educated then these gals. I am sure he has had his unwanted due share of experience with sexual assaults, and maybe has found th...ere to be some sort of correlation. Should he say nothing, when possibly some of these crimes have been sickly stirred by a sexual predators lust for a provocatively clad woman?. The key word here is sick; The men that commit these heinous crimes are not rational, riteous, upstanding human beings, who are capable of being educated on a "womens right to wear a mini-skirt", they are sick, deranged hunters who may in fact stalk out the most "appetizing" victim?. True, this is not always the case by any means, but from what I recall of my short-skirt, bar-hopping days as a young woman, I 100% agree with this officers notion. I received a far greater deal of unwanted, inappropriate, sexually- based attention than my more subdued, moderately dressed counterparts. It wasn't right or fair back then, and it isn't right or fair today, but unfortunately that is just the sad reality of the world we live in. Maybe these ladies should take up a cause to fight for something to promote the beauty and value of "what's inside a women" rather than placing such high value on the external?,...Just a thought.
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
Damn, it reminds me of when I was watching G20. Aside from the main instigators, there were a handful of people who went down and partook in the rioting because, "the government wasted too much money on it". What did they do? Broke store windows, destroyed police cars, vadalized city property. Really smart.
The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
Do you think "sluts" want to be raped ? Sluts are called sluts because they have sex with too much people for the current moral views. Or because they dress too sexy for the current moral views. That NEVER meant they WANT to be raped !
The concept that someone could "want to be raped" is really totally idiotic. Rape means UNWANTED sexual intercourse !! This is ridiculous...
It doesn't matter how a woman dresses, she could be naked leaning over a park bench(just for the sake of argument), when someone is raped it is always the rapists fault no matter what, are they asking for it? Maybe they are asking for it but that is completely irrelevant, its like some jerk exercising their right of free speech to promote racism, sexism or any kind of prejudice/hate, they are just asking to be assaulted (in my opinion) but if I were to attack them I would be the criminal. (And rightfully so.)
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Suggesting that people take defensive measures, well, that's arguable, but it's no reason to protest. Likewise, you can't just protest against rape. That's like protesting against murder. It's not like it's going to stop it from happening. Find me a case where a known rapist got off easy because someone was dressed provocatively, and protest that. These people give the act of protest a bad name.
Still, it's good to see that people here are still naive enough to refuse to acknowledge a difference between statistics and culpability. If white people are 2x as likely to be assaulted on a certain street, nobody's going to win a court case because they assaulted a white person on that street, but would you really fault a cop for suggesting that white people don't walk around that neighborhood?
Maybe it's a bit much, but I do trust that if police officers could actually prevent rape cases, they would. But the fact is that you can't be everywhere, and that sometimes there are means of prevention that law enforcement can't control.
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
B. Franklin once said : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong. The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
slut = someone that have sex with too much people for the current moral views.
Is there any law against "sluts" ?
some people are saying "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." ? Yes, you have to deal with it ! Some people don't follow the moral, and there are no laws against it ! It's called freedom. Deal with it. Or go live in a country where moral and "common sense" > laws. There are plenty.
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on.
Yeah, commom sense is back... Truthiness at its best. You don't want to know. You have a "logical" explanation that fits your views, why bother reading anything about the facts ?
And yes we can and we must protest, as long as people like you are more focused on the clothes of the victim rather than the fact that 15 out of 16 rapists never go in jail. Because few rapes are reported. Because when they are reported, people like you say "how was she dressed ?" to begin with. And it seems the police does too.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Can we stop pretending like men are somehow not accountable for their actions and not in control of themselves? If i see Miss Universe walk by naked i am pretty sure i could keep myself from raping her given the fact that i ain't a fucking monster.
If a person has their back to me and i have a knife i don't instantly decide to kill them cause it's easy.
If i a see someone drop his wallet i don't wait till he is around the corner to steal it.
If someone rapes someone then there is nothing about the situation that makes him less accountable. The rapist isn't driven to insanity by the sight of naked skin.
Someone said it before, if men were most likely to be raped this thread would not even exist.
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
B. Franklin once said : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong. The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
Too idealistic. We aren't allowed to carry guns and knives in public. We aren't allowed to bring liquids onto airplanes. We aren't allowed to beat the shit out of people we don't like. We aren't allowed to give alcohol or tobacco to minors. We can't run red lights or speed. We gave up a ton of freedom for a ton of security, yet no one complains or believes the tradeoff wasn't worth it.
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
B. Franklin once said : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong. The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
I don't think any less energy is being expended by telling people to avoid risks. They are still trying to get the bad guy. Still trying to stop the crime. You don't have to avoid the risks if you choose not to but it is the responsibility of those responsible for keeping us safe to let us know exactly what the risks are. Or we could just all go live in a bubble where our actions had no effect whatsoever on the people around us. Sadly, that isn't the case. If I were to disrespect you and lets say you were a violent person, I would be increasing the risk of being physically attacked by you. I should be able to tell you what I think and in a strictly legal since I wouldn't be wrong at all. However, that action carries some risk. I equate this police officer with saying something along the lines of "One of the ways to reduce the risk of being assaulted is to avoid insulting or provoking violent people." They don't identify the attackers. They aren't saying that the attackers are innocent and you deserved it for insulting them. They will still do their level best to make sure that they are held responsible for their crimes. They won't get a lighter sentence. All they are saying is that this behavior might possibly increase the risks. If it doesn't, good for you. If it does, we will still do our job in holding them responsible.
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
B. Franklin once said : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong. The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
Thinking that "fighting bad guys" can completely remove sexual assault from society is incredibly naive. People will never be able to have as much sex as they want to, as long as there is still freedom of consent, and there will always be people who are screwed up enough to take what they want regardless of law, consequences, etc. If politics, law, etc. can be changed to reduce this, then obviously that's fantastic, but complete removal is probably not possible. Until the day that crime simply ceases to exist, however, people have the right to know the dangers in society and that taking advantage of some freedoms can expose you to more risk than otherwise.
We let people smoke, but we do not do so without telling them that it's a bad idea. It's legal to send your kids to the playground alone, but no responsible parent would do so. We let people carry cash and credit cards, even though it would be possible to mandate that password-protected cards are used instead. None of these freedoms are restricted from anyone, but some times common sense forces us to consider the extent to which we use all of the freedoms we're afforded.
Sure, go by your gut reaction, call it fascism, use outdated quotes instead of trying to make a reasonable case, or make appeals to emotion, but in the real world, that doesn't change things. The sad truth about any society that isn't fascist is that when you get the right to interact with others without having a soldier staring down the barrel of a gun at you, you lose the right to expect to be protected in these situations, and people gain the right to murder, rape and assault anyone they can, provided they're willing to accept whatever consequences come of it.
Anyone and everyone can do what they want, when they want, how they want as long as it's within their point of view and understanding of what is right and wrong, they will do what they want. Give or take a few set backs like laws / society. This however only lasts so long.
It's been mentioned here that rapists rape for demeaning women, this is not always the case but it is a strong reason for a lot of them. Rapists who have bad experience over a gender dominating them or demeaning them repetativly will often times turn out to be abusers or rapists themselves toward that specific gender, can be in males and females.
In some cases the rapists don't need to have a style of clothing just attidude, place of work or even their hair style, color, bone structure. However that's nothing new or secret.
Some rapists are considered hunters, they stalk and hunt women for sport and to release themselves. It's considered nature for them like man against animal.
To really know why this person was taken and to consider the officers statement of dress less revealing and be less victimized is to know how many people follow that. Maybe do a toll on all the rapists and how they targetted them, and or why.
If rapists stalk for prey they will start low (genually) and then aim higher. The slutty / prostitutes / stand out people will be targetted first. Like serial murderers most start out with a lack of remorse and start at a young age with practice. Dogs, cats, even babies.
If a rapist goes for a quick release they will target easier targets or the ones that are most provoked.
However if they target something specific, it doesn't matter. It is more common though for teenagers and adults to rape co workers, school workers, friends and a lot of cases that don't get reported. I would say those people are the hard to get but wear revealing type clothing.
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Suggesting that people take defensive measures, well, that's arguable, but it's no reason to protest. Likewise, you can't just protest against rape. That's like protesting against murder. It's not like it's going to stop it from happening. Find me a case where a known rapist got off easy because someone was dressed provocatively, and protest that. These people give the act of protest a bad name.
Still, it's good to see that people here are still naive enough to refuse to acknowledge a difference between statistics and culpability. If white people are 2x as likely to be assaulted on a certain street, nobody's going to win a court case because they assaulted a white person on that street, but would you really fault a cop for suggesting that white people don't walk around that neighborhood?
Maybe it's a bit much, but I do trust that if police officers could actually prevent rape cases, they would. But the fact is that you can't be everywhere, and that sometimes there are means of prevention that law enforcement can't control.
The fact that the term "dressing like a slut" is used already speaks to double standards and a misogynistic mindset on the police officer. Dressing comfortably when the weather is turning warm doesn't mean somebody is dressing like a slut. I actually see guys shirtless pretty often here and nobody calls them sluts.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Can we stop pretending like men are somehow not accountable for their actions and not in control of themselves? If i see Miss Universe walk by naked i am pretty sure i could keep myself from raping her given the fact that i ain't a fucking monster.
If a person has their back to me and i have a knife i don't instantly decide to kill them cause it's easy.
If i a see someone drop his wallet i don't wait till he is around the corner to steal it.
If someone rapes someone then there is nothing about the situation that makes him less accountable. The rapist isn't driven to insanity by the sight of naked skin.
Someone said it before, if men were most likely to be raped this thread would not even exist.
Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will.
If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
B. Franklin once said : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong. The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
Too idealistic. We aren't allowed to carry guns and knives in public. We aren't allowed to bring liquids onto airplanes. We aren't allowed to beat the shit out of people we don't like. We aren't allowed to give alcohol or tobacco to minors. We can't run red lights or speed. We gave up a ton of freedom for a ton of security, yet no one complains or believes the tradeoff wasn't worth it.
Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on.
Yeah, commom sense is back... Truthiness at its best. You don't want to know. You have a "logical" explanation that fits your views, why bother reading anything about the facts ?
And yes we can and we must protest, as long as people like you are more focused on the clothes of the victim rather than the fact that 15 out of 16 rapists never go in jail. Because few rapes are reported. Because when they are reported, people like you say "how was she dressed ?" to begin with. And it seems the police does too.
Am I in any way a proponent of blaming the victim? No, I'm not. Do I know all the facts about sexual assault? No, neither do you. And guess what? I agree with you when you say that rapists being out of jail is a bad thing, I don't like the fact that people are too afraid to report rapes, and I would never look at an actual rape case and start with 'how was she dressed?', so you can cut the straw man garbage and argue against me if you're going to quote my posts like that, not the ridiculous, cooked up image you seem to have of anyone who dares to suggest that the world isn't black and white and that justice can't always win.
When a man is drunk and some hot chick dresses like a slut, well....
No offense, but whilst rape is unjustifiable, when stoned and wasted people's minds are addled, and when they see some hot chick dressed normally, even then they can restrain themselves, but not when a chick is basically wearing nothing. Those chicks that get raped are dressed in a way to seduce men. Its a well known fact.
On April 05 2011 16:42 CarlyZerg wrote: Just gonna chime in with my only experience on the matter. I am a male, heterosexual American. When I went to India with my University class, there were 18 women and 4 men (myself included) with the trip. Several of the women experienced varying degrees of sexual objectification and violence, up to and including rape. My girlfriend, who was on the trip with me, made a point to dress un-provocatively, ie covering skin at all times. She is convinced this contributed to the fact she was not assaulted in any way. My instinct is to agree with her.
I wish we lived in a world where women were free to do and dress as they pleased. I do what I can to contribute to that world. But in the world we currently have, the one where we really live every day, the simple fact of the matter is that the way a woman dresses influences the amount of respect she gets from random males in public settings, which in turn influences the chances she'll be sexually victimized.
I find this unjust and repulsive, but it's the way it is. When my girlfriend goes to shady neighborhoods to tutor, I encourage her to wear a hoodie because I think it makes her less likely to be targeted. To all young people, I encourage you to do your part to change the world so that our children do not have to deal with such a travesty. But in the meantime I prefer to deal with the real world, not the ideal one, when thinking about the people I love.
TLDR; It sucks, but the way a woman dresses does influence her chance of being targeted for sexual violence IMO.
This actually depresses me quite a bit because in my experience it doesn't matter what I wear to some people. If I go somewhere I don't exactly feel safe, I make it a point to cover up...but every single time I've been catcalled, it was when I was in sweatpants and a hoodie, with messy hair and no makeup - meaning, I looked like shit but these guys STILL wanted to demean me. IMO, it's not so much what a woman wears but more the fact these men just want someone to scare and humiliate, and she is an easy target just by existing. It just feels so hopeless, you know?
Obviously, catcalling is not on the same level as rape, but I think the same concept applies here. I really don't think that there's a way to minimize your risk of being raped based on clothing alone. People who are rapists will do it no matter what the victim is wearing. Saying that a victim increased her risk of being victimized somehow is just giving the rapist person an excuse for his behavior. :/
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Suggesting that people take defensive measures, well, that's arguable, but it's no reason to protest. Likewise, you can't just protest against rape. That's like protesting against murder. It's not like it's going to stop it from happening. Find me a case where a known rapist got off easy because someone was dressed provocatively, and protest that. These people give the act of protest a bad name.
Still, it's good to see that people here are still naive enough to refuse to acknowledge a difference between statistics and culpability. If white people are 2x as likely to be assaulted on a certain street, nobody's going to win a court case because they assaulted a white person on that street, but would you really fault a cop for suggesting that white people don't walk around that neighborhood?
Maybe it's a bit much, but I do trust that if police officers could actually prevent rape cases, they would. But the fact is that you can't be everywhere, and that sometimes there are means of prevention that law enforcement can't control.
Sorry, I don't see my ignorance. I was kind of angry when I wrote the post so might be badly written.
Rape isn't purely a sexual act, I can't see how you can deny that. It's first and foremost about men(mostly) proving to themself and the women that they are stronger and more powerful than them. There's never been a study that proves that wearing a "slutty" outfit makes you more likely to get raped. So there goes your "common sense" argument out the window.
Then we have the fact that rape is the most under-reported violent crime in america as well as in most othere countries. Because of the shame, and because if you to trial you'll get asked what you were wearing, if you were drunk, if you sleep with many men etc. I think the protests where about more than this certain case.
There's a big difference between telling a person that they shouldn't be at a certain place at a certain time because you are at a higher risk of being vulnerable to a crime and implying to someone that they deserved it because of the way they were dressed.
I trust police officers in general too, I don't think that this one is a horrible person or anything like that. But to say that the women in this clip didn't have a reason to protest or that they are "creatures" is just fucked up. But the fact is that police officers(who are mostly men) have a bad rep in rape cases, just not in america or canada, but all over the world. I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
On April 05 2011 16:42 CarlyZerg wrote: Just gonna chime in with my only experience on the matter. I am a male, heterosexual American. When I went to India with my University class, there were 18 women and 4 men (myself included) with the trip. Several of the women experienced varying degrees of sexual objectification and violence, up to and including rape. My girlfriend, who was on the trip with me, made a point to dress un-provocatively, ie covering skin at all times. She is convinced this contributed to the fact she was not assaulted in any way. My instinct is to agree with her.
I wish we lived in a world where women were free to do and dress as they pleased. I do what I can to contribute to that world. But in the world we currently have, the one where we really live every day, the simple fact of the matter is that the way a woman dresses influences the amount of respect she gets from random males in public settings, which in turn influences the chances she'll be sexually victimized.
I find this unjust and repulsive, but it's the way it is. When my girlfriend goes to shady neighborhoods to tutor, I encourage her to wear a hoodie because I think it makes her less likely to be targeted. To all young people, I encourage you to do your part to change the world so that our children do not have to deal with such a travesty. But in the meantime I prefer to deal with the real world, not the ideal one, when thinking about the people I love.
TLDR; It sucks, but the way a woman dresses does influence her chance of being targeted for sexual violence IMO.
This actually depresses me quite a bit because in my experience it doesn't matter what I wear to some people. If I go somewhere I don't exactly feel safe, I make it a point to cover up...but every single time I've been catcalled, it was when I was in sweatpants and a hoodie, with messy hair and no makeup - meaning, I looked like shit but these guys STILL wanted to demean me. IMO, it's not so much what a woman wears but more the fact these men just want someone to scare and humiliate, and she is an easy target just by existing. It just feels so hopeless, you know?
Obviously, catcalling is not on the same level as rape, but I think the same concept applies here. I really don't think that there's a way to minimize your risk of being raped based on clothing alone. People who are rapists will do it no matter what the victim is wearing. Saying that a victim increased her risk of being victimized somehow is just giving the rapist person an excuse for his behavior. :/
You're right. But those guys do it when they're with their friends. I know, lol. But they don't do shit when there's a group of people. Go out with friends; walk home with friends, and in general you should be safe.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: The fact that the term "dressing like a slut" is used already speaks to double standards and a misogynistic mindset on the police officer.
There's double standards everywhere, nothing strange or terrible about it. Also, it's not a double standard since guys don't wear clothing that barely cover their bodies, thus guy wear =/= girl wear.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: Dressing comfortably when the weather is turning warm doesn't mean somebody is dressing like a slut.
Guys can dress comfortably in hot weather without short shorts or miniskirts.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: I actually see guys shirtless pretty often here and nobody calls them sluts.
I believe the common term for them is either disgusting or douchebag, depending on their build.
On April 05 2011 16:42 CarlyZerg wrote: Just gonna chime in with my only experience on the matter. I am a male, heterosexual American. When I went to India with my University class, there were 18 women and 4 men (myself included) with the trip. Several of the women experienced varying degrees of sexual objectification and violence, up to and including rape. My girlfriend, who was on the trip with me, made a point to dress un-provocatively, ie covering skin at all times. She is convinced this contributed to the fact she was not assaulted in any way. My instinct is to agree with her.
I wish we lived in a world where women were free to do and dress as they pleased. I do what I can to contribute to that world. But in the world we currently have, the one where we really live every day, the simple fact of the matter is that the way a woman dresses influences the amount of respect she gets from random males in public settings, which in turn influences the chances she'll be sexually victimized.
I find this unjust and repulsive, but it's the way it is. When my girlfriend goes to shady neighborhoods to tutor, I encourage her to wear a hoodie because I think it makes her less likely to be targeted. To all young people, I encourage you to do your part to change the world so that our children do not have to deal with such a travesty. But in the meantime I prefer to deal with the real world, not the ideal one, when thinking about the people I love.
TLDR; It sucks, but the way a woman dresses does influence her chance of being targeted for sexual violence IMO.
This actually depresses me quite a bit because in my experience it doesn't matter what I wear to some people. If I go somewhere I don't exactly feel safe, I make it a point to cover up...but every single time I've been catcalled, it was when I was in sweatpants and a hoodie, with messy hair and no makeup - meaning, I looked like shit but these guys STILL wanted to demean me. IMO, it's not so much what a woman wears but more the fact these men just want someone to scare and humiliate, and she is an easy target just by existing. It just feels so hopeless, you know?
Obviously, catcalling is not on the same level as rape, but I think the same concept applies here. I really don't think that there's a way to minimize your risk of being raped based on clothing alone. People who are rapists will do it no matter what the victim is wearing. Saying that a victim increased her risk of being victimized somehow is just giving the rapist person an excuse for his behavior. :/
You're right. But those guys do it when they're with their friends. I know, lol. But they don't do shit when there's a group of people. Go out with friends; walk home with friends, and in general you should be safe.
But I was with with friends when this happened! You do have a point, though. If I was by myself I would really start to worry about getting physically hurt, but I knew since I had someone else with me it probably wouldn't get to that point. Still scary, though. > <
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: Sorry, I don't see my ignorance. I was kind of angry when I wrote the post so might be badly written.
Rape isn't purely a sexual act, I can't see how you can deny that. It's first and foremost about men(mostly) proving to themself and the women that they are stronger and more powerful than them. There's never been a study that proves that wearing a "slutty" outfit makes you more likely to get raped. So there goes your "common sense" argument out the window.
Umm, there are different types of rapes. Rapes also happen when people are drunk, and the guy gets too horny/drunk to control himself.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: There's a big difference between telling a person that they shouldn't be at a certain place at a certain time because you are at a higher risk of being vulnerable to a crime and implying to someone that they deserved it because of the way they were dressed.
Also, the police officer didn't imply anything, he simply said to avoid dressing too provocatively as a precaution.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
There is a very similar thing: domestic violence against men. It's hugely unreported and occurs frequently. It's also not very well publicized or discussed because apparently androgyny doesn't exist.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
There is a very similar thing: domestic violence against men. It's hugely unreported and occurs frequently.
Absolutely.
Much like rape, domestic violence against men is a serious issue whose treatment by greater society and the justice system is tainted by an unconscious gender bias.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: The fact that the term "dressing like a slut" is used already speaks to double standards and a misogynistic mindset on the police officer.
There's double standards everywhere, nothing strange or terrible about it. Also, it's not a double standard since guys don't wear clothing that barely cover their bodies, thus guy wear =/= girl wear.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: I actually see guys shirtless pretty often here and nobody calls them sluts.
I believe the common term for them is either disgusting or douchebag, depending on their build.
What the hell? Do guys where you live wear coat and tie everywhere? I'm in LA. Wearing light clothing is normal here, even in places far from the beach.
If a woman wears fetish gear or all those slut accessories, it's one thing. But short shorts or miniskirts are pretty normal.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: Sorry, I don't see my ignorance. I was kind of angry when I wrote the post so might be badly written.
Rape isn't purely a sexual act, I can't see how you can deny that. It's first and foremost about men(mostly) proving to themself and the women that they are stronger and more powerful than them. There's never been a study that proves that wearing a "slutty" outfit makes you more likely to get raped. So there goes your "common sense" argument out the window.
Umm, there are different types of rapes. Rapes also happen when people are drunk, and the guy gets too horny/drunk to control himself.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: There's a big difference between telling a person that they shouldn't be at a certain place at a certain time because you are at a higher risk of being vulnerable to a crime and implying to someone that they deserved it because of the way they were dressed.
On April 06 2011 01:25 fidelity wrote: I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
There is a very similar thing: domestic violence against men. It's hugely unreported and occurs frequently. It's also not very well publicized or discussed because apparently androgyny doesn't exist.
Wait what? "the guy gets too horny/drunk to control himself" do you really believe that? Do you think that if truely believe that both sexes are equal and that women are worth as much as men you would rape someone because you're drunk?
I agree, domestic violence against men is a very under-reported crime and that horrible. But it's still more uncommon than domestic violence against women and isn't really comparable to rape. I hate the argument that because there's an under-reported crime against men, then that makes it okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: The fact that the term "dressing like a slut" is used already speaks to double standards and a misogynistic mindset on the police officer.
There's double standards everywhere, nothing strange or terrible about it. Also, it's not a double standard since guys don't wear clothing that barely cover their bodies, thus guy wear =/= girl wear.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: Dressing comfortably when the weather is turning warm doesn't mean somebody is dressing like a slut.
Guys can dress comfortably in hot weather without short shorts or miniskirts.
On April 06 2011 00:36 andrewlt wrote: I actually see guys shirtless pretty often here and nobody calls them sluts.
I believe the common term for them is either disgusting or douchebag, depending on their build.
What the hell? Do guys where you live wear coat and tie everywhere? I'm in LA. Wearing light clothing is normal here, even in places far from the beach.
If a woman wears fetish gear or all those slut accessories, it's one thing. But short shorts or miniskirts are pretty normal.
I'm in Canada, so take that as you will Guys wear t-shirts, and shorts down to knees. Short shorts and miniskirts end at the upper thighs. There's a lot more skin showing.
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: Wait what? "the guy gets too horny/drunk to control himself" do you really believe that? Do you think that if truely believe that both sexes are equal and that women are worth as much as men you would rape someone because you're drunk?okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
No, I say that being drunk/high/whatever is also a common cause for rape. Didn't you read that post earlier on from a TL.net who admitted to raping a girl while stoned?
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: I agree, domestic violence against men is a very under-reported crime and that horrible. But it's still more uncommon than domestic violence against women and isn't really comparable to rape.okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
If it's severely under-reported, why would you say it is more uncommon that violence against women?
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: I hate the argument that because there's an under-reported crime against men, then that makes it okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
It's an argument against people saying that if rape was against men, then shit like this wouldn't happen.
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: Wait what? "the guy gets too horny/drunk to control himself" do you really believe that? Do you think that if truely believe that both sexes are equal and that women are worth as much as men you would rape someone because you're drunk?okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
No, I say that being drunk/high/whatever is also a common cause for rape. Didn't you read that post earlier on from a TL.net who admitted to raping a girl while stoned?
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: I agree, domestic violence against men is a very under-reported crime and that horrible. But it's still more uncommon than domestic violence against women and isn't really comparable to rape.okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
If it's severely under-reported, why would you say it is more uncommon that violence against women?
On April 06 2011 01:40 fidelity wrote: I hate the argument that because there's an under-reported crime against men, then that makes it okay for there to be an under-reported crime against women.
It's an argument against people saying that if rape was against men, then shit like this wouldn't happen.
You seem to miss my point, being drunk/high/whatever is never the cause for rape. Believing that you have the right to someone elses body whatever they have to say about it is the cause . Being drunk/high/whatever is the trigger.
Because violence against women is also under-reported, of course it's hard to know for sure, but all evidence points to that women are more often the victim to domestic violence.
Ok, I understand your point and it's valid. Still I find a bit different. Men are probably treated badly by some cops and not believed in as much as they should but is that really comparable to being asked in court what you were wearing, how drunk you were, how many men you've slept with etc?
Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will.
The rapists comits rape because it is his personality. Raping a stranger isn't about sex, it's about domination and control.
If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
That falls flat because people would not wear yellow for a short period until you are caught and there is a direct link proveable between your hatred against yellow and your crimes.
You are asking all women to never wear "revealing" clothing, a phrase so loose it can mean anything from bikini's to a burqa where you can see the eyes.
Rapists will continue to rape, if it gets put out there that women shouldn't wear "revealing" clothing then women will still get raped and now they will also be told that they are partly responsible for being raped.
There is still not a single piece of evidence that proves that there is a link between wearing revealing clothing and being the victim of rape. This is one of those things people believe because "it sounds logical" wich is one of the worst things in the world.
People accept a lot of things because it sounds logical and it's always stupid to do so. It sounds pretty logical that when you beat your kid he will listen to you, but it never turns out to be a very effective tool to raise a child.
Do not accept an idea just because it's logical, require proof. There is no proof that reveals a link between the way you dress and the odds of being raped. If it was so obvious, it would exist and be shown.
It's just a very nasty idea that has gotten stuck in people's mind.
People seem to be confusing risk and responsibility. The culpable criminal is always responsible for the crime, no matter what other risk factors were present. Whatever degree other parties could've lowered the risk or otherwise dissuaded the crime does not make the criminal any less responsible. It does not suddenly become the bank's fault for getting robbed just because they could've invested in a more secure vault. Absolutely not.
So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
Rape, like many other issues that fall under sociology rather than science, is one of many human plights that is difficult to empirically analyze. I don't think we'll ever see comprehensive, definitive studies on it globally until all notions of shame disappear. So we're stuck either with complete skepticism, in which case we have absolutely nothing to say, or with intuitive, opinionated, "common-sense" type arguments.
I'm personally of the opinion that sure, any number of factors from homely attire to concealed carry could protect a woman from victimization and they can only benefit from considering them. I also think people in general are right to be incensed at the notion that all scantily dressed women desire to be victimized. I really hope that no one actually thinks that.
On April 06 2011 01:53 fidelity wrote: You seem to miss my point, being drunk/high/whatever is never the cause for rape. Believing that you have the right to someone elses body whatever they have to say about it is the cause . Being drunk/high/whatever is the trigger.
Don't really want to be a dick to this guy but this is rape no?
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
Being drunk/high means you'll lose a lot of the mental inhibitions holding you back from doing certain acts. Of course it's not the cause, it prevents you from controlling the urge.
On April 06 2011 01:53 fidelity wrote: Believing that you have the right to someone elses body whatever they have to say about it is the cause.
On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote: So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will.
The rapists comits rape because it is his personality. Raping a stranger isn't about sex, it's about domination and control.
If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
That falls flat because people would not wear yellow for a short period until you are caught and there is a direct link proveable between your hatred against yellow and your crimes.
You are asking all women to never wear "revealing" clothing, a phrase so loose it can mean anything from bikini's to a burqa where you can see the eyes.
Rapists will continue to rape, if it gets put out there that women shouldn't wear "revealing" clothing then women will still get raped and now they will also be told that they are partly responsible for being raped.
There is still not a single piece of evidence that proves that there is a link between wearing revealing clothing and being the victim of rape. This is one of those things people believe because "it sounds logical" wich is one of the worst things in the world.
People accept a lot of things because it sounds logical and it's always stupid to do so. It sounds pretty logical that when you beat your kid he will listen to you, but it never turns out to be a very effective tool to raise a child.
Do not accept an idea just because it's logical, require proof. There is no proof that reveals a link between the way you dress and the odds of being raped. If it was so obvious, it would exist and be shown.
It's just a very nasty idea that has gotten stuck in people's mind.
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote: So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense.
On April 05 2011 23:55 fidelity wrote: The amount of ignorance in this thread is making me noxious. People are actually defending this cop? I can't believe that a country like Canada hasn't come further in women's rights than this. If rape was a crime that mostly happened to men then the debate would never sound like this.
It's basicly the same logic as when people say that a gay couple deserves to get assaulted because they made out in public.
It means she's trying to be edgy just for the sake of it. "I can be a slut and you just have to deal with it." These are the creatures that come out during the events in Toronto, and it pisses you off if you watch them on TV.
WTF? so the women who feel that they can dress any way they want and still not get accused when being raped for "dressing provocative" are CREATUES? what about the guy raping women? what are they if women protesting against rape are creatures? ffs...
Way to call people out for ignorance, and then display a show of it as big as anyone else in this thread.
Here's how it goes. People think that dressing like a slut might make it more likely that a potential rapist will target you over someone else. To justify this position, rape is a sexual act and sex is best done when turned on, and slutty clothes are designed to turn people on. People are free to dress as they will, but the fact is that no amount of law enforcement can stop bad people from doing bad things, it can only deal with the consequences.
Suggesting that people take defensive measures, well, that's arguable, but it's no reason to protest. Likewise, you can't just protest against rape. That's like protesting against murder. It's not like it's going to stop it from happening. Find me a case where a known rapist got off easy because someone was dressed provocatively, and protest that. These people give the act of protest a bad name.
Still, it's good to see that people here are still naive enough to refuse to acknowledge a difference between statistics and culpability. If white people are 2x as likely to be assaulted on a certain street, nobody's going to win a court case because they assaulted a white person on that street, but would you really fault a cop for suggesting that white people don't walk around that neighborhood?
Maybe it's a bit much, but I do trust that if police officers could actually prevent rape cases, they would. But the fact is that you can't be everywhere, and that sometimes there are means of prevention that law enforcement can't control.
Sorry, I don't see my ignorance. I was kind of angry when I wrote the post so might be badly written.
Rape isn't purely a sexual act, I can't see how you can deny that. It's first and foremost about men(mostly) proving to themself and the women that they are stronger and more powerful than them. There's never been a study that proves that wearing a "slutty" outfit makes you more likely to get raped. So there goes your "common sense" argument out the window.
Then we have the fact that rape is the most under-reported violent crime in america as well as in most othere countries. Because of the shame, and because if you to trial you'll get asked what you were wearing, if you were drunk, if you sleep with many men etc. I think the protests where about more than this certain case.
There's a big difference between telling a person that they shouldn't be at a certain place at a certain time because you are at a higher risk of being vulnerable to a crime and implying to someone that they deserved it because of the way they were dressed.
I trust police officers in general too, I don't think that this one is a horrible person or anything like that. But to say that the women in this clip didn't have a reason to protest or that they are "creatures" is just fucked up. But the fact is that police officers(who are mostly men) have a bad rep in rape cases, just not in america or canada, but all over the world. I'm going to say this again, if rape whas something that mostly happened to men, they would NEVER have to answer to the questions women are asked in court today.
I wouldn't really say ignorance, I'd just say there's a lack of the application of reason to the whole situation. Just because there has never been a study proving something doesn't mean that it isn't true, nor does it mean that common sense doesn't dictate or at least strongly suggest it's truth in some situations. Lack of evidence is the reason I'm not citing a study instead of stating reasons for why it might be true. If you want to talk about that in particular, then sure. My reasoning behind believing that there might be some truth the idea that there might be a relationship between clothing and sexual assault is that as a man, I don't feel the desire to have sex with someone unless I either know them or find their appearance appealing. I understand that the act of rape means more than that, though. I've heard characteristics like dominance or frustration being part of it. People want what they can't have, and they want to control things that seem, by their nature, difficult to control. Nothing says hot, inaccessible and hard to control to me more than an attractive person who "puts it on display," that's how I perceive it. While I'm not an awful person, I can recognize that other people are and empathize with the types of desires that these people act on. I would like to see a study that confirmed or denied this, but there aren't any, so I'll go with what I believe is fairly reasonable: if you're going to force yourself on someone, it would probably be someone you both want and cannot have.
Anyways, I'd just like to reiterate something you said and agree completely. There's a huge difference between trying to stop people from doing things that put them at risk, and blaming people who do so anyways for crimes committed against them. The reason this case confuses the issue is because the revealing clothing is seen as immoral by some types of people regardless of its relationship to sexual assault. This means that if you follow a perfectly reasonable line of thought that might correlate it to rape cases, people will think you're one of these people and that you're trying to shift blame. That's simply not true. I'll be the first to say that I like it when people dress like that. If I'm going to hit the club, I don't want to be in a room full of girls wearing hoodies. That being said, if someone I cared about was going to a part of town where I thought wearing revealing clothes put them at risk, I wouldn't want them to do that.
As far as legality goes, I think our justice system is bad, but knowing whether someone was drunk or high seems fairly reasonable. A lawyer representing someone who is denying culpability (I would assume this would be most people accused of sexual assault) has to fight a "he said she said" battle with the laywer representing the accuser. I can imagine that this would be excessively stressful for whichever party was in the right. If you were sexually assaulted and bombarded with questions, that would be traumatic, but if you were wrongfully accused, bombarding the accuser with questions to try to catch inconsistencies or show that they're lying might seem like the only way to prove that you're innocent. Then you get stories like this: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/young-man-falsely-accused-of-rape-tells.html that highlight crimes just as bad as rape going in the other direction. So do you let lawyers cross-examine rape victims or not? If you cut out the kinds of questions that let the bad cases get thrown out of court, you open the door to more wrongful accusations, but if you let them admit evidence like promiscuity, you get rapists who get away with it.
It's an awful situation, but it's not one-sided, and it's not simple. It doesn't have an answer you're going to arrive at by "going with your gut" and taking the emotional approach to every single case. So let's see a little more balanced discussion. One thing I will say with conviction, though, is that protesting is never going to give you that. It's the debate equivalent of sitting there shouting your position over and over without listening to anything anyone else has to say.
Way to completely miss the point. I fully acknowledge that people who commit sexual assault are horrible, awful people and should take all of the blame they can get. How does saying they exist and that we can't always control their actions take anything away from that? Maybe you can control yourself, but the fact that rape exists is literal proof that you're wrong in assuming everyone can and will.
The rapists comits rape because it is his personality. Raping a stranger isn't about sex, it's about domination and control.
If I go out and start systematically murdering anyone who wears yellow, I am accountable, I'm a horrible murderer, and I should be executed or put away for life or wahtever, but would you fault the cops for asking you not to wear yellow until I'm caught?
That falls flat because people would not wear yellow for a short period until you are caught and there is a direct link proveable between your hatred against yellow and your crimes.
You are asking all women to never wear "revealing" clothing, a phrase so loose it can mean anything from bikini's to a burqa where you can see the eyes.
Rapists will continue to rape, if it gets put out there that women shouldn't wear "revealing" clothing then women will still get raped and now they will also be told that they are partly responsible for being raped.
There is still not a single piece of evidence that proves that there is a link between wearing revealing clothing and being the victim of rape. This is one of those things people believe because "it sounds logical" wich is one of the worst things in the world.
People accept a lot of things because it sounds logical and it's always stupid to do so. It sounds pretty logical that when you beat your kid he will listen to you, but it never turns out to be a very effective tool to raise a child.
Do not accept an idea just because it's logical, require proof. There is no proof that reveals a link between the way you dress and the odds of being raped. If it was so obvious, it would exist and be shown.
It's just a very nasty idea that has gotten stuck in people's mind.
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
Revealing clothing is in the eyes of the beholder. Anything below a complete, full-body burqa can be considered revealing. You never know what a rapist might find attractive. Even said burqa.
On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote: So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense.
The problem at hand is that such ''risk factor in rape'' (I find these terms totally absurd but lets keep up with what has been used), like how the person was dressed, are not supposed to be considered in a rape case. Defense lawyers still bring these up because they know that even though the judge and jury are not supposed to consider them, just bringing the matter up has a certain impact on what these person think. This is the real problem.
If you missed this excellent post, well, here's your chance to read it:
On April 05 2011 06:36 Atticus.axl wrote: 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 04:23 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.
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.
This thread makes me so sad. And it highlights how we gamers fulfill the backwards thinking mouth-breather stereotype and drive any sort of reasonable, female or adult opinions out of our communities (to the great detriment of esports). For those that still have the energy to fight on, please do so ...
EDIT: I noticed that AlexDeLarge has been banned. Thank you, mods.
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
She's loose with her body and doesn't respect herself sexually, but at least she wants the final say on whether she has sex or not. I think it's like the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan. She likes her salad tossed, but doesn't want the cream dressing.
If you know what I mean.
What does it all have to do with 'respect' man?
The reason I'm a 'slut' is ridiculously simple, I don't believe it's a bad thing to be. Seriously, it's like some arbitrary stupid rule which says that you can't play that many computer games or something. No one's getting hurt (unless those who want it, hurr durr), it's like saying you don't respect yourself when you prefer to play computer games over having sex.
Also, slut doesn't mean dressing n a particular way. It's just for me that whenever the oppertunity arises I'm not going like 'Yeh ehh, I have sex with too many different people, that's bad you know, better not do it.'
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
So is taking cover if people are randomly shooting at you.
Yeah, let's be courageous, let's be defiant, let's say we aren't going to live in fear and just continue walking like usual and get a bullet in the head.
Saying one shouldn't be cowardly is as stupid a moral idiosyncrasy as saying that one can't have sex with many people.
B. Franklin once said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Silm once said:
"Source?"
Quoting random historical figures doesn't make it true.
Restricting freedom to gain security is wrong.
"Dressing revealingly is wrong." "Having sex with many different people is wrong." "Women not knowing their place is wrong."
Moral dogmata, ugh.
The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
I'm going to say to you what I've said to everyone, show me some evidence or indication that this actually works as desired.
Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well? And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
On April 06 2011 02:29 EchOne wrote: So when people argue that dress is a risk factor in rape, they are not necessarily arguing that neglect of that risk factor suddenly shifts blame from the rapist to the victim. Some might be arguing such nonsense, but it certainly doesn't logically follow.
It logically follows when defense lawyers use these risk factors in the courtroom to reduce the apparent culpability of their clients in front of judges or juries, and when police interrogate women reporting sexual assault about these risk factors.
Lawyers in such cases can only be bandying rhetoric, at least in the States, because culpability at law here is concerned only with the culprit's role in causing the materiel element of the offense.
The problem at hand is that such ''risk factor in rape'' (I find these terms totally absurd but lets keep up with what has been used), like how the person was dressed, are not supposed to be considered in a rape case. Defense lawyers still bring these up because they know that even though the judge and jury are not supposed to consider them, just bringing the matter up has a certain impact on what these person think. This is the real problem.
I think it tends to get used because lawyers want to make a case that the accuser was going out looking for sex, with the expectation that this will need to raise the bar to prove that the defendant was committing sexual assault and not just pulling a one-nighter with a complete stranger after getting drunk and partying. The key problem with the justice system is that in many cases, a verdict is passed on half-truth, ie, "well, we believe that it wasn't consentual but you were drunk and looking for sex so it's only half-rape." Imagine how difficult it would be to tell the difference between drunk consentual sex and rape, if you're talking about drunk people who had just been out clubbing or something, and compare that to a situation without alcohol, and where "looking for sex" isn't one of the primary activities. I'm really curious as to what else you'd ask, if you were trying to judge a case where the only evidence is statements from both parties. Yes, in most cases they use physical evidence to make sure the statements about what happened line up (ie, you can prove, medically, who put what where) but that's about it.
On April 06 2011 03:31 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
Um, have you not understood or absorbed anything discussed in this thread? Get me a source on that bold statement of yours.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well?
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well?
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well?
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
In that case I'd say it's mutual consent. Plus the fact that you took all those drugs/alcoohol, you are somewhat responsible for shit that happens to you under that state.
But as for what the OP was asking, well I think that assuming that dressing provocatively increases the chance of rape, people should still be allowed to dress like they want and will just have to assume the increased risks, just like going out at night in a harder part of town. If dressing like that is so important to you then assume the advantages and disadvantages.
I just read the op so bear with me if the discussion has progressed to a point where my ramblings are irrelevant.
On the one hand it is obviously quite terrible that women, let's be frank here, rape of males is hardly an issue, have to be afraid of assault/rape when they cross the street. The way they dress has nothing to do with that. To be frank they could go completely naked and sex without consent would still be rape.
On the other hand however, stating that "dressing like a slut" increases the chance of getting raped (or vice versa) does not seem wrong to me at all. Yes, you should be able to park your Maybach in Brooklyn (is that still the classic example of a "criminal part of town" ? ), but it's probably not a good idea and the chance of a crime happening is significantly higher. I have not read the original inflamatory statement, but if the spokesman meant it that way then I agree and see nothing wrong with the statement itself.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well?
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
In that case I'd say it's mutual consent.
How does that spin together? Surely someone who is out for 90% can't consent? If it's mutual consent, then the girl could consent to his doing her while she was out for 90%.
At max you can say that both parties have not consented, but because both were out, both were not responsible for their own actions.
But in that case,you can extend this to saying that people who are out for 90% are no longer, or much less so, responsible for their own actions.
On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
Western society tends to place the blame in these situations on the male, if it is a male - female situation that is. Just look at the laws passed in the UK a year (?) back, under which you, as a male, could be guilty of rape while you were thinking you were just having a night of really drunk sex. The law places more of the burden on males in this situation, simply because (generally speaking ofc) men have an easier time to force a woman physically to do something then the other way round.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
As for the general topic: Even if dressing up revealingly increases risk, it is irrelevant. You have the full rights to express yourself, and dressing any way you want is part of that liberty. The guilt lies for the full 100% with the offender, and governments shouldn't suggest that people limit their own liberties in order to appease potential sex-offenders.
Suppose for argument's sake it is like this: someone willing to rape women picks a girl from a crowd based on how revealing she dresses. In this case he was clearly going to pick some girl, and even if attire plays a big role in who eventually ends up being raped, it's still clearly irrelevant, because it merely decides who the victim was, not that rape was commited.
This is different from leaving your bike unlocked at the trainstation at night, because there will be criminals people picking up all unlocked bicycles there. A rapist on the other hand, doesn't end up raping more or less women based on their attractiveness. (not to excuse bikethieves, I lost 3 bikes the last year >.<)
On April 06 2011 03:43 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
Western society tends to place the blame in these situations on the male, if it is a male - female situation that is.
I'm aware that it does. I'm asking a member of this western society who believes this to explain it, actually, I'm trying to get them to realize that they have no rational explanation.
Just look at the laws passed in the UK a year (?) back, under which you, as a male, could be guilty of rape while you were thinking you were just having a night of really drunk sex. The law places more of the burden on males in this situation, simply because (generally speaking ofc) men have an easier time to force a woman physically to do something then the other way round.
Another thing I think is silly, these 'indirect rules', yeah, statistically males are stronger, but not always. Why not cut out the indirectness and just say that the stronger party of both is guilty hmm?
Anyway, it's sexual discrimination, no doubt about that.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
As for the general topic: Even if dressing up revealingly increases risk, it is irrelevant. You have the full rights to express yourself, and dressing any way you want is part of that liberty. The guilt lies for the full 100% with the offender, and governments shouldn't suggest that people limit their own liberties in order to appease potential sex-offenders.
You misread the officer, it's not as much about guilt as just offering people some advice in how to stop it if they want to follow it.
It's just that the advice is bad because there is no proven correlation let alone causation and the term 'slutty' is misplaced, 'revealingly', would be better.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping."
If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping."
If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
It takes a special type of person to enjoy a rape. There has to be a fetish of forcing someone to do something uncomfortable, seeing a woman cry or something along those lines (I'm imagining rapists being "broken" like pedophiles are "broken"). In any case, a rape being a turn-on has to be there for the rapist. If a rape would instead be a giant headache, sexual release through masturbation would be more comfortable.
"Just 'cause I'm a slut doesn't mean I want to be raped," said one female protester, according to CNN affiliate CTV.
so what does it mean then?
She's loose with her body and doesn't respect herself sexually, but at least she wants the final say on whether she has sex or not. I think it's like the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan. She likes her salad tossed, but doesn't want the cream dressing.
If you know what I mean.
What does it all have to do with 'respect' man?
The reason I'm a 'slut' is ridiculously simple, I don't believe it's a bad thing to be. Seriously, it's like some arbitrary stupid rule which says that you can't play that many computer games or something. No one's getting hurt (unless those who want it, hurr durr), it's like saying you don't respect yourself when you prefer to play computer games over having sex.
Also, slut doesn't mean dressing n a particular way. It's just for me that whenever the oppertunity arises I'm not going like 'Yeh ehh, I have sex with too many different people, that's bad you know, better not do it.'
On April 05 2011 20:01 PrincessLeila wrote: Requoted for people who don't read the whole thread.
On April 05 2011 06:09 Navane wrote: Even if dressing slutty had a causal relationship with getting raped, ppl still have the right to dress slutty and should be defended doing it.
We all know free speech has a causal relationship with getting killed. Yet we still have the right to free speech and should be defended doing it.
I read it, and a lot of people by the way also say that you can expect to get killed if you say a lot of controversial shit. Not that you are at fault, but you could, not should, choose to manage your risk.
So should we advice people to stay quiet in order to avoid risks ? It's called Fascism.
In this context the "choose to manage your risk" argument is simply cowardice.
So is taking cover if people are randomly shooting at you.
Yeah, let's be courageous, let's be defiant, let's say we aren't going to live in fear and just continue walking like usual and get a bullet in the head.
Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ? and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
Sorry for using a quote again, but someone said "You don't know yourself until you have been deprived of your freedom ". I think it is very true. We are born free, we don't know what freedom really means.
Saying one shouldn't be cowardly is as stupid a moral idiosyncrasy as saying that one can't have sex with many people.
the cowardice was in the context of free speech. We know have free speech because some people had the balls to say something like "Even if i don't agree with you, i am ready to die for you to have the rights to say it.". But they were idiots and idealists that don't know how the worlds really works.
The right answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to fight and report crime. Let's fight the bad guys, rather than tell the others to "avoid risks".
I'm going to say to you what I've said to everyone, show me some evidence or indication that this actually works as desired.
I have no indications, I think that we just don't try fighting rape enough because there is this whole "women should not put themselves in a rape risk situation" bullshit. How comes rapists get away with it so easily ?
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
On April 06 2011 03:31 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Banned for what? Anecdotes are not a reason to ban someone.
Anyway dressing like a hoe does increase the chance of rape. Look at the majority or rape victims and you will notice that they were young, drunk and dressed in revealing clothes.
" Look at the majority or rape victims " Oh, so you surely have looked.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Your comparison is meaningless... You may kill someone because he was trying to kill you, (self-defense legitimate) But you don't rape someone for your security...
Well, let's try :
"If you proved you raped someone because that person was out to rape/kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free."
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example) do you really think that they rape, just for the sake of raping? So they're like: "I don't really feel like having sex, but what the heck, just for the sake of raping."
If they didn't want some kind of sexual part of it they would just assault/kill the victim wouldn't they?
Of course there are different kind of rapists, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe it's the sexual act itself that drives all of them. In many cases it's the "kick" they get out of dominating another human being, making them do things against their will and the sexual part is secondary. And that is in the perpetrators head, and it doesn't really matter how the victim looks or dresses (victim often just in the wrong place at the wrong time). The women becomes a substitute for something else, something for the rapists to deal with his anxiety or whatever lies beneath his actions.
This thread makes me so sad. And it highlights how we gamers fulfill the backwards thinking mouth-breather stereotype and drive any sort of reasonable, female or adult opinions out of our communities (to the great detriment of esports). For those that still have the energy to fight on, please do so ...
EDIT: I noticed that AlexDeLarge has been banned. Thank you, mods.
Thank you for the kind words. I am very, very glad to see that ADL has been banned, and I hope that everyone reading this thread will be fully able to understand why he was.
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
It's like it is in every other country, there's freedom, as long as you don't use it. Believing that you live in a free world is nothing but a sign of never having to deal with the idiocracy and encountering your, or the freedoms of others, limited by moral chauvinism despite ratio being on your side.
Sorry for using a quote again, but someone said "You don't know yourself until you have been deprived of your freedom ". I think it is very true. We are born free, we don't know what freedom really means.
There is no freedom in this world, nowhere.
Can I go to work naked? No, I can't, that's illegal by law, to refuse to put some artificial skin over my own body. I can't walk around the way I was born, I'm forced by law to wear some cloth over me. How is this honestly different from forcing women into some niqaab?
And to make it more interesting, it's allowed here for men to walk while exposing their chest, but not for women, sexual discrimination much?
Morals will always limit freedom.
the cowardice was in the context of free speech. We know have free speech because some people had the balls to say something like "Even if i don't agree with you, i am ready to die for you to have the rights to say it.". But they were idiots and idealists that don't know how the worlds really works.
Don't be that naïve, we don't have free speech. Even in the Netherlands, supposedly the epicentre of 'tolerance', people are charged every day for making outrageous comments that cross the line. You can't even insult the queen on paper.
And those people may have said that, but they've never done it. There's only freedom of speech to the point that you don't say something people don't really agree with or find 'morally wrong'. There isn't a country in the world where people haven't been tried for expressing a controversial opinion.
Quoting random historical figures doesn't make it true.
Of course lol. It's a quote, you know. It had never prooved anything. I just agree with it, and i found it well phrased. That's it.
Then why quote it? What does it say when you quote it? What does it prove? It's just giving your opinion and saying another person approves without giving a real argument.
Yes, it is a moral dogmata, and what ? My moral dogmata is focused on freedom. The moral dogmata you quotes are just moronic and sexist to me.
All moral dogmata are moronic to me. The point about a moral dogma is that, inherent to being a dogma, it's just something you say without argument, it doesn't show anything.
I'm just saying that stating a dogma really doesn't further debate anywhere.
Also, dogma is singular, dogmata is plural
I have no indications, I think that we just don't try fighting rape enough because there is this whole "women should not put themselves in a rape risk situation" bullshit. How comes rapists get away with it so easily ?
Rapists hardly get away with it easily, there are quire severe punishments for rape, and the laws are extremely sexist, in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will get you a harder punishment than beating someone up.
Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape? Do you think that harder punishments will make it go away more? If anything has been shown is that it often doesn't work that way? I'm not sure there is a concrete way available to effectively fight it.
On April 05 2011 03:49 AlexDeLarge wrote: P.S. Funny story. One night i had some girl alone over my place. She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
Now before you think i'm a despicable person, she did text me a few days later and said "had fun the other night. thanks for "raping" me :p". I later ended up in a relationship with her, rofl.
Would you guys consider what i did to her a criminal act of rape?
User was banned for this post.
What the fuck is this? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever read! You not only raped hear, but you try to defend it as well?
Would you perhaps then care to respond to my question I've been asking a lot of people who dodged it:
What if two people who are both out for 90% end up having sex, have they then raped each other? Was it a case of mutual rape?
And the fact that you ended up in a relationship doesn't prove that it wasn't rape, but rather that the girl must be nuts.
No, it indicated that she liked it, stop thinking other people must have the same moral view as you have.
In that case I'd say it's mutual consent.
How does that spin together? Surely someone who is out for 90% can't consent? If it's mutual consent, then the girl could consent to his doing her while she was out for 90%.
At max you can say that both parties have not consented, but because both were out, both were not responsible for their own actions.
But in that case,you can extend this to saying that people who are out for 90% are no longer, or much less so, responsible for their own actions.
To answer your question, in the case you stated, no rape is occurring, as no one party is taking direct, premeditated advantage of the other. Your case is two intoxicated people having very dumb sex.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress.
I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Rape is almost never about the sex, and always about the control it gives the rapist. The thinking that revealing dressed women arouse a man to the point that he loses control is more of a way for the rapist to justify himself when in court or when he feels guilt. There is also an issue in my eyes with society thinking that the way one dresses somehow turns into them inviting rape upon themselves, which really doesn't make much sense.
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote: I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
Yea I agree. Even if the perp knows the victim, he's probably more likely to act on his feelings if the victim is dressed really revealingly as opposed to covered up. Also, even if you discount the 70% where the perp knows the victim(I still think they are more likely to act on people they know that dress like sluts than people they know that dress really conservatively) The other 30% of cases will probably be more likely acted out on someone they don't know that dresses revealingly over someone that they don't know that dresses conservatively. 30% is also a huge amount, so you really can't discount it and conclude that it's barely ever going to make a difference with how revealingly one dresses. I also don't really understand the purpose of this 'slutwalk'. The police officer never said that women dressing like sluts want to get raped; he said that women who dress like sluts are more likely to get raped. So why they're protesting his remarks by saying that they don't want to get raped is beyond me. I don't think the rapist particularl cares if they want to get raped or not either.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress.
I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
That'd be a case by case question. The reason it's such a hot topic with rape is because of the shockingly low conviction rate for rapists and the use of rhetoric such as "she had multiple partners", "she was dressed like she wanted sex", "she went out drinking" or "she was a tease" as if they have any relevance on the decision of another person to force his will on someone and violate them. If there was a circumstance that mitigated it then that'd be brought up in the court that time and treated appropriately. However, at present, circumstances that in no way mitigate the crime are used to confuse juries and get guilty rapists lighter sentences. As such it'll justifiably piss people off to talk about it.
On April 05 2011 03:37 Black Gun wrote: well, maybe one argument for a negative correlation between revealiness of clothing and the risk of getting sexually assaulted would be that a significant proportion of rapists dont rape because of a random, unexpected horniness but plan it beforehand. and if a potential rapist is out there, looking for victims, he might be attracted in particular to those women who seem insecure and weak. dressing in a way that creates attention always makes a girl look more confident and secure than dressing like a shy little something.
in general, i think most people think that rapes emerge out of random horniness, but most rapes emerge either from a plan or from chance. if there is a chance to rape a women without having to fear being caught makes men´s true character come out. for example rape in war.
so i´ll side with those who demand statistical proof of that theory before discussing its moral implications.
While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors(clothing of victim for example)
Why not?
They are in fact, in some cases punishment is dropped to zero. If you proved you killed someone because that person was out to kill you and it was the only reasonable way to survive, in most jurisdictions you then go free.
Are you trying to suggest that getting raped because you were wearing provactive clothing is equivalent to murdering someone who was out to kill you? If so please enlighten us as to how these are even comparable.
No? I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
Manslaughter is a preventative action, you can kill someone to stop them doing something worse. Obviously it'd be better if you incapacitated them but if they died in the attempt then it'd be understandable. Rape is not a preventative action, you can't justify rape as stopping bad things happening without getting into duress.
I never claimed they were comparable to begin with.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the crime may partially or entirely absolve people.
I'm responding to this:
"While crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
If you think it should only be applied to rape, then phrase it simply like this:
"While rape crimes shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
Simple, nay?
That'd be a case by case question. The reason it's such a hot topic with rape is because of the shockingly low conviction rate for rapists and the use of rhetoric such as "she had multiple partners", "she was dressed like she wanted sex", "she went out drinking" or "she was a tease" as if they have any relevance on the decision of another person to force his will on someone and violate them. If there was a circumstance that mitigated it then that'd be brought up in the court that time and treated appropriately. However, at present, circumstances that in no way mitigate the crime are used to confuse juries and get guilty rapists lighter sentences. As such it'll justifiably piss people off to talk about it.
Did you honestly not notice that I simply reposted the original post you were replying to as subtle hint? I'm impressed...
Anyway, it's innocent until guilt is proven eh, it's not an ideal system, but otherwise you could just claim of a random guy you had sex with that he raped you as a means of extortion or something like that. This is one of the tacky parts of legal systems, you either underconvict, or you convict the innocent.
It's pretty easy for someone in hindsight to charge you with rape, see the Assange case, there was a lot of politics involved in that.
And still, that was all besides the point, I was simply addressing the point that someone said that "crimes [not rape crimes per se] shouldn't be punished less because of certain factors"
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
It is harmfull, people can dress whatever damn way they want. If i wanted the moral police to be telling people how they should dress then i would buy a ticket to Iran.
It just stinks of "we can't beat the rapists, let's beat the victims". IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS FAULT! No matter how you try to spin it that's what it keeps coming down it, to suggest that a girl can be blamed for her fate in even the slightest is utterly repulsive.
The police is there to arrest rapists, not to send out a signal that rapists are sad people that can't control their urges because evil women try to look good.
Women pay taxes just like men, women pay for that damn police force and the police has a very simple fucking job, catch criminals. They catch the rapists and lock them up, they don't make judgements on it and they certainly don't speak them to the press.
Until there is definitive evidence that dress has a direct relation to the liklihood of being raped i am not going to pretend like any women that doesn't wear a burqa is essentially asking to be raped.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
In many places in the world it's still the case...
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
But i agree that it is not enough.
It's like it is in every other country, there's freedom, as long as you don't use it. Believing that you live in a free world is nothing but a sign of never having to deal with the idiocracy and encountering your, or the freedoms of others, limited by moral chauvinism despite ratio being on your side.
Sorry for using a quote again, but someone said "You don't know yourself until you have been deprived of your freedom ". I think it is very true. We are born free, we don't know what freedom really means.
There is no freedom in this world, nowhere.
Can I go to work naked? No, I can't, that's illegal by law, to refuse to put some artificial skin over my own body. I can't walk around the way I was born, I'm forced by law to wear some cloth over me. How is this honestly different from forcing women into some niqaab?
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
And to make it more interesting, it's allowed here for men to walk while exposing their chest, but not for women, sexual discrimination much?
Morals will always limit freedom.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
the cowardice was in the context of free speech. We know have free speech because some people had the balls to say something like "Even if i don't agree with you, i am ready to die for you to have the rights to say it.". But they were idiots and idealists that don't know how the worlds really works.
Don't be that naïve, we don't have free speech. Even in the Netherlands, supposedly the epicentre of 'tolerance', people are charged every day for making outrageous comments that cross the line. You can't even insult the queen on paper.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
And those people may have said that, but they've never done it. There's only freedom of speech to the point that you don't say something people don't really agree with or find 'morally wrong'. There isn't a country in the world where people haven't been tried for expressing a controversial opinion.
Quoting random historical figures doesn't make it true.
Of course lol. It's a quote, you know. It had never prooved anything. I just agree with it, and i found it well phrased. That's it.
Then why quote it? What does it say when you quote it? What does it prove? It's just giving your opinion and saying another person approves without giving a real argument.
I prefer repeat it rather than trying to say it with my own words, because he says it really better than me. I put the name because I don't like to deceive people into thinking that's my own words.
Yes, it is a moral dogmata, and what ? My moral dogmata is focused on freedom. The moral dogmata you quotes are just moronic and sexist to me.
All moral dogmata are moronic to me. The point about a moral dogma is that, inherent to being a dogma, it's just something you say without argument, it doesn't show anything.
I'm just saying that stating a dogma really doesn't further debate anywhere.
I have no indications, I think that we just don't try fighting rape enough because there is this whole "women should not put themselves in a rape risk situation" bullshit. How comes rapists get away with it so easily ?
Rapists hardly get away with it easily, there are quire severe punishments for rape, and the laws are extremely sexist, in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will get you a harder punishment than beating someone up.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread... It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape? Do you think that harder punishments will make it go away more? If anything has been shown is that it often doesn't work that way? I'm not sure there is a concrete way available to effectively fight it.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
This thread is just so disgusting. Some of you people are just so morally backwards I can't even find a common point to discuss with some of you.
As a smart poster said many pages ago, technically if you ever leave your bunker under mordor then you are "asking to get raped". Its our job to guarantee certain freedoms, and one of those is dress. It doesn't really matter if they carry risks, and telling people they should have managed their risk and never left their bunker is clearly retarded.
Furthermore, for anyone who isn't just talking out their ass (ie. common sense) they know that dress is not a primary factor. The truth is that anything could be a factor. Maybe rapists like blondes, or they like fit bodies, so all women should be fat. Even if there was a 100% correlation, there are all sorts of freedoms we have that we have because we refuse to live in fear. Should we all convert to Islam to avoid terrorists?
Let's give our women the same respect.
On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
I had a long discussion with a female friend of mine today where I spent my time belittling her (in a joking manner obviously) because she supported the women in this "movement."
I never support making a gigantic deal over nothing. The cop should have chosen his words more carefully, but there is some merit to the idea behind it. Is he saying women deserve it? No. Is he saying that wearing slutty clothes makes a rape 99% more likely? No, but his basic implication can't be far from the truth, even if only a little. How much a woman decides to guard her vajayjay is up to her in taking steps to prevent problems, just as it's up to individuals who own homes to lock their doors and windows when they're gone.
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
The thing is, I don't think the police are actually saying the equivalent of "never dress in revealing clothing again." I think they're saying "if you dress in revealing clothing, your chances of being picked as a victim of rape increase." Is it correct? There is no proof behind it, but it isn't going to hurt anyone to not wear revealing clothing.
It is nowhere near the same case as beating your children because it doesn't inflict any harm upon anyone. If the police said "the only way to avoid being a rape target is to have large bruises on your face" it would be a different story, as it harms people. This doesn't harm people.
Here's an example of something that is actually incorrect, but people believe, and is much more similar. There was an old wives tale that going out in the cold when wet, or without sufficient clothing, would increase the odds of catching a "cold." This has been proven false - however, there has never been a case where going out in the cold dry with sufficient clothing has been more harmful then going out soaking wet and without enough clothing.
It is harmfull, people can dress whatever damn way they want. If i wanted the moral police to be telling people how they should dress then i would buy a ticket to Iran.
So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
It just stinks of "we can't beat the rapists, let's beat the victims". IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS FAULT! No matter how you try to spin it that's what it keeps coming down it, to suggest that a girl can be blamed for her fate in even the slightest is utterly repulsive.
The police is there to arrest rapists, not to send out a signal that rapists are sad people that can't control their urges because evil women try to look good.
Rape is hardly about lust as has been said times before, it's about control, and many rapists have come from troubled homes and suffer from some psychological traumas which were inflicted upon them beyond their control.
Also, newsflash, retributive justice hardly ever works, it's just to satisfy some primal urge for revenge.
Turns out that getting rapists a psychologists to talk to them, council them, and try to find the cause of the problem works a lot better than just locking them up, after which they become even more bittered and try it again.
Women pay taxes just like men, women pay for that damn police force and the police has a very simple fucking job, catch criminals. They catch the rapists and lock them up, they don't make judgements on it and they certainly don't speak them to the press.
Police is understaffed, you don't want to pay the taxes you'd need to pay for the police to be able to lock up every single criminal.
Also, please, don't act like rape legislation isn't extremely sexist in the female favour in about every country. Women enjoy a lot more protection against rape than men. The mere fact that you seem to speak here that only women get raped illustrates that.
If a guy is 90% unconscious and a girl does him, it's very hard to press charges or even get some sympathy. If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
Until there is definitive evidence that dress has a direct relation to the liklihood of being raped i am not going to pretend like any women that doesn't wear a burqa is essentially asking to be raped.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
It makes it slightly less ambiguous if they flat out say "funny story, I once raped a guy, LOL". Would insta perm for that.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
It makes it slightly less ambiguous if they flat out say "funny story, I once raped a guy, LOL". Would insta perm for that.
Well it was quite obvious that he didn't see it as rape but something on the line and wanted to know if this counted as rape.
Basically, from his perspective, he had sex with someone under influence he would have had sex with anyway.
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
On April 06 2011 07:47 ToxNub wrote: You seem very confused about a lot of things. It's probably because you're drawing your samples from television and movies.
If the guy is not ok with it then it is sexual harassment.
Yeah, that's how it should be, but try getting this to court.
A lot of people have already offered their opinion on the both 90% out story, saying that in this case apparently 'legally' (no idea what jurisdiction) the guy still rapes the girl.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
The guy who shared that 'anecdote' said 90% out, but what he described was 100% out, i.e. the girl was unresponsive/not conscience/unable to make any sort of decision or act of will.
I thought about pointing this out when you kept asking people "what about 2 people that are 90% out". If they are actually able to decide to have sex and physically perform it, it's mutual consent. If they are as wasted as ADL described the girl to be, I guarantee they aren't getting it on and your hypothetical question is meaningless.
Anyway, yes, I believe kwark that he would ban a girl for claiming to have raped a guy, especially if the story was told in the same nonchalant manner.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: If AlexDeLarge was a girl who spoke about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, no one would frown upon him.
I'd perm him. I know that banning people on tl for stuff they do outside tl is a gray area but I think rape is probably over the line.
So you'd perm a girl who shared an anecdote about having sex with a guy who was 90% out, yes?
Just saying, I've noticed that for most people in their conception a girl can't really rape a guy it seems.
The guy who shared that 'anecdote' said 90% out, but what he described was 100% out, i.e. the girl was unresponsive/not conscience/unable to make any sort of decision or act of will.
How do you know this? And how would she remember it then?
I thought about pointing this out when you kept asking people "what about 2 people that are 90% out". If they are actually able to decide to have sex and physically perform it, it's mutual consent. If they are as wasted as ADL described the girl to be, I guarantee they aren't getting it on and your hypothetical question is meaningless.
Where did he describe her level of wasted-ness? I didn't read that anywhere.
Anyway, yes, I believe kwark that he would ban a girl for claiming to have raped a guy, especially if the story was told in the same nonchalant manner.
He never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is. example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
I'm not sure what there is to discuss here, to be honest. People will dress however they want and should be allowed to do so. Whether or not that makes them more likely to be raped doesn't really matter. If a judge or officer said that they deserved it for dressing like sluts or that it factors in a ruling, then that's simply them trying to assert their opinion that people shouldn't dress revealingly, nothing else. In legal terms, there is no difference. No reason to bring out the heavy empirical data here
Is this thread here to bait would-be rapists or to poke fun at religious activists? I think this gives the discussion quite a different focus that what the topic seems to ask for. That is, the cultural hegemony contested by the "slutfest" event and the scientific fact-checking approach by Silmakuoppaanikinko.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further?
If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
He was banned for flaming and insulting, not because of his opinion.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
The problem is that he's arguing against a position no one is taking (at least, no one who is actually arguing in the thread. What RoosterSamurai (apologies if I spelt this wrong) was arguing is that we actually don't have innate rights, instead we have granted rights. Imagine a society that had no rules against theft. If people take things at will, there can be no right of ownership. If a society doesn't have anti-rape laws, then there isn't a right not to be raped (I'm not saying it isn't immoral, for the record. I'm arguing that there is no right for it not to happen).
In this specific case, the only argument is if it is moral/right/whatever you want to call it to tell women to not dress - for lack of a better word - promiscuously to protect them from rape.
On the argument that it is moral, we have people arguing that: 1) It mitigates the issue without causing undue harm to the subjects. 2) Common Sense suggests that it can lead to the issue in some cases.
Against it, we have: 1) There is no proof of correlation between dressing promiscuously and being raped. 2) People have rights to dress however they wish.
You'll notice that in these arguments, neither side is saying "the woman asked for it because of her dress." The side arguing that it is a fair request, which is the closest to that point, is simply saying that it could lower the chance of rape, and no one is hurt for wearing less promiscuous clothing until the rapist is caught.
In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further?
If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera.
I am, I don't believe in either per se. Or to be more correct, I am ignostic with respect to such concepts, extremely fancy word going one step further than 'agnostic' which means 'What these terms mean is so vague and so ill-defined that I can't even say that I don't know if they exist because I don't know well enough what they would mean.'
I mean, how can you even debate if such things as truth or justice exist, the concepts are too vague to be philosophically defined?
Even worse, define what it means for something to exist?
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Sorry for a possible derailment, but you've got to be kidding me. The opinion that the "right to dress slutty isn't a civil right milestone " is in no way deserving of such a tone. Nor is it acceptable to call people "misogynist assholes", especially in a thread asking for "mature discussion" which is what the ban was for.
I'm not going to start on the actual claims ToxNub is making, whatever he/she is reading into Rsamurais post, I myself don't see that there at all, but I guess that's subjective. In any way someone has serious anger management issues there.
On the topic itself, it seems to me just like the advice to not leave your purse or mobile lying in the car. Yes, you should be able to leave anything in your car and not have it get stolen, but it is assumed that doing so increases the chance for your car being broken into. Now while I am not sure if there actually is a corellation between "dressing slutty"/temptation and a rape occuring, the police officer seems to make that connection and thus gives said inflamatory advice. I don't get the outrage.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
.....
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
Would you care to take the converse, moral relativism, one step further?
If you're being logically consistent, moral relativism means that the acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
If you're tossing concepts/abstractions/universals like 'Good' and 'Evil' out the window, you're also tossing out things like 'Justice' and 'Truth.' Et cetera.
Justice is based off our desire for vengeance. Truth can be objectively verified. Good and evil are constructs of our mind to describe things that are harmful and beneficial to us.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
On April 06 2011 10:05 buhhy wrote: Justice is based off our desire for vengeance.
Then surely it is relative?
Truth can be objectively verified.
Lol no. Not in the empirical sense, only in formal sciences like maths, whose concept of 'truth' is also quite different from what you are accustomed to.
Good and evil are constructs of our mind to describe things that are harmful and beneficial to us.
Oh lol no. People are often quite autodestructive and do the reverse which would benefit them and are too stubborn to realize it.
Most people wouldn't exactly consider voting republican a great evil or anything, it's still a bit autodestructive.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious
Not at all, how about being murdered in sleep? In some cases, murder may be utilitarian, say a person who is hated so much that his murder actually brings more joy than it brings suffering. How about drugging someone and raping them without them ever knowing? How about murdering a person who is highly suicidal but doesn't have the capacity to take his or her own life.
Also, in nearly all cases, to make one person suffer means to bring joy to another person and the reverse. A lot of murderers enjoy the thrill of murder. Also, if you enjoy hamburgers, well, you get where I'm getting at.
but i think we can include slavery
Slavery if anything brings joy to the majority. Like this guy from outer space with the pointy ears once said 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.', surely not that unreasonable a standpoint?
and torture
Imagine the joy George II of America must have felt after torture brought him a possible Al-Qaeda link.
I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
You know that all these things you listed where not considered morally bad in a lot of cultures. Indeed, in the one culture which formed the template of our modern legal system, democracy, and "freedom of speech".
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On April 06 2011 04:58 PrincessLeila wrote: Can you read ? It's written "In this context", not in the context of someone shooting at you I even have underlined it to be sure no one would understand it wrong, but you still manage to.
No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
What's wrong with being courageous, and refuse to live in fear ?
It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
and just continue walking ? Because you might get a bullet in your head, you will accept anything ?
Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
I'm sure if we were talking about terrorism you would say "I won't let terrorist win, i refuse to live in fear and restrict my freedoms". But when it comes to rape, strangely it's the opposite... Hypocrisy i love you.
No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
Indeed, the freedom that you now enjoy, could not be possible if no one had put his life at risk (and had died) to promote freedom. But maybe you don't like freedom ? It's too "idealistic"...
I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
What about Sparta, where weak and deformed babies were killed, and all males are soldiers? What about the mongolians, who left heaps of severed heads in villages they conquered? What about the samurai, who would commit suicide at the slightest dishonor? Aztecs? Cannibals? Romans? Pirates? Some South American tribe that celebrates rite of passage by covering one's hands with thousands of poisonous ants?
Morals are ever shifting, and are constructs of society and parenting. They are hardly absolute. Don't forget, wearing skirts that ended above the knees used to be considered immoral, same with sex before marriage.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Honestly rape is wrong. Period.
Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
Lol no. Not in the empirical sense, only in formal sciences like maths, whose concept of 'truth' is also quite different from what you are accustomed to.
On April 06 2011 10:32 buhhy wrote: But people are still acting in the way THEY perceive is beneficial. How would you define good and evil?
Like I said I don't define it, I don't know what it means, it's too vague, they are meaningless words and therefore I can't even answer if such concepts exist before a proper definition arises.
me, as a professional rapist just wanna say, that i prefer slutty girls more, because they make me horny, they're just more attractive to me and i will more likely rape them.
so if you want to improve your chance to get raped, just show a lot of skin and stuff.
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?
As soon as I read this question, I felt as if this is a more of a personal property issue. People have the right to look like whatever they want even if it incites ill will towards you. If a woman dressing slutty gets raped, that isn't her fault. I don't believe in an afterlife so when a rapist ruins the life of a poor woman, he is squelching the very preciousness of life. It's sad really, just because a woman wears a skirt doesn't mean you can flip it over and fuck her. This conversation is asinine. There is no excuse for rape.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
He was temp banned for the last sentence which was wholly inappropriate regardless of how any of us feel towards those who perpetuate the stereotype and perspective that women who dress revealingly somehow entice being sexually assaulted.
On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote: I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
Tell that to women living under the Taliban. Your clothes are a part of your identity. I would not let others decide for me what I can and cannot wear, would you?
How about this, from now on YOU are no longer allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved shirts. Because women or homosexuals might be tempted to rape you... Do you intend to follow my prohibition? How's that for a double standard.
On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote: I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
How about this, from now on YOU are no longer allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved shirts. Because women or homosexuals might be tempted to rape you... Do you intend to follow my prohibition? How's that for a double standard.
Yap, I've not been outside in that since I was like 4 years old.
Shorts and short sleeves hardly qualify as 'slutty' for women by the way.
Anyway, there's some reason to it, some other feminists for instance dislike the pressure women sometimes have to reveal, wear makeup, wear bras and all that just to be appealing to men.
Another grand one, seriously, it was a poster in a thread who put forth some actual arguments and actually tried to debate the matter, comes with a personal anecdote as a casus, and gets banned for it, if he had just made it a hypothetical situation but denied it ever took place no one would ban him.
Again, it's your forum, you can do whatever you want, but banning people for providing stories in which they were dicks to serve as arguments in threads isn't exactly going to foster an intellectual or academic debate. Neither is banning 'no-names' who have some criticism on 'respected members of the community'.
Edit: And I'm still replying to the point of being asked to cite bans of which I think they are outrageous. Especially in this case the crown being the immensely intellectual and well-argued "reason" for the ban given.
He raped a girl.
That's really in the eye of the beholder, and she didn't mind to begin with.
It's really a classic case of 'I mind, so you should mind too.'
That said, even if he raped her, even if she violently resisted and he told it, it's still presented as a vessel for debate, scaring people from posting morally apprehensive things they have done as a vessel for debate just counters any intellectualism and discourse.
do you really think having sex with someone who is too fucked up to even know isnt morally reprehensible, whether or not consent could be given after the fact?
"she didnt mind to begin with" to begin with? you couldn't possibly know, the poster admits he violated her without her even being aware at the time. its not like he asked politely to the kind unconscious lady if he could have some fun with her body
AlexDeLarge:
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).
Another grand one, seriously, it was a poster in a thread who put forth some actual arguments and actually tried to debate the matter, comes with a personal anecdote as a casus, and gets banned for it, if he had just made it a hypothetical situation but denied it ever took place no one would ban him.
Again, it's your forum, you can do whatever you want, but banning people for providing stories in which they were dicks to serve as arguments in threads isn't exactly going to foster an intellectual or academic debate. Neither is banning 'no-names' who have some criticism on 'respected members of the community'.
Edit: And I'm still replying to the point of being asked to cite bans of which I think they are outrageous. Especially in this case the crown being the immensely intellectual and well-argued "reason" for the ban given.
He raped a girl.
That's really in the eye of the beholder, and she didn't mind to begin with.
It's really a classic case of 'I mind, so you should mind too.'
That said, even if he raped her, even if she violently resisted and he told it, it's still presented as a vessel for debate, scaring people from posting morally apprehensive things they have done as a vessel for debate just counters any intellectualism and discourse.
do you really think having sex with someone who is too fucked up to even know isnt morally reprehensible, whether or not consent could be given after the fact?
I don't believe in morality. I'm just working with the framework you give me.
"she didnt mind to begin with" to begin with? you couldn't possibly know, the poster admits he violated her without her even being aware at the time. its not like he asked politely to the kind unconscious lady if he could have some fun with her body
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).
Like I already said before, he also said this:
'Alright, i should mention that the vibe of that night was that it was definitely ON between us. If she hadn't passed out, we would have sex anyway.'
There's a huge difference between things that can reasonably be considered possible to involuntarily incite, and things that require a deliberate choice to enact. You might incite less-than-courteous looks or other *cough* physical reactions by dressing immodestly, and you will certainly incite certain mindsets about you - like "slut" - but the choice to rape someone always belongs to the rapist.
That said, this controversy... isn't. The officer is entirely correct in the sense that immodest dress may make you a target where modest dress would not. Interpreting his statement to mean that dressing immodestly encourages rape is an uncharitable interpretation of what he said, which - as denizens of the Internet - we all know is a great way to cause any kind of conflict the troll in question desires.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Honestly rape is wrong. Period.
Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
In the ideal world, this would be perfect. Tell us when you can control the urges of every messed up person on the planet.
However, in the real world, sometimes it is necessary to protect oneself. If the police came on the television reporting car theft in your neighborhood, you would (probably) lock your car doors at night if you didn't already. Likewise, if they reported a burglar, and recommended locking your doors at night, you'd do that. You are under no obligation to follow their recommendations, but this is the suggestion they give.
In this case, the police officer could've given better advice. He could've phrased his advice better. But it doesn't change the fact that they do not need to follow it. If they want to continue dressing as they are now, no one opposes it - they just don't recommend it.
On April 06 2011 13:07 jstar wrote: Just because you wear a shirt that says "I'm hungry" doesn't give people the right to forcefully stuff food into your mouth.
-Philly D
So when are fat people going to go out and protest against Health Canada recommending they eat three servings of fruit and vegetables a day?
I think the debate is a lot simpler than people are making it:
Dressing revealingly never causes someone to Rape someone...ever.
Dressing revealingly can cause the rapist to choose you, instead of her, simply because the criminal will choose the most attractive target available.
So basically, you could personally lower the risk by dressing down, however, you would never reduce the actual risk of rape occurring, only reduce it happening to you personally.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Honestly rape is wrong. Period.
Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and I personally think that provocative behavior elicits more aggressive responses. There is no correlation to this that I can find but it does seem like common sense. If dressing provocatively didn't cause more aggression in men, then why would women do it in the first place?
Sure rape and sexual assault are illegal but there are still scumbags out there. It really boils down to concern towards women, not any attempt to take away their rights.
And legally,as long as Indecent Exposure laws aren't violated, they can dress as they wish, but they won't be looked at the same way by bystanders.
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem.
There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post.
Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using.
User was temp banned for this post.
100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
Honestly rape is wrong. Period.
Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
I honestly don't see why anyone would get angry when they're given advice. It's not like he's saying: "Do not wear exposing clothes or you'll get raped"
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
(not (equal? sex-object rape-object))
For most people it means exactly that, someone to have a one night stand with, then never speak again.
And I love how no one reads my precious definitions I took good care of in my op, arses.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
(not (equal? sex-object rape-object))
For most people it means exactly that, someone to have a one night stand with, then never speak again.
And I love how no one reads my precious definitions I took good care of in my op, arses.
And, Silm, just for you, I'll answer your OP question:
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims. When I see lists of advices to prevent being raped, I always feel a bit indignant: so getting raped or not is MY responsibility? And what if it does happen, then I have apparently not paid enough attention to those guidelines, because rape is totally something women can prevent from happening to them. Unfortunately, even women who wear burqa's get raped. Rape has little to do with clothing or specific looks. Of course there are a few things one tries to do to for the sake of safety: I never return home alone at night after going out or something, but always arrange something with friends. Because the harsh reality is that it's not safe to do otherwise. But if, for some reason, I wouldn't be with friends when returning home and I'd end up getting raped, it wouldn't be my fault that it happened.
On April 06 2011 17:57 Mahina wrote: What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims. When I see lists of advices to prevent being raped, I always feel a bit indignant: so getting raped or not is MY responsibility?
That's like saying that when they give kids advise to not go with strangers it's suddenly their responsibility to not get taken away by whomever.
Come on, that logic is a bit far-fetched, just because they give you some optional (bad) pointers on how to avoid being raped hardly means they say it's your responsibility or you're at fault when it happens.
I also have been told to look out before I cross the street even if the light is green, doesn't mean that it's then my responsibility when someone goes through red and knocks me over.
And what if it does happen, then I have apparently not paid enough attention to those guidelines, because rape is totally something women can prevent from happening to them.
Nope, no one ever said the rules were fullproof, this is a logical fallacy.
Unfortunately, even women who wear burqa's get raped. Rape has little to do with clothing or specific looks.
True.
Of course there are a few things one tries to do to for the sake of safety: I never return home alone at night after going out or something, but always arrange something with friends. Because the harsh reality is that it's not safe to do otherwise. But if, for some reason, I wouldn't be with friends when returning home and I'd end up getting raped, it wouldn't be my fault that it happened.
You raise an interesting point.
Most women are in fact perfectly okay with following the advise of not going through dark alleys alone or what-ever, but the same point applies here right? So why is this different than minding your clothing?
If a person doesn't want somebody calling them a 'slut', they shouldn't act like one. Or dress like one. Or give the impression that they are one. It's as simple as that. People need to realize that everybody around them judges based on looks. It's human nature, down to the basics, hard-wired into our brains. Why do you think cop uniforms exist? It's a symbol of law. It's a symbol of justice. You see a cop car, you double-check your speedometer. You see a cop car, you hide your joint. You see an attractive woman dressed revealingly, you get a hard-on. Basic human nature.
"As 'common sense' as it may be that you incite rape by dressing revealingly, such 'common sense' things haven proven to be wrong throughout history a variety of time."
Sure. A woman may dress revealingly because she thinks it's attractive, because she just wants to, and because it's her right to do so. It doesn't mean she wants to be raped. I wholeheartedly agree. But the rapist walking behind her as she gets off the bus doesn't think so. And it's his psyche that must be looked at, not the victim.
What the police officer said was absolutely true. Why the hell is his statement so 'shocking' and 'offensive'? Yes, it's his duty to serve and protect, and that's exactly what he's doing. He's speaking the truth.
Should he have worded that better? The better question is who gives a fuck, as long as it's the truth? Cops are people too, they're not superheroes of justice, they don't wake up in a secret lair of justice, eat a bowl of justice cereal and head to work in their justice mobile. I'd rather have an honest cop who gets straight to the point than an eloquent prick.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I have written 5 different replies now and I'm not really pleased with any of them. I don't feel they get my message across in the way I intend it... I'll get back to you on this later, when my writings make sense again before I post something that completely misrepresents my opinion, sorry!
(edit: and you said some things that I actually agree with but I didn't look at them that way, so my opinion needs some revising too)
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
Thumbs up. People are somehow associating honest advice with placing blame on the victim. Blame isn't mentioned anywhere, neither are women's rights. People are getting up in arms over nothing, seriously.
I just can't stay off this train wreck of a thread, either! I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
On April 06 2011 07:42 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Oh, here it is! Should be part of the OP. Since he/she has this axe to grind here, let's not forget it.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
Are you saying that you agree with him that getting enthusiastic consentruins it for you, or were you being facetious? By the way these links relate to your spoilered text above, too. I would say that you both exercised extremely poor judgement - see "Red: Signs You Should Stop."
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape?
By fighting rape culture tooth and nail everywhere it surfaces, such as this thread and the officer's statement. Yes, it's a tough job, yes, it will take until long after we're dead to change attitudes.
On April 06 2011 08:17 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [AlexDeLarge] never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
He was boasting about the rape to inflate his e-peen and you know it.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
Yes, absolutely. Why do you keep coming up with these bizarre things that you seem to imagine will uncover people's hypocrisy? I am a libertarian and would not shut down pedophile/Nazi/KKK/whatever rallies like you assumed upthread either. Now what?
On April 06 2011 18:07 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Most women are in fact perfectly okay with following the advise of not going through dark alleys alone or what-ever, but the same point applies here right? So why is this different than minding your clothing?
It's not, BOTH ARE WRONG, NEITHER behavior helps prevent rape crimes. Nobody has a right to force anyone to "mind" their clothing or stay out of alleys, anyway. Hopping on one foot might be silly and unproductive, but commanding someone to hop on one foot is domineering and merely advising it would be a soft assertion of dominance. See:
On April 05 2011 03:56 Torte de Lini wrote:Another good line people argue is that "victims should not walk outside alone late at night". This comes with the misconception that most rapes occur from strangers in dark alley, which isn't true. Most rape cases occur from people we are familiar with, like stalking, by people we usually go on a date with (date-rape) and it can occur anywhere, anytime.
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
This pretty much wins the thread in my opinion. No rational being should be able to read that link and fail to see the connection between the condoning of stupid statements like the officer's and the implicit support of rapists (more below).
On April 06 2011 09:50 Aequos wrote: In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
Prevention of rapist creation, not the prevention of a specific person being targeted, is the long run goal. Part of the reason we live in a society with so many "messed up people" is because society approves of ignorance that is spread for the sole purpose of demeaning women. Ceteris paribus, more men will rape in a society which they feel supports and condones their actions and will help defend them in court by casting doubt on their accuser. Only real legal reform is ever going to solve this, but for now we can try to stamp out support for rapists when we see it and try to educate.
Also, why was ToxNub temp banned? What she said was perfectly reasonable ... Yes, there is a spectrum of women's rights groups and some of them pick and choose what rights they think a woman "should" have. The fact that there's even such a question highlights misogyny culture (even among women), no?
On April 06 2011 23:09 god_forbids wrote: I just can't stay off this train wreck of a thread, either! I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
On April 06 2011 07:42 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Oh, here it is! Should be part of the OP. Since he/she has this axe to grind here, let's not forget it.
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
Are you saying that you agree with him that getting enthusiastic consentruins it for you, or were you being facetious? By the way these links relate to your spoilered text above, too. I would say that you both exercised extremely poor judgement - see "Red: Signs You Should Stop."
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape?
By fighting rape culture tooth and nail everywhere it surfaces, such as this thread and the officer's statement. Yes, it's a tough job, yes, it will take until long after we're dead to change attitudes.
On April 06 2011 08:17 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [AlexDeLarge] never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
He was boasting about the rape to inflate his e-peen and you know it.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
Yes, absolutely. Why do you keep coming up with these bizarre things that you seem to imagine will uncover people's hypocrisy? I am a libertarian and would not shut down pedophile/Nazi/KKK/whatever rallies like you assumed upthread either. Now what?
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
This pretty much wins the thread in my opinion. No rational being should be able to read that link and fail to see the connection between the condoning of stupid statements like the officer's and the implicit support of rapists (more below).
On April 06 2011 09:50 Aequos wrote: In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
Prevention of rapist creation, not the prevention of a specific person being targeted, is the long run goal. Part of the reason we live in a society with so many "messed up people" is because society approves of ignorance that is spread for the sole purpose of demeaning women. Ceteris paribus, more men will rape in a society which they feel supports and condones their actions and will help defend them in court by casting doubt on their accuser. Only real legal reform is ever going to solve this, but for now we can try to stamp out support for rapists when we see it and try to educate.
Also, why was ToxNub temp banned? What she said was perfectly reasonable ... Yes, there is a spectrum of women's rights groups and some of them pick and choose what rights they think a woman "should" have. The fact that there's even such a question highlights misogyny culture (even among women), no?
WTF, I seriously don't understand why you think the police officer's comment implies the support of rapists. He is merely offering honest advice. If you believe the advice is wrong, don't follow it. People really love busting out the torches and pitchforks over absolutely nothing.
You cannot eliminate rapists the same way you cannot eliminate murderers, or gangsters, or thieves, or child abusers, at least not in our current world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but rape is already looked down as the lowest of crimes besides child molesters, especially in prisons. People see rapists as more disgusting as murderers. Seriously, even a false rape accusation is enough to completely ruin a man's life. I believe rape is disproportionately punished in our society, bu that's just me.
I also have no idea how women's rights are brought into this discussion.
EDIT: also, the idea of rape culture is ridiculous; it parallels the idea that games are encouraging "violence culture" in children, that games in society encourages people to pick up guns and shoot people like in COD.
On April 06 2011 23:09 god_forbids wrote: I just can't stay off this train wreck of a thread, either! I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
On April 06 2011 07:42 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Oh, here it is! Should be part of the OP. Since he/she has this axe to grind here, let's not forget it.
On April 06 2011 04:23 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
Are you saying that you agree with him that getting enthusiastic consentruins it for you, or were you being facetious? By the way these links relate to your spoilered text above, too. I would say that you both exercised extremely poor judgement - see "Red: Signs You Should Stop."
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape?
By fighting rape culture tooth and nail everywhere it surfaces, such as this thread and the officer's statement. Yes, it's a tough job, yes, it will take until long after we're dead to change attitudes.
On April 06 2011 08:17 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [AlexDeLarge] never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
He was boasting about the rape to inflate his e-peen and you know it.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
Yes, absolutely. Why do you keep coming up with these bizarre things that you seem to imagine will uncover people's hypocrisy? I am a libertarian and would not shut down pedophile/Nazi/KKK/whatever rallies like you assumed upthread either. Now what?
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
This pretty much wins the thread in my opinion. No rational being should be able to read that link and fail to see the connection between the condoning of stupid statements like the officer's and the implicit support of rapists (more below).
On April 06 2011 09:50 Aequos wrote: In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
Prevention of rapist creation, not the prevention of a specific person being targeted, is the long run goal. Part of the reason we live in a society with so many "messed up people" is because society approves of ignorance that is spread for the sole purpose of demeaning women. Ceteris paribus, more men will rape in a society which they feel supports and condones their actions and will help defend them in court by casting doubt on their accuser. Only real legal reform is ever going to solve this, but for now we can try to stamp out support for rapists when we see it and try to educate.
Also, why was ToxNub temp banned? What she said was perfectly reasonable ... Yes, there is a spectrum of women's rights groups and some of them pick and choose what rights they think a woman "should" have. The fact that there's even such a question highlights misogyny culture (even among women), no?
WTF, I seriously don't understand why you think the police officer's comment implies the support of rapists. He is merely offering honest advice. If you believe the advice is wrong, don't follow it. People really love busting out the torches and pitchforks over absolutely nothing.
You cannot eliminate rapists the same way you cannot eliminate murderers, or gangsters, or thieves, or child abusers, at least not in our current world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but rape is already looked down as the lowest of crimes besides child molesters, especially in prisons. People see rapists as more disgusting as murderers. Seriously, even a false rape accusation is enough to completely ruin a man's life. I believe rape is disproportionately punished in our society, bu that's just me.
I also have no idea how women's rights are brought into this discussion.
That may be so where you live. But in other communities it could be different. Perhaps, when a girl comes home bruised, instead of support from her family, she could instead get blamed why she was out at that time, why she is always dressed like a slut and after that never again asked if she was only beaten by someone or if she was raped, and reporting to the police is never considered because of losing face in the family's neighborhood. When working to change that kind of culture, the police officer's comment is harmful to the cause.
On April 06 2011 23:09 god_forbids wrote: I just can't stay off this train wreck of a thread, either! I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
On April 06 2011 07:42 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Oh, here it is! Should be part of the OP. Since he/she has this axe to grind here, let's not forget it.
On April 06 2011 04:23 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
Are you saying that you agree with him that getting enthusiastic consentruins it for you, or were you being facetious? By the way these links relate to your spoilered text above, too. I would say that you both exercised extremely poor judgement - see "Red: Signs You Should Stop."
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape?
By fighting rape culture tooth and nail everywhere it surfaces, such as this thread and the officer's statement. Yes, it's a tough job, yes, it will take until long after we're dead to change attitudes.
On April 06 2011 08:17 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [AlexDeLarge] never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
He was boasting about the rape to inflate his e-peen and you know it.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
Yes, absolutely. Why do you keep coming up with these bizarre things that you seem to imagine will uncover people's hypocrisy? I am a libertarian and would not shut down pedophile/Nazi/KKK/whatever rallies like you assumed upthread either. Now what?
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
This pretty much wins the thread in my opinion. No rational being should be able to read that link and fail to see the connection between the condoning of stupid statements like the officer's and the implicit support of rapists (more below).
On April 06 2011 09:50 Aequos wrote: In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
Prevention of rapist creation, not the prevention of a specific person being targeted, is the long run goal. Part of the reason we live in a society with so many "messed up people" is because society approves of ignorance that is spread for the sole purpose of demeaning women. Ceteris paribus, more men will rape in a society which they feel supports and condones their actions and will help defend them in court by casting doubt on their accuser. Only real legal reform is ever going to solve this, but for now we can try to stamp out support for rapists when we see it and try to educate.
Also, why was ToxNub temp banned? What she said was perfectly reasonable ... Yes, there is a spectrum of women's rights groups and some of them pick and choose what rights they think a woman "should" have. The fact that there's even such a question highlights misogyny culture (even among women), no?
WTF, I seriously don't understand why you think the police officer's comment implies the support of rapists. He is merely offering honest advice. If you believe the advice is wrong, don't follow it. People really love busting out the torches and pitchforks over absolutely nothing.
You cannot eliminate rapists the same way you cannot eliminate murderers, or gangsters, or thieves, or child abusers, at least not in our current world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but rape is already looked down as the lowest of crimes besides child molesters, especially in prisons. People see rapists as more disgusting as murderers. Seriously, even a false rape accusation is enough to completely ruin a man's life. I believe rape is disproportionately punished in our society, bu that's just me.
I also have no idea how women's rights are brought into this discussion.
That may be so where you live. But in other communities it could be different. Perhaps, when a girl comes home bruised, instead of support from her family, she could instead get blamed why she was out at that time, why she is always dressed like a slut and after that never again asked if she was only beaten by someone or if she was raped, and reporting to the police is never considered because of losing face in the family's neighborhood. When working to change that kind of culture, the police officer's comment is harmful to the cause.
Lol no. Not in the empirical sense, only in formal sciences like maths, whose concept of 'truth' is also quite different from what you are accustomed to.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [quote]No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
[quote]It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
[quote]Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
[quote]No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
[quote]I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious
Not at all, how about being murdered in sleep? In some cases, murder may be utilitarian, say a person who is hated so much that his murder actually brings more joy than it brings suffering. How about drugging someone and raping them without them ever knowing? How about murdering a person who is highly suicidal but doesn't have the capacity to take his or her own life.
Also, in nearly all cases, to make one person suffer means to bring joy to another person and the reverse. A lot of murderers enjoy the thrill of murder. Also, if you enjoy hamburgers, well, you get where I'm getting at.
You're wrong, the death of someone do harm, not only to him, be to his family/friends... Killing someone won't remove the harm he has done.
Your "inhuman logic" is a nice try, but indeed it's not even logical. It's just inhuman. What are you trying to prove ?
Nothing is worth anything ? We can adopt any moral, people will be happy if well brainwashed ??
Slavery if anything brings joy to the majority. Like this guy from outer space with the pointy ears once said 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.', surely not that unreasonable a standpoint?
Yes it is. Please stop now. Why are you talking about bringing joy to the majority ? We were talking about freedom as in the definition "You can do anything you want if it don't harm others".
In my moral, something that bring joy to the majority it is only permitted if it doesn't harm others. You get it now ?
Your reasoning is dangerously flawed. You just say anything you want, even "rape is good if the neither the victim or other people learn about it."
If you agree with yourself, you should see no problem if i kill you in your sleep : you won't feel anything, and it would bring me joy.
You are disgusting. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
You know that all these things you listed where not considered morally bad in a lot of cultures. Indeed, in the one culture which formed the template of our modern legal system, democracy, and "freedom of speech".
I don't care about how much fun is murder or rape in some cultures. You won't persuade me that there could be no harm with people seeing their friends die.
Suffering and pain is not cultural, even dogs feel suffering and pain when their owner die.
On April 06 2011 23:09 god_forbids wrote: I just can't stay off this train wreck of a thread, either! I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
On April 06 2011 07:42 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
How about my story? We were both basically lying in bed, dead tired, on the verge of falling asleep, and we did it without either fully realizing what was going on, only the next morning?
Obviously I wasn't conscious enough to take advantage of someone right? Also, no one really 'started' it?
But my underlying point is more that people often claim that rape laws are sexist, favouring the male, while I think it's quite obvious they are sexist and favour the female much more. Males have even more troubles reporting being raped than females, it's some-what a stitch on your manliness.
Also, basically, if a girl just grabs a guy by the neck and aggressively starts kissing him out of nowhere, like you often see in films, without first asking if it's okay, than that's fine and dandy,but if a guy does that to a girl than that's definitely some sexual harassment.
Oh, here it is! Should be part of the OP. Since he/she has this axe to grind here, let's not forget it.
On April 06 2011 04:23 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
(I believe, under the UK law, you could theoretically be convicted of rape if you didn't explicitly ask permission, but I could be wrong here.)
Nothing like killing the vibe than 'asking', that's just so uncomfortable, go with the flow.
Are you saying that you agree with him that getting enthusiastic consentruins it for you, or were you being facetious? By the way these links relate to your spoilered text above, too. I would say that you both exercised extremely poor judgement - see "Red: Signs You Should Stop."
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Also, how do you suggest we 'fight' rape?
By fighting rape culture tooth and nail everywhere it surfaces, such as this thread and the officer's statement. Yes, it's a tough job, yes, it will take until long after we're dead to change attitudes.
On April 06 2011 08:17 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [AlexDeLarge] never claimed to have raped a girl, he asked if the specific case was rape or not, of which he wasn't sure.
He was boasting about the rape to inflate his e-peen and you know it.
On April 06 2011 07:16 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:So you're okay with people walking naked? Or people wearing shirts with offensive texts on it?
Yes, absolutely. Why do you keep coming up with these bizarre things that you seem to imagine will uncover people's hypocrisy? I am a libertarian and would not shut down pedophile/Nazi/KKK/whatever rallies like you assumed upthread either. Now what?
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
This pretty much wins the thread in my opinion. No rational being should be able to read that link and fail to see the connection between the condoning of stupid statements like the officer's and the implicit support of rapists (more below).
On April 06 2011 09:50 Aequos wrote: In other words; it'd be wonderful for women to be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. If they wanted to, they should be able to walk the streets naked with no fear of any assault. However, we don't live in that society, we live in one with messed up people who bring consequences to actions like this. If a police officer warns someone to dress in a less provocative manner to avoid being the victim of a crime, the person doesn't have to follow the advice, and the rapist is no less guilty if she doesn't follow the advice; however, prevention is probably the best credence here, and if this could prevent it from happening to even one person, it would have been worth it.
Prevention of rapist creation, not the prevention of a specific person being targeted, is the long run goal. Part of the reason we live in a society with so many "messed up people" is because society approves of ignorance that is spread for the sole purpose of demeaning women. Ceteris paribus, more men will rape in a society which they feel supports and condones their actions and will help defend them in court by casting doubt on their accuser. Only real legal reform is ever going to solve this, but for now we can try to stamp out support for rapists when we see it and try to educate.
Also, why was ToxNub temp banned? What she said was perfectly reasonable ... Yes, there is a spectrum of women's rights groups and some of them pick and choose what rights they think a woman "should" have. The fact that there's even such a question highlights misogyny culture (even among women), no?
WTF, I seriously don't understand why you think the police officer's comment implies the support of rapists. He is merely offering honest advice. If you believe the advice is wrong, don't follow it. People really love busting out the torches and pitchforks over absolutely nothing.
You cannot eliminate rapists the same way you cannot eliminate murderers, or gangsters, or thieves, or child abusers, at least not in our current world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but rape is already looked down as the lowest of crimes besides child molesters, especially in prisons. People see rapists as more disgusting as murderers. Seriously, even a false rape accusation is enough to completely ruin a man's life. I believe rape is disproportionately punished in our society, bu that's just me.
I also have no idea how women's rights are brought into this discussion.
That may be so where you live. But in other communities it could be different. Perhaps, when a girl comes home bruised, instead of support from her family, she could instead get blamed why she was out at that time, why she is always dressed like a slut and after that never again asked if she was only beaten by someone or if she was raped, and reporting to the police is never considered because of losing face in the family's neighborhood. When working to change that kind of culture, the police officer's comment is harmful to the cause.
This was in Canada, where I live...
With "where you live" and "other communities" I was thinking of people you don't know, perhaps from one neighborhood over for example. You support the police officer because you think there's already enough hurdles for rapists in the society around you, but other Canadians are flipping out over the same comment.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
On April 06 2011 05:32 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [quote]No, you said that it's cowardice in this context, not that cowardice is wrong in this context. You still imply that cowardice is wrong in an absolute sense.
I'm just saying, there's nothing wrong with cowardice.
[quote]It can get you killed or raped, in a lot of cases.
[quote]Not at all, I simply calculate my risks and manage them strategically.
Like I said, I don't believe there is a high risk associated with dressing revealingly (not that I do) but if there was a high risk, I'd rather be a coward than be raped really.
[quote]No, I say in both cases that I'm not going to live in fear because both cases are moral hysteria and the chances of either dying due to a bomb or being raped are quite slim.
I'm just saying that 'don't be a coward' is a silly argument. My point isn't cowardice-based, it's based on estimating the risk rationally and determining if it's worth it.
[quote]I don't enjoy freedom, the people who think that we live in a 'free world' or a 'free west' are the people who are out to suppress same freedoms of other people when really really really really don't agree.
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
What about Sparta, where weak and deformed babies were killed, and all males are soldiers? What about the mongolians, who left heaps of severed heads in villages they conquered? What about the samurai, who would commit suicide at the slightest dishonor? Aztecs? Cannibals? Romans? Pirates? Some South American tribe that celebrates rite of passage by covering one's hands with thousands of poisonous ants?
Morals are ever shifting, and are constructs of society and parenting. They are hardly absolute. Don't forget, wearing skirts that ended above the knees used to be considered immoral, same with sex before marriage.
I don't care about all the fucked up morals humans have been through. These morals exist to control and manipulate humans into following leaders orders and keeping quiet. All human society have leaders, and they always have tried to control people the best they can.
There will always be a fight between leaders and people. Now, in some countries, people have done revolutions to free themselves from the natural oppression of leaders. Leaders are now elected by people, so people keep a certain control. I know Democracy have a lot of flaws that bother me (demagogy, lies), but this is a big step forward for people (maybe not for leaders/decision making).
The morals you cite may be good for war / economics / brainwashing / or anything you want...
But some morals cause massive suffering if they allow rapes, murders, slavery etc...
They may cause joy to some people, but i fucking don't want a society were some are enjoying life by making other's live a nightmare.
Indeed, i am against morals that don't give a shit about universal pain and suffering that are rape murder etc...
How can you disagree with this ? You think your joy is worth others' pain ? You plan to invade Poland ?
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
no one is born a rapist. shit happens and people make the wrong decisions. the girls who dress like sluts will get more attention from the people who are looking for sex, and at a party i seldom know of many guys who don't want sex. the question may arise of, what if the guy planned to drug someone that night. well same sort of thing, a girl dressed like a slut will get more attention and thus is more likely to draw the attention of that sort of person. No one talks to the fat girl, or the ugly girl, there's a reason for that. So yes, thinking about it does make sense that dressing like a whore will increase the chances of getting raped. For all you statistical morons out there looking at the "data", well no shit there's no causal relationship established. It's because the data can't be collected, due to the fact that most rapes ARE NOT REPORTED.
Put another way, do you jerk off to the person who wears everyday clothes, or the person who looks like they want to be boned?
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
I met the girl many of you think i allegedly "raped" in a nightclub, she was basically a new face in our social circle. Things escalated really fast between us that night, and we ended up in my car after the club closed, heavily making out, she was completely naked except for her panties and the end result was i got a blowjob at the end. (so as you can see, we were pretty much intimitate all the way that night)
I am a pro poker player, and as such have a very funky sleeping schedule, i usually sleep during the day time and hang out at nights. As such i never got together with her in that period on a proper "day-date".
The story i first told happened one night, basically the 2nd time we've met, but first time we met just the 2 of us. It was really late at night, she expressed how much she wanted to see me, but came to my apartment driven by some of her stoner mates. They told me she got really wasted and can barely walk. So i took her to my apartment, think it was around 1 AM.. and you know the rest.
Now i hope you fucking prudes can lay off the judgement, i never for one second feared i would get into legal troubles that night, because i knew exactly what was going on and the dynamics of the situation/relationship. The only thing u can accuse me was that i highlighted only the juicy scandalous aspects of the story when i first told it, so it would have a better impact overall.
Also, thank you Silmakuoppaanikinko for sticking up for me, u showed to be very reasonable and could see the whole situation with a clear and open mind.
Hopefully an admin can read this and realize that my permanent ban is ludicrous.
On April 06 2011 06:42 PrincessLeila wrote: Here we go again... That's my last post in this thread.
[quote]
Wait, the word "freedom" meant something before occidental propaganda used it to promote war. You seem not to know that some people in some place at some moment in the history had no rights, could be killed for "not accepting Jesus [or whoever one want] as your savior", for sorcery, or on denunciation and without a trial ?
Yup, in a place where 99.99999% of people accepted Jesus.
Also, you read too few books, which hunts happened barely, and happened in the renaissance, during the so called 'age of enlightment', it's a common misconception they happened a lot and happened during the mediaeval times. They also didn't enjoy any official state sanction, it was mostly angry mobs.
In many places in the world it's still the case...
Yup.
You're leaving in the heaven compared to this, and you say "i have no freedom" ?
No I'm not, the same shit applies here, but just to different things.
If I was a member of some random Xhosa tribe, I wouldn't enjoy the freedom to not cut off my foreskin indeed. But I would enjoy the freedom to show my boobs if I so desired.
It's easy to not realize that you don't have certain freedoms when you simply don't have a desire for that freedom. In almost any society, the freedoms that people don't have are simply always stuff 99.9% of people don't want anyway. You could get hanged for not accepting Jesus in a place where 99.9999% of people accepted Jesus. Likewise, you can get locked up here for being nude, in a place where most people don't want to walk nude anyway.
Do you know about soviet Russia and censure ? You do have a huge freedom of speech in comparison.
No I don't, I can't even criticize my own head of state by law.
Well, i must admit i don't know how it is in your country.
Maybe we need a new word for freedom...
It's the same like in any country, it's just that you don't notice how much freedom you lack if the freedom you lack aren't freedoms you want anyway.
It only becomes obvious just how much you're repressed if for instance you wanted to walk nude outside, or for instance you wanted to be able to attend a business meeting with died green hair. (There was actually a case recently here that bizarrely ruled that a hospital did not discriminate by not hiring a trained MD who had all qualifications because he had died green hair... like hell.)
There is so many stuff you can't do, it just doesn't become that obvious because you don't want to do them, likewise, no one in those times didn't accept Jesus as their saviour so it didn't really matter that you could get hanged for it for most people.
did you read the whole thread ? This argument is naïve and flawed :
self-quote : "Of course there are laws... lol You think freedom is not compatible with laws ? You don't understand what is called freedom.
Freedom don't means you can do anything. Freedom is more something like "you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk." That's why there are LAWS.
Tell me, how do I put people at risk by walking naked? How do I put people at risk by insulting my head of state? How do I put people at risk by being a doctor with green hair? How do I put people at risk by not wanting to shake people's hands?
What are you guys told in school ? What do you think freedom means ? Anarchy ?"
Not really. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of stuff you can't do that hurts no one, not even yourself, but is just considered 'offensive'.
And the sole reason stuff is always prohibited is because it is considered 'offensive' in the respective culture, not accepting Jesus was considered seriously offensive at times. As was to criticize the communist ideal.
And when moral prevent rapes to be reported, what do you think ?
Extremely silly, as morals tend to be, it's not like they are rational or anything.
Well, that's sad, i didn't know about it. You should not accept it, i know it is very easy to say, but trying at least to change mentalities can't be a bad thing. In most occidental places, you can make fun of the president in medias, and nobody can be arrested for it. That's a part of the freedom of speech. For example, when i see this video (Stephen Colbert vs Bush Colbert vs Bush), i say to myself "It could be really worse" and i think of all humans in the history that really had no freedom of speech, and no freedom at all.
Yeah, you can make fun of the president in the media. But you can't insult a judge for instance, there are always silly things.
Basically, in the US, it is possible, if I am tried for rape, even if I didn't rape, but I just called the judge a 'total idiot' in front of him, to be sentenced for rape, even though he knew and it was proven that I didn't rape.
Is that freedom? What if the Judge simply is a total idiot? Why am I not allowed to speak my mind about a judge in function?
You can't making 'insulting' comments about police officers either, even if they step outside of their rules. Even if they do something they aren't allowed to do. You can't say 'Hey idiot, go read your rulebook, on page 45, article 3b it says ...', no matter how right you are, that's just silly.
"Rapists hardly get away with it easily ?" It's just plain wrong. I'm really sorry. 15 out of 16 rapists get away with it... this have been said earlier in the thread...
Woot, you know that like 1 in a hundred shoplifters ever gets caught, and like no one who downloads music illegally.
Most crimes go unpunished, there isn't enough money to go after everyone.
It rather seems that in a lot of jurisdictions raping someone, especially a woman, will be judged in the light of "what was she wearing ?"...
It seems that in a lot of jurisdictions, raping a man doesn't seem to be acknowledged as legally possible.
And such considerations are made for EVERY crime. If I murder someone but that person like taunted me, or I can prove I had to make a split second decision, all those things affect the level of the punishment, rape is no special case.
I suggest we evolve our mentalities and we stop morally blaming victim clothing or attitude when there is a case of rape... This is one of the things that prevent people from reporting.
Okay let's just assume that people report sooner then, then what? There still isn't enough money and time to go after everything. Most crimes go unpunished because there isn't enough time.
And then what, you still have to prove in court that the person raped you, I kind of support innocent until proven guilty you know.
What this policeman said is really not helping, because victims are already afraid to report : everybody learn about the rape, while there's a possibility that nothing happen to the rapists because "you should not have dressed like that" or why not "you smiled to him too much"...
It wasn't helping, it was a stupid remark that is based on bad science and poor phrasing. I started this thread remember?
I must admit i am a lier, i said i won't post again in this thread. I am 100% culprit, but you know, if you had not incited me to post again with such a tentative post, nothing would have happened
I'm always very good with this, I know.
Just to clarify, "Freedom is more something like 'you can do anything you want if that don't put others at risk.'" was not well said.
You can do anything you want if that don't harm someone else. And the law is here to define what "harm" is.
That's a circular argument then, the law used to define that not accepting Jesus was harmful.
Itself a pretty reasonable position if you assume that not accepting Jesus leads to lotsa pain, you could call it protecting people against themselves.
example : you can say someone is wrong, or make fun of someone, but you can't publicly insult someone because law consider it harmful (in Europe and US at least i think). Indeed you can say out loud "the president is an asshole" in the street, or even on a TV show, nothing will really happen.
In the US the constitutional precedent is that you can insult the president yes, but not the judge.
The point is that in a lot of places, for instance insulting, or even not believing in, God is considered insulting and offensive to many people. As it is for women to not be hoised in a niqaab.
The majority of people in such a culture is as offended by a woman not observing the hijaab in much the same way as many people here are offended if women (or men) walk around naked at the street.
The source of almost any limitation of personal freedom is that the majority of people at that time and place are genuinely offended and displeased by it.
Sometimes laws are silly, but at least in theory, if a law is very unpopular, people will vote for someone who is against. And they can protest, that's another part of the freedom of speech. Consider the whole humanity : we are probably the very few humans to have the right to protest, make demonstrations/marches. You can't deny that.
We don't, we have that right for a couple of laws. If I wanted to organize a protest for instance for paedophilia emancipation or holocaust denialist rights, this would be banned and I would be beaten up most likely by a random person.
Likewise, people are allowed to protest in a lot of places against some 'mild' things. But people in Iran are definitely not allowed to protest against the theocracy, because denying there that once life should be in purpose of God is considered highly offensive by the majority of people.
Hopefully, people won't get sexist/fascist enough to badly want a law against the freedom of clothing. Does totally/top naked has to be banned ? This is debatable, but this is not the subject... anyway people wearing swimsuits on the beach are not considered sluts, so i think we can at least tolerate this level of nudity.
People can also be topless in most western countries if they sunbathe in their own garden, it depends on context and location what is appropriate and not.
I'm personally not the kind of person that is easily offended by anything, if someone is denying the holocaust I'll most likely ask for an argument, most likely it'll be garbage and I walk away realizing I'm dealing with an idiot. I won't exclude the possibility though that someone comes up with an argument that is so potent that I am convinced on the spot, but it's quite unlikely.
But I'm just saying that in the time when not accepting Jesus was illegal, this was generally harmful to most people to not accepting that, because the vast majority of people were deeply offended by such a believe.
People were obligated to be brainwashed everyday at the church. You didn't really had a choice, you were excommunicated/banned/burned if you didn't accept it, so it was not really the will of people.
Congratulations on realizing this, now take it one step further and realize that every single moral dogma comes from this.
Don't tell me you don't realize that the only reason you believe anything moral is simply because of imprinting and brainwashing?
You were punished as a child when you called a black person a 'nigger',thus you believe it's bad, children who were punished when they respected them believe the inverse, it really works that simple.
Don't tell me you believe in moral universalism?
No, my moral is that some things are universally related to suffering and pain : murder and rape may be the most obvious, but i think we can include slavery and torture. I you think this is brainwashing, you live in a very sad pseudo-realistic world.
What about Sparta, where weak and deformed babies were killed, and all males are soldiers? What about the mongolians, who left heaps of severed heads in villages they conquered? What about the samurai, who would commit suicide at the slightest dishonor? Aztecs? Cannibals? Romans? Pirates? Some South American tribe that celebrates rite of passage by covering one's hands with thousands of poisonous ants?
Morals are ever shifting, and are constructs of society and parenting. They are hardly absolute. Don't forget, wearing skirts that ended above the knees used to be considered immoral, same with sex before marriage.
I don't care about all the fucked up morals humans have been through. These morals exist to control and manipulate humans into following leaders orders and keeping quiet. All human society have leaders, and they always have tried to control people the best they can.
There will always be a fight between leaders and people. Now, in some countries, people have done revolutions to free themselves from the natural oppression of leaders. Leaders are now elected by people, so people keep a certain control. I know Democracy have a lot of flaws that bother me (demagogy, lies), but this is a big step forward for people (maybe not for leaders/decision making).
The morals you cite may be good for war / economics / brainwashing / or anything you want...
But some morals cause massive suffering if they allow rapes, murders, slavery etc...
They may cause joy to some people, but i fucking don't want a society were some are enjoying life by making other's live a nightmare.
Indeed, i am against morals that don't give a shit about universal pain and suffering that are rape murder etc...
How can you disagree with this ? You think your joy is worth others' pain ? You plan to invade Poland ?
My point was, morals evolve with time, with technology, and with economy. We do plenty of things now that cause suffering and aren't considered immoral.
Also, almost everything your enjoy has been manufactured by millions of workers for minimal pay and in the worst of conditions. Now, why don't you stop buying shit that are made in 3rd world countries? Oh wait, you can't? Well, you are now encouraging exploitation of poor people.
On April 07 2011 00:33 Malgrif wrote: no one is born a rapist. shit happens and people make the wrong decisions. the girls who dress like sluts will get more attention from the people who are looking for sex, and at a party i seldom know of many guys who don't want sex. the question may arise of, what if the guy planned to drug someone that night. well same sort of thing, a girl dressed like a slut will get more attention and thus is more likely to draw the attention of that sort of person. No one talks to the fat girl, or the ugly girl, there's a reason for that. So yes, thinking about it does make sense that dressing like a whore will increase the chances of getting raped. For all you statistical morons out there looking at the "data", well no shit there's no causal relationship established. It's because the data can't be collected, due to the fact that most rapes ARE NOT REPORTED.
Put another way, do you jerk off to the person who wears everyday clothes, or the person who looks like they want to be boned?
It really takes a broken person to enjoy a rape. If you have the woman suffering while you are having sex with her, there has to be a pathological lack of compassion to still get off. Normal people are even suffering when their cat is hurt and crying or the dog whimpering.
I am also guessing rapists would look for women they are suspecting will not report them after the act, and I do not know if those are the women that look like they are actually confident enough to actively be searching for good sex for the night.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. Edit2 : Is it unrealistic to hope that one day, not 90% of rapists get away with it ? Yeah, with people as archaic as many posters in this thread, we're not there yet !
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice. Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. Edit2 : Is it unrealistic to hope that one day, not 90% of rapists get away with it ? Yeah, with people as archaic as many posters in this thread, we're not there yet !
If you want to make a point, don't fabricate imaginary people and argue against them. People aren't saying that the victim is responsible for being raped because they weren't careful. People are saying that people should be careful. Saying that being raped is a just "punishment" for lack of care would be a completely ridiculous and unwarranted statement, kind of like you going and saying that people presenting rational and valid viewpoints here should be raped, except yours is based entirely on a forum conversation where you're in the wrong, acting immaturely, and grossly misrepresenting people's opinions.
If you want to argue agaisnt the point people are actually making, here it is: Victims are not to blame. Society isn't perfect, so as much as we should focus on preventing and convicting sex offenders, it won't end the problem entirely. If there are things you can do to avoid being targeted by potential rapists, you should keep them in mind, because rapists do exist.
Maybe there are things wrong with how people are presenting and justifying these ideas, but fundamentally, none of your complaints apply to them.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice.
He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime.
Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
Possible but not feasible ? Are you reading yourself ?
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ?
Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?"
It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women).
if a rapists wants to rape u then he will rape u. how u dress will not prevent that from happening. if he sees u out at night, vulnerable and alone then THAT is what he will take advantage of. the way u dress and sometimes even the way u look will not prevent the risks of that happening even in the slightest.
hell even age is not a factor for a rapist. so saying the way u dress is what will prevent or inspire rape is complete and total bullshit.
what triggers a rapist is the fact that he is a rapist and u are a women. thats it. any other factors are void. how do i know this? because during hurricane katrina rapist were rampant in our city. they didnt care who they raped, they just did it. even 80 year old women were not safe....
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. Edit2 : Is it unrealistic to hope that one day, not 90% of rapists get away with it ? Yeah, with people as archaic as many posters in this thread, we're not there yet !
If you want to make a point, don't fabricate imaginary people and argue against them.
People aren't saying that the victim is responsible for being raped because they weren't careful. People are saying that people should be careful. Saying that being raped is a just "punishment" for lack of care would be a completely ridiculous and unwarranted statement, kind of like you going and saying that people presenting rational and valid viewpoints here should be raped, except yours is based entirely on a forum conversation where you're in the wrong, acting immaturely, and grossly misrepresenting people's opinions.
Yeah, you can always deny the problem, and argue i am immature. You don't bring any facts.
If you want to argue agaisnt the point people are actually making, here it is: Victims are not to blame. Society isn't perfect, so as much as we should focus on preventing and convicting sex offenders, it won't end the problem entirely.
Nobody said that we could eradicate the problem. I am tired of hearing "that will always happen". So we should not fight against rapists ??
If there are things you can do to avoid being targeted by potential rapists, you should keep them in mind, because rapists do exist.
Yes, but what if we marginalize women even more by telling them what they can or can't do or suffer the consequences of rape? Maybe that would create sexual equality!
A lot of these nerdy misconceptions can be cleared up with like one google search of "rape facts". For example: "93 % of juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attacker". Treating women (or girls in this case) as a lower class that needs to follow special rules probably contributes to this statistic. If you're telling women they shouldn't do x, you are the problem. Maybe you're not a rapist or future rapist*, but you're encouraging mistreatment of women.
*About 3% of American men – or 1 in 33 – have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change. Edit2 : Is it unrealistic to hope that one day, not 90% of rapists get away with it ? Yeah, with people as archaic as many posters in this thread, we're not there yet !
Princess, so I am the "shame of humanity" and the reason the "world is still so fucked up" and you wish that I was "raped right now," but somehow you're the one promoting a humane and understanding view on the issue?
Once again, recognizing risk factors for a crime =/= excusing the perpetrators of that crime.
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
I know that, in your world, where you and your enlightened peers are fighting against the backwards and nauseating thinking that perpetuates "rape culture," this complex issue boils down to a simple you-agree-with-us-and-are-right or you-disagree-with-us-and-are-wrong proposition. But real, lived experience admits no such simplicity. I'm sorry.
You also seem to be operating with some model of moral progress. People that disagree with you are archaic and medieval, as if humankind improves morally as it advances in time. That's magical thinking.
Now if you want to have a discussion about how to better prevent, uncover, and prosecute sexual assaults, that's fine. I would love to have that discussion with you. But if what you really want is an opportunity to aggressively promote your hopelessly reductionist crusade against structural misogyny, to insult and belittle your opponents, and to insist on framing them as morally reprehensible atavisms from some more barbaric yesteryear, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says. The whole discussion is just going to serve your glorious foregone conclusion that you are totally and absolutely right on this matter.
Also any talk of how women should dress is extremely demeaning to men as well. Men are, in general, not animals incapable of controlling themselves, which is what such comments suggest. Men are held to insultingly low standards while women the opposite.
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice.
He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime.
Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here.
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ?
Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?"
It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women).
Ridiculous again.
Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency.
You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position.
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
This is wrong, in the effort to educate, what would it take to convince you otherwise?
He is correct, you are simply drawing implications from where there are none. Advising people to stay inside during a tornado is by no means blaming victims for dying to tornadoes.
Approximately 68% of rape victims knew their assailant. 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends 35% by acquaintances 5% by other relatives and only 29% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger,
what is good advice to avoid being raped by your friends and husbands
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
This is wrong, in the effort to educate, what would it take to convince you otherwise?
No, it is not wrong.
And I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me, but I have lived and breathed in the air of this sort of rhetoric for the past seven years of my higher education. So you can feel free to understand our discussion as the enlightened you graciously deigning to educate the unenlightened me, but odds are I bring the same refinement of interpretive faculties to this issue that you do.
What your stance does is takes an artificially narrow look at the "advice" phenomenon, but almost any sort of human interaction is too complex to be adequately addressed by formulae like "if you say X, then you obviously believe Y." You seem to want to divide everyone into two camps:
I. the bad guys: people who would advise women to avoid risk factors for sexual assault (because obviously what that boils down to is total complicity with sexual assault).
II. the good guys: people who want to reduce rape in the long-term by changing social norms via education (because obviously the one thing that improves morality is a good education).
Not only do I distrust the methodology of this anti-misogyny crusade of awareness, but more importantly I don't think that membership in the "advise right now" camp and the "work for the future" camp are mutually exclusive. It is your worldview that demands such black and white.
On April 06 2011 17:57 Mahina wrote: What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims. When I see lists of advices to prevent being raped, I always feel a bit indignant: so getting raped or not is MY responsibility? And what if it does happen, then I have apparently not paid enough attention to those guidelines, because rape is totally something women can prevent from happening to them. Unfortunately, even women who wear burqa's get raped. Rape has little to do with clothing or specific looks. Of course there are a few things one tries to do to for the sake of safety: I never return home alone at night after going out or something, but always arrange something with friends. Because the harsh reality is that it's not safe to do otherwise. But if, for some reason, I wouldn't be with friends when returning home and I'd end up getting raped, it wouldn't be my fault that it happened.
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
Exactly this. For everyone in this thread who has been saying that "dressing slutty" increases the risk of rape, well, then what about people who are raped when they were dressed conservatively? People are also saying that if a girl dresses in a slutty way, she's inviting people to view her as a sex object. But what about girls who are harassed even when they're wearing "normal" clothes? The clothes are not the cause of this, they're the excuse that these creeps use for acting that way.
I totally get giving the women in your lives advice like, don't walk home by yourself, keep a close eye on your drink at parties, etc. You tell them these things because you love them and you want them to be safe. But I hope you guys can also understand the problem with you having to tell us these things in the first place - because it's NOT our responsibility to not get raped. The reality is that we could be following all of this advice as carefully as we can, but it's not enough because we can still get hurt. This is the problem.
On April 07 2011 01:29 Flat Zerg wrote: Yes, but what if we marginalize women even more by telling them what they can or can't do or suffer the consequences of rape? Maybe that would create sexual equality!
A lot of these nerdy misconceptions can be cleared up with like one google search of "rape facts". For example: "93 % of juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attacker". Treating women (or girls in this case) as a lower class that needs to follow special rules probably contributes to this statistic. If you're telling women they shouldn't do x, you are the problem. Maybe you're not a rapist or future rapist*, but you're encouraging mistreatment of women.
*About 3% of American men – or 1 in 33 – have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote: I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice.
He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime.
Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here.
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ?
Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?"
It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women).
Ridiculous again.
Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency.
You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position.
What you say in your last two paragraphs has to be invented by you. No one gets convicted if it's only word against word. Nowadays with DNA evidence together with bruises or smth, I believe you can make pretty sure to not be mislead by liars. And every report about statistics I remember was mentioning how their is a minuscule percentage of false accusations.
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
This is wrong, in the effort to educate, what would it take to convince you otherwise?
No, it is not wrong.
And I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me, but I have lived and breathed in the air of this sort of rhetoric for the past seven years of my higher education. So you can feel free to understand our discussion as the enlightened you graciously deigning to educate the unenlightened me, but odds are I bring the same refinement of interpretive faculties to this issue that you do.
What your stance does is takes an artificially narrow look at the "advice" phenomenon, but almost any sort of human interaction is too complex to be adequately addressed by formulae like "if you say X, then you obviously believe Y." You seem to want to divide everyone into two camps:
I. the bad guys: people who would advise women to avoid risk factors for sexual assault (because obviously what that boils down to is total complicity with sexual assault).
II. the good guys: people who want to reduce rape in the long-term by changing social norms via education (because obviously the one thing that improves morality is a good education).
Not only do I distrust the methodology of this anti-misogyny crusade of awareness, but more importantly I don't think that membership in the "advise right now" camp and the "work for the future" camp are mutually exclusive. It is your worldview that demands such black and white.
Fair enough, so what do you tell your daughter to do to not be raped by her friends and relatives?
On April 07 2011 01:50 Flat Zerg wrote: Given that:
Approximately 68% of rape victims knew their assailant. 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends 35% by acquaintances 5% by other relatives and only 29% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger,
what is good advice to avoid being raped by your friends and husbands
Every chance you get you should make comments that leads them to believe that you will absolutely report them, if they rape you.
On April 06 2011 17:57 Mahina wrote: What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims. When I see lists of advices to prevent being raped, I always feel a bit indignant: so getting raped or not is MY responsibility? And what if it does happen, then I have apparently not paid enough attention to those guidelines, because rape is totally something women can prevent from happening to them. Unfortunately, even women who wear burqa's get raped. Rape has little to do with clothing or specific looks. Of course there are a few things one tries to do to for the sake of safety: I never return home alone at night after going out or something, but always arrange something with friends. Because the harsh reality is that it's not safe to do otherwise. But if, for some reason, I wouldn't be with friends when returning home and I'd end up getting raped, it wouldn't be my fault that it happened.
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
Exactly this. For everyone in this thread who has been saying that "dressing slutty" increases the risk of rape, well, then what about people who are raped when they were dressed conservatively? People are also saying that if a girl dresses in a slutty way, she's inviting people to view her as a sex object. But what about girls who are harassed even when they're wearing "normal" clothes? The clothes are not the cause of this, they're the excuse that these creeps use for acting that way.
I totally get giving the women in your lives advice like, don't walk home by yourself, keep a close eye on your drink at parties, etc. You tell them these things because you love them and you want them to be safe. But I hope you guys can also understand the problem with you having to tell us these things in the first place - because it's NOT our responsibility to not get raped. The reality is that we could be following all of this advice as carefully as we can, but it's not enough because we can still get hurt. This is the problem.
There is a substantial number of people (myself included) in this thread that do not believe that dressing in revealing clothes increases the risk of rape. All I'm arguing is that, in principle, it's not a bad thing to give the women in your lives advice about avoiding compromising situations. And it looks like we agree on that.
And of course it's not your responsibility to not get raped. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that it is. It's not a child's responsibility to not get abducted. It's not an inmates responsibility to not get stabbed to death. It's not a college student's responsibility to not suffer identity theft. I think very few people look out at the world and think, "Man, all these people being victimized in all these different ways sure had it coming!" I don't deny that there are people like that. I just don't think they form any sort of overarching majority. Nor do they deserve to be the targets of enlightenment campaigns.
And I agree that it is a problem that even with 100% adherence to good advice, a woman could still be victimized, mostly likely by someone that she knows and trusts. That's a horrible and sobering thought for anyone who has a girlfriend, a wife, a sister, a daughter, a mother, anything. But I would suggest that the proper reaction to that thought is equal parts pragmatism and idealism. In the now, we must work to behave with reasonable attention to our own safety and the safety of our loved ones. In the long-term, we must work to make our share lives, our society, as safe as possible.
But I simply will not agree with anyone who conceives of advising people to avoid certain risks as tacitly approving of and perpetuating a culture of sexual assault.
Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
to clarify, dressing revealingly increases the chance only of spontaneous rape rather than premeditated rape. However, there is also a chance that a consistency of continuous 'slutiness' could eventually lead to a tipping point. But studies have shown that rape is more of an exhibition of power rather than a sustaining of sexual lust.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Also, advising someone to avoid recognized risk factors =/= blaming them for being victimized.
This is wrong, in the effort to educate, what would it take to convince you otherwise?
No, it is not wrong.
And I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me, but I have lived and breathed in the air of this sort of rhetoric for the past seven years of my higher education. So you can feel free to understand our discussion as the enlightened you graciously deigning to educate the unenlightened me, but odds are I bring the same refinement of interpretive faculties to this issue that you do.
What your stance does is takes an artificially narrow look at the "advice" phenomenon, but almost any sort of human interaction is too complex to be adequately addressed by formulae like "if you say X, then you obviously believe Y." You seem to want to divide everyone into two camps:
I. the bad guys: people who would advise women to avoid risk factors for sexual assault (because obviously what that boils down to is total complicity with sexual assault).
II. the good guys: people who want to reduce rape in the long-term by changing social norms via education (because obviously the one thing that improves morality is a good education).
Not only do I distrust the methodology of this anti-misogyny crusade of awareness, but more importantly I don't think that membership in the "advise right now" camp and the "work for the future" camp are mutually exclusive. It is your worldview that demands such black and white.
Fair enough, so what do you tell your daughter to do to not be raped by her friends and relatives?
There is nothing that you can tell your daughter that will actually remove the possibility that she might be raped by a friend or a relative. That is one of those many thoughts that keeps a parent lying awake on certain nights.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice.
He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime.
Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here.
On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
Possible but not feasible ? Are you reading yourself ?
Oops, meant to say that avoiding some risks is not worth the risk itself.
On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ?
Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?"
It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women).
Ridiculous again.
Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency.
You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position.
What you say in your last two paragraphs has to be invented by you. No one gets convicted if it's only word against word. Nowadays with DNA evidence together with bruises or smth, I believe you can make pretty sure to not be mislead by liars. And every report about statistics I remember was mentioning how their is a minuscule percentage of false accusations.
DNA evidence means jack all if they actually had sex and the woman regretted it afterwards.
Do you have stats on how many women make rape accusations because they regretted having sex, because I'd like some evidence to show that you're not just using a misdirection tactic.
On April 07 2011 02:21 Flat Zerg wrote: Do you have stats on how many women make rape accusations because they regretted having sex, because I'd like some evidence to show that you're not just using a misdirection tactic.
I don't have stats, I just know it happens; ie: Julian Assange. It could be an isolated case, it could not be, I don't know, which is why I want stats. There's also that false rape accusation site mentioned many pages back.
Also, how is it misdirection? It's completely related.
EDIT: if you want misdirection, go read the posts spouting off about women's rights.
On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote: Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject.
It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small.
But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
Excellent post. The people misreading the whole discussion as an argument about whether rape is wrong or not are really getting on my nerves.
I just wish people that follow that mindset are all raped right know. It is SO EASY to say, "that's life !". You are all proud being "aware of risks", and you ignore that a lot could be done to reduce rapes. You basically are saying "there's no rape problem, people just have to be carefull".
To these people, fuck you all, your are the shame of humanity, and why the world still is so fucked up.
I think i deserve a ban, but sorry, i just had to tell this. At least i will stop posting, i feel i am wasting my time fighting medieval thinking.
Ok, if you were the president or whatever, how would YOU plan to reduce crimes in general? Not just rapes, because rapes are just one of many horrible crimes. Be realistic here.
Why are you talking about me being the president ? I don't know what the president should do. I know what PEOPLE should do : stop talking about rape as it was the problem of the victim that wasn't cautious enough. That's one of the things that helps rapists to get away with it. These people give me nausea.
Edit : maybe the president could try to speak about it, but it is the mentalities that have to change.
If you're talking about the police officer, he was giving advice.
He represents the State. The State should promote freedom, not suggest restricting freedoms to lower crime.
Jesus, you already restrict your freedom to lower risk everyday... You don't walk alone at night into alleyways in poor neighborhoods do you? Same principle here.
On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
Managing risk is always possible, though not always feasible.
Possible but not feasible ? Are you reading yourself ?
Oops, meant to say that avoiding some risks is not worth the risk itself.
On April 07 2011 01:16 PrincessLeila wrote:
If you're talking about court cases, remember there are tons of false rape charges. Innocent before proven guilty. Most cases aren't cut and dry either.
And so what ? We should stop lawsuits about rape ?
Innocent before proven guilty in murder cases too, and so what ? "Justice is good for some things, but rapes can't be judged ?"
It's incredibly man-centered position : to protect the defendant (mostly men), we should not report rape to avoid false accusation ? Too bad for victims (mostly women).
Ridiculous again.
Seriously, why are you stuffing words into my mouth, is English not your native language? Nowhere did I say accusations should stop. I'm stating that you cannot simple assume whatever the woman (or man) says is the objective truth. Because evidence is so hard to present in rape charges, and charging innocents is wrong, the prosecutor HAS to answer tons of questions to detect consistency.
You are only seeing the victims' angle, you do not see the side of the accused. Since most accused are men, and many men lose their livelihood to false rape charges, I'm gonna say you take an extremely female-centric position.
What you say in your last two paragraphs has to be invented by you. No one gets convicted if it's only word against word. Nowadays with DNA evidence together with bruises or smth, I believe you can make pretty sure to not be mislead by liars. And every report about statistics I remember was mentioning how their is a minuscule percentage of false accusations.
Wrong. People get convicted for word against word in Canada, at least. What happens is two people have sex, then the female accuses the male of rape. The male admits to the sex but not the rape, and it becomes a he said/she said thing. Sometimes they even perform super invasive tests on the male anyways, before they have a chance to say that sex actually did happen. With all the ultra-biased sources on one side, here's a little something for people who think the only bad guys are the men. Humans all have the potential to be terrible, vile creatures, and with the prominence of feminist groups making wild accusations (I've heard from people's mouths, that 35% of men are rapists) it's only natural that some types people will feel that they were raped whenever they end up being ashamed of having sex with someone.
This thread is primarily about rape victims, but remember that creating a culture of misandry and pushing the assumption that men are all potential rapists has consequences.
I really find it curious that some users think giving advice is equal to a kind of "pre-blaming" for the possible outcome of not following said advice.
Maybe there are two kind of people discussing here- the ones who give advice to help, and those who give advice so they can later say "I told you so".
Just speaking for myself here, when I tell a kid not to touch the oven door, I do so to prevent burnt hands. Now while this certainly limits the kids freedom to touch oven doors I still think this is a good idea.
There have been similar examples throughout the thread, running through a dark, poor neighborhood with 100 dollar bills sticking out of your every bag/clothes/orifice is usually advised against. So is leaving your purse/mobile/radio lying openly in your car- because it increases the risk of being subject to a crime.
By the logic of some posters here, people giving such advice are ignorant, freedom hating, crime condoning victim blamers. Mind boggling.
On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote: Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject.
It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small.
But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault.
84 percent of those raped knew their attacker. 84 percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape. Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
So, glibness aside, what's your advice? These statistics are from college campuses keep in mind.
Also, apparently both rapists and victims are drowning in a pool of denial but what we should really be talking about is misandry and false accusations.
On April 07 2011 02:09 HULKAMANIA wrote: But I simply will not agree with anyone who conceives of advising people to avoid certain risks as tacitly approving of and perpetuating a culture of sexual assault.
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting):
Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is.
This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!)
Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
By the letter of Canadian law (a country often seen as fairly progressive with feminism) this is false. Reason being, the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the person not initiating sex. This means that if you are in a situation where you coax someone in to having sex with foreplay/testing the waters/being persistent and the only form of resistence they show is not consenting, that can still be considered rape. I don't really know what to make of this, but it amounts to the fact that someone doesn't have to create a confrontation to stop sex from happening. This is why so many rape cases come from relationships. One partner (usually only ever the male) wants sex, and the other party does not want a confrontation to occur in the relationship, either out of fear or some other emotion. It becomes rape when the offending party starts the physical act of sex on the basis that the other party does not make any direct move to deny it.
On April 07 2011 02:13 Flat Zerg wrote: Don't go to a bar alone. Instead, go with some friends, or maybe your cousin, who ironically have a statistically higher chance of assaulting you than strangers.
That's a fairly glib response for a fairly serious subject.
It's also a little misleading. The majority of rapes occur on dates, not on excursions downtown with family and friends. I would assume that the frequency of adult women being raped by her cousins subsequent to a group outing to a bar is vanishingly small.
But the real issue here—again—is how you're willing to recruit anything from garden-variety cynicism to sketchy references of "statistics" in your attempt to support your wild conclusion that offering advice is tantamount to approving a culture of sexual assault.
84 percent of those raped knew their attacker. 84 percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape. Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
So, glibness aside, what's your advice? These statistics are from college campuses keep in mind.
Also, apparently both rapists and victims are drowning in a pool of denial but what we should really be talking about is misandry and false accusations.
What do you mean what's your advice? I don't have some wonderful advice to dispense to the world, nor have I ever claimed that I did. Good advice is generally ailored to a specific situation. It's detail-oriented. It's local. In this, it resembles good thinking, which doesn't waste time dealing in massive and convenient generalities.
My point in this thread from post one has been to defend the principle of giving advice and that principle is perfectly sound. As fun as the "you don't have perfect advice so I win!" tack would be, I think I'll just avoid going down that rabbit hole if I may.
(Also, I think you're conflating my opinion's with SharkSpiders—not to mention, yet again, simplifying his opinion to the point of absurdity just so that you can mock it. That’s a very tedious way to argue.)
You claimed giving advice is not victim blaming. I would argue that while not synonymous, it happens to be the case so frequently that it's worth being highly suspicious of men who happen to be experts at not getting raped and their turds of wisdom.
On April 07 2011 02:09 HULKAMANIA wrote: But I simply will not agree with anyone who conceives of advising people to avoid certain risks as tacitly approving of and perpetuating a culture of sexual assault.
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting):
Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is.
This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!)
Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
I think you and I actually agree for the most part (except for the part where we draw conclusions about society from this thread. this is a tl.net thread populated in the majority by young, single men. skewed as hell!).
Right off the bat, I started with the assertion that dressing in a revealing manner is not a significant risk factor for rape. I agree. I don't think that it has much bearing on the question either way. All that I have been arguing in this thread is that, in principle, giving advice about avoiding actual risk factors for sexual assault is not equivalent to condoning sexual assault.
To speak in the broadest terms, one should work against sexual assault both locally and globally.
Local work means that one should watch out for female loved ones, encourage them to conduct themselves with reasonable caution, and to help those around us, by whatever means necessary, avoid potentially threatening situations.
Global work means making society safer (a lot of which would be reforming various laws and courtroom practices). A component of this work might be an educational campaign, but personally I am skeptical of the efficacy of such a campaign, especially when it is spearheaded by such radical ideologues as the ones who crusade against "rape culture."
Will local action be 100% effective? No. Will global action be 100% effective? No. Will both of them taken together be 100% effective? Still no. Should we stick at it anyway? Of course.
That's the human condition. You're in a shitty world. The world will stay shitty. You do your best to remove what bits of shit you can from the larger scene regardless and you keep those close to you clean to the best of your limited abilities.
What I take issue with is framing this issue like it's some war against "medieval thinking." What I take issue with is people treating their opponents as if they were cogs in the great machine of sexual assault simply because they don't want their loved ones to behave in risky ways. As a brother to a sister and a husband to a wife, I'm all for a world in which sexual assault does not happen. In the meanwhile, we must make do with whatever ad hoc measures are at hand.
On April 07 2011 03:10 Flat Zerg wrote: You claimed giving advice is not victim blaming. I would argue that while not synonymous, it happens to be the case so frequently that it's worth being highly suspicious of men who happen to be experts at not getting raped and their turds of wisdom.
I would argue that you're so invested in your side of the argument and so contemptuous of your opponents that you have very little to bring to the discussion in the first place.
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.
Most studies in to rape overwhelmingly show that arousal has very little to do with the movtivation for rape. Most rapists have control or power issues, they rape people because they like to have power over people and this is the only way they can get it.
Just like most types of assault, whether physical or sexual, the vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knew, more often than not their partner/husband. Until very recently there was no such thing as rape within marridge, there are many countries where this is still the case.
I know 3 girls who have been raped, two by their boyfriends and one by their father. While anedotal evidence is certainly not real evidence, the fact that of everyone I know, 3 people have been raped and all by people who they trusted and knew very well immediately makes me doubt it has anything to do with how the girl dresses.
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote: Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
On April 07 2011 03:30 Flat Zerg wrote: It's more like rich people tell poor people to eat their bootstraps, and it's actually their fault they're poor in the first place.
You make the worst analogies:
Lemme explain mine:
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Now replace Paris Hilton with women, clothing stolen and robbery with raped, thieves with men.
Now lemme TRY to explain yours:
It's more like police tell women to get raped, and it's actually their fault they're getting raped in the first place.
Now read over the articles, and tell me if that is conveyed at any point.
Ok... now people are going to accuse me of equating all women with Paris Hilton.
Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote: Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
You're right.
Every analogy you make like this is going to suffer from a key flaw: You have to be a complete jackass to tell a legitimate rape victim that she should have been more careful. You do not, on the other hand, have to be a jerk to tell young women that they should be careful. It's an emotional response to the image of talking to a victim that gives your argument the 'feeling' of legitimacy, not anythin to do with whether you're right or wrong.
Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html) They point out that:
In fact, "NCVS data reveal that rape victims tend to be young and that rapists prefer younger, presumably more attractive victims.” The data indicates that “younger offenders may be seeking sexual gratification . . ..” L. Siegel, Criminology at 294 (2008). Moreover: ". . . the correlation between age distribution of rape victims and the age of peak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence" of a sexual motivation for rape. R. Thornhill, C. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion at 139. See also 180-183 (2001). That examination of rape, written by a biologist and an antropologist, debunk the politiczed social science theory that "rape is a crime of violence but not of sex."
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote: Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating).
On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people.
Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html) They point out that:
I think that is an excellent link the sums up one of the positions. Basically it goes that sexual attractiveness of the victim does play a certain role in a rape and therefore enchancing attractiveness through clothing can be potentially dangerous, so it is a good thing to bring that to people's attention.
The other position is that sexual attractiveness is NOT, or at least a very minor factor in a rape and therefore clothing isn't relevant. So saying otherwise is obviously false and has the potential to make people insecure and afraid of the way they should dress.
bonifaceviii already put this is some better words I think:
I believe the argument goes like this (and any social scientists can correct me if I'm misrepresenting):
Be it established that sex is not the primary motivating factor behind rape, the "advice" of not appearing sexily to men to avoid being raped reinforces the mistaken belief that it is.
This reinforced belief is damaging in the fact that it carries with it the assumption that rape can occur as a result of someone being "too horny" or "caught up in the moment", which is similar to a "temporary insanity" defense (after a certain amount of stimulation a man cannot control himself; at which point watch out honey!)
Now one could counter that the assumption does not necessarily follow, but the amount of posts in this thread that repeat that same tired belief shows that it follows enough for society to have a tainted impression of rape (and especially date-rape) situations. Defense lawyers wouldn't ask victims how many men they've slept with and what they were wearing if it didn't work to reduce the sentences of their clients, and police wouldn't ask victims reporting assault what they were wearing if they didn't assume this had something to do with why it happened.
My opinion:
I think attractiveness might figure into this, but it is a minor factor amongst many many others. So I would not say that the way you dress has any significant impact on the chances of being victim of a rape and that's what I would tell other people.
I seriously think this thread needs to be closed as all it does is create bans and perpetuates this terrible myth that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape.
Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
On April 06 2011 17:57 Mahina wrote: What bothers me is the notion that by avoiding certain things women could prevent being raped, you're placing the responsibility with the (possible) victims.
On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote: I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
On April 06 2011 22:34 buhhy wrote: People are somehow associating honest advice with placing blame on the victim. Blame isn't mentioned anywhere, neither are women's rights. People are getting up in arms over nothing, seriously.
On April 07 2011 02:15 JiYan wrote: to clarify, dressing revealingly increases the chance only of spontaneous rape rather than premeditated rape. However, there is also a chance that a consistency of continuous 'slutiness' could eventually lead to a tipping point.
On April 07 2011 06:49 ZeromuS wrote: I seriously think this thread needs to be closed as all it does is create bans and perpetuates this terrible myth that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape.
Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
I seriously doubt you have actually read the thread. Find one post that actually implies "that women scantily dressed = at fault for rape". One.
On April 07 2011 06:49 ZeromuS wrote: Look, if a woman doesnt have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to a person having sex with them then sex that occurs is rape. Thats it. Simple as that It doesnt matter how a person is dressed, or how they were acting if they don't consent to sex then they shouldn't be having sex and if sex is forced on them its rape. Period.
That definition is actually way more lenient on men than the current leading legal one. Feminist groups who survey women to generate data on unreported rape ask if they were psychologically or physically pressured or coerced in to having sex. Furthermore, intent to rape does not need to be established in order for someone to be convicted, and saying that the accuser had the opportunity to say yes or no does not constitute a valid defense.
Either way, I won't defend anything relating to people saying that ignoring potential risk factors takes culpability away from the guilty or puts it in the hands of victims. That's been established here, and anywhere else where the argument is made. Really, though, there can be two discussions here, and not one. The question of whether or not attractiveness does increase the likelihood of being raped, and then the question of whether or not it's alright to point out whatever the answer to the first question may be.
For some reason, I'm seeing a lot of posters that will stand up and deny the first point, then go right on to arguing against the second. It confuses the issue.
If anything, anything, wouldn't alcohol, drugs, and behavior be more to blame then what a girl is wearing? People seem to like to group every "rape" under the same category, but it's not that cut and dry. Each case of rape isn't of a girl walking home from school -- a situation at a party is different from a 1 on 1 meeting at someone's house, a club is different from an alleyway -- some guys are the evil serial rapists and others are the cowardly guys who take advantage of vulnerable woman who are drunk/on drugs and separated from their friends.
How you can narrow an entire subject such as rape down to what person is wearing is ridiculous.
On April 07 2011 07:33 holdthephone wrote: If anything, anything, wouldn't alcohol, drugs, and behavior be more to blame then what a girl is wearing? People seem to like to group every "rape" under the same category, but it's not that cut and dry. Each case of rape isn't of a girl walking home from school -- a situation at a party is different from a 1 on 1 meeting at someone's house, a club is different from an alleyway -- some guys are the evil serial rapists and others are the cowardly guys who take advantage of vulnerable woman who are drunk/on drugs and separated from their friends.
How you can narrow an entire subject such as rape down to what person is wearing is ridiculous.
We're not. A full 70% of cases are ones where the victim knew the rapist. Most people here, myself included, recognize that it's unlikely that dress had anything to do with it. That being said, it is equally ridiculous to ignore a full 30% of rape cases where it could be a factor. It's obviously not the most important one (I would rank going out in groups far, far above anything to do with dress), if at all, but it dominates this discussion because the discussion surrounds a comment made by a police officer, claiming that clothes designed to arouse members of the male sex increase the likelihood of being made a victim of a sexual assault crime.
Well then yeah I would agree it's probably a factor in some cases, but on the subject of the thread I don't think it's fair of the officer to blame it on attire. It's a matter of being careful, and telling someone that shouldn't be seen as blaming the victim.
If you got broadsided going through a green light it's not your fault whatsoever -- but it's always advised to look both directions before going through regardless.
So I guess the tone here shouldn't be "be more careful next time," it should be, "be careful, there are crazy people out there."
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
By the letter of Canadian law (a country often seen as fairly progressive with feminism) this is false. Reason being, the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the person not initiating sex. This means that if you are in a situation where you coax someone in to having sex with foreplay/testing the waters/being persistent and the only form of resistence they show is not consenting, that can still be considered rape. I don't really know what to make of this, but it amounts to the fact that someone doesn't have to create a confrontation to stop sex from happening. This is why so many rape cases come from relationships. One partner (usually only ever the male) wants sex, and the other party does not want a confrontation to occur in the relationship, either out of fear or some other emotion. It becomes rape when the offending party starts the physical act of sex on the basis that the other party does not make any direct move to deny it.
Yeah, there are 2 general principles in Canada which prevent her from consenting in that scenario.
First, silence is NOT consent.
Second, you cannot consent while under the influence of drugs/alcohol.
On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote: Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
No one made a retrospective statement to any rape victims. No one said "Oh well, not our job, you shouldn't have been a slut in the first place" That was not the statement made.
The statement was made for people concerned about safety. It was said, that if you are concerned for your sexual safety, one technique you can employ to keep yourself safer is to dress more modestly.
There is no data on how rape victims were dressed before they got raped, because, frankly, how the hell could you possibly ask that? "Oh, I see you got raped, you weren't by any chance showing alot of skin were you?" No one in their right mind would run a study like that, and what's more, we know that it's not the victim's fault that the rape occurred. We don't tell the guy who got hit on a crosswalk "oh, well you could have been wearing more visible clothing" either, but no one argues that if you're out walking at night it's not a good idea to wear reflectors and light colors. It still doesn't make it your fault if you are hit while legally crossing somewhere you have right of way.
What kind of clothes you wear does matter. Rapists, especially at parties and clubs/pubs will usually pick a target first. The actual rape is an issue of power, something along the lines of "This bitch is slutting it out to all the guys, yet she rejected me, I'll show her who's boss", the rape doesn't take place because of overwhelming sexual urge, but the target is still chosen well before the rapist decides to go through with a rape, and that process of targeting is virtually the same as a man asking girls out at the bar. He goes to the ones he's interested in and tries them out.
Women still have a choice to dress how ever they would like, however, this is a statistical fact that women should be aware of if they want to be more protected against being the target of illegal sexual behavior. Some girls go out looking for trouble, but alot of the girls who go out are nice girls who didn't really want any of that kind of attention at all, but they weren't so aware that the way they dress conveys a message.
I don't think anyone is saying that women deserve to be raped for any reason ever.
As well, NO ONE is saying that there should be more lenient sentancing for rapists of women who dress more provocatively.
What people are saying is that dressing more revealingly could result in a higher chance of being raped, and as such is not a good idea.
Its the same thing like walking around at 1am in any ghettoh while counting $10,000 in $100 bills by hand, having them fanned out. While listening to an ipod... will result in a higher chance of you being mugged and having your money stolen.
Did this guy deserve to have his money stolen? FUCK NO. Should the thief recieve a more lenient sentance? HELL NO! But does walking around in a crime ridden area of town, with no protection, not paying attention, flashing tonnes of cash increase the chance of him being robbed? HELL YES.
So... even though he is allowed to flash his money, should he do it? NO.
Even though women are allowed, and have every right to dress sluttily then get drunk and hang out with people she doesn't know in an area of town where it is easy for her to be taken off alone and then get raped... she probably shouldn't do it, dress a little more conservatively and maybe she wouldn't of been raped.
Its a lot less about someone deserving to be raped, and a lot more about taking personal responsibility and realize that the things you do have consequences.
Not wearing a seat belt in your right. Doing so increases your chance of dying in an accident. By not wearing your seat belt do you deserve to die in an accident? NO. But you should still wear it, even if you don't want to because it is safer.
Not that hard to understand... every day we do things that we don't want to in order to keep our selves safe, this is just one more thing that people have to do in order to keep safe. It sucks that it is only women that have to do this, and it is sexist, but this is the world we live in.
Everyone would love a perfect world where no one gets raped, and everyone is treated equaly... saddly this is not the case. There are rapists out there, and they will take advantage of a woman who lets her guard down at the wrong time. Its a terrible truth of the world we live in, but its just what happens...
On April 07 2011 04:00 Flat Zerg wrote: Paris Hilton gets her clothing stolen by thieves, police tell her to tighten up security, Paris gets into a hissy fit and says the police blames her for the robbery.
Woman gets assaulted, men tell her to stop being a slut, and the woman points out that telling her to not be a slut is probably contributing to the problem rather than helping.
You're right.
Every analogy you make like this is going to suffer from a key flaw: You have to be a complete jackass to tell a legitimate rape victim that she should have been more careful. You do not, on the other hand, have to be a jerk to tell young women that they should be careful. It's an emotional response to the image of talking to a victim that gives your argument the 'feeling' of legitimacy, not anythin to do with whether you're right or wrong.
Edit: Found a response to this while poking around a website I linked earlier. (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/toronto-cop-in-hot-water-for-trying-to.html) They point out that:
In fact, "NCVS data reveal that rape victims tend to be young and that rapists prefer younger, presumably more attractive victims.” The data indicates that “younger offenders may be seeking sexual gratification . . ..” L. Siegel, Criminology at 294 (2008). Moreover: ". . . the correlation between age distribution of rape victims and the age of peak female sexual attractiveness is powerful evidence" of a sexual motivation for rape. R. Thornhill, C. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion at 139. See also 180-183 (2001). That examination of rape, written by a biologist and an antropologist, debunk the politiczed social science theory that "rape is a crime of violence but not of sex."
Telling somebody to be more careful is completely different than telling them not to dress like a slut. The former is advice that everybody should adhere to. The latter is bad advice and displays a mentality that is the same as countries like Saudi Arabia.
Giving advice is not inherently bad. Giving bad advice that displays prejudices, especially ones carried by a police officer, is bad.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
bull and shit. he raped the girl. plane and simple. if she would have took him to court and if he would have told that exact same story she would have won the case without a doubt and he would be in jail.. he said it himself that t he girl was 90% unconcious and obviously had no clue to what was going on since she was only 10% awake. then he proceeds to take advantage of that and have sex with her without her knowing and without her consent? bullshit. that is a rape no matter how u look at it.
the dude is just lucky she was a slut and a dumbass to let her self get taken advantage of like that without doing anything about it..
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote: Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating).
On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people.
more bullshit. having sex with someone that is incapable of saying yes or no is rape, period. if someone gets so drunk or is on drugs and a rapist takes advantage of that and "fucks the shit" out of her while she is incaple of even talking, let alone trying to prevent it, its rape. even if she "enjoyed" it afterwards its STILL RAPE.
also some women do not fight back when there getting raped because that is something to protect there own lives. fighting back can lead to the rapist being more aggressive and dangerous and the women could end up seriously hurt or dead. so sometimes it is best for the women to not fight back against rapists. if a women is forced into rape with a knife/gun to her head or the threat of her life being in danger then yes, the women will "allow" the man to rape her because she would end up dead otherwise in a case like that. that is why his comment was infact moronic.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
bull and shit. he raped the girl. plane and simple. if she would have took him to court and if he would have told that exact same story she would have won the case without a doubt and he would be in jail.. he said it himself that t he girl was 90% concious and obviously had no clue to what was going on since she was only 10% awake. then he proceeds to take advantage of that and have sex with her without her knowing and without her consent? bullshit. that is a rape no matter how u look at it.
the dude is just lucky she was a slut and a dumbass to let her self get taken advantage of like that without doing anything about it..
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote: Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating).
On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people.
more bullshit. having sex with someone that is incapable of saying yes or no is rape, period. if someone gets so drunk or is on drugs and a rapist takes advantage of that and "fucks the shit" out of her while she is incaple of even talking, let alone trying to prevent it, its rape. even if she "enjoyed" it afterwards its STILL RAPE.
also some women do not fight back when there getting raped because that is something to protect there own lives. not fighting back can lead to the rapist being more aggressive and dangerous and the women could end up seriously hurt or dead. so sometimes it is best for the women to not fight back against rapists, which is why his comment was infact moronic.
I assume you mean 90% unconscious? people really need to take a chill pill by the way, hwo on earth can we have a mature discussion if people keep overreacting to what others are saying, putting words in their mouths and such. It's like this thread is filled with people that want to say "It was not the girls fault she gets raped but there are means to keep unnecessary sexual attention at a minimum when you go out because some guys are really douchebags', while the other half goes"OMG you are saying she asked for it LALALALALALALA *fingers in ears*". Listen to each other for gods sake, and if you are unsure about their meaning ask them. And forget about the trolposters, which are rather obvious. I'll admit, I make these mistakes myself as well, it can be difficult.
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?
It was very close to being a criminal act of rape - she would have 100% won in court if she had pressed charges.
She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
bull and shit. he raped the girl. plane and simple. if she would have took him to court and if he would have told that exact same story she would have won the case without a doubt and he would be in jail.. he said it himself that t he girl was 90% concious and obviously had no clue to what was going on since she was only 10% awake. then he proceeds to take advantage of that and have sex with her without her knowing and without her consent? bullshit. that is a rape no matter how u look at it.
the dude is just lucky she was a slut and a dumbass to let her self get taken advantage of like that without doing anything about it..
On April 07 2011 06:04 Monsen wrote:
On April 07 2011 03:25 god_forbids wrote:
On April 07 2011 00:46 AbsentLover wrote: Ok, this is AlexDeLarge here, posting on this account since my main one got banned.
Going to SHED SOME LIGHT on this situation, because it got really fucking ridiculous. Never would i have imagined that i would get perm banned out of the blue by telling a personal story that happened to me IRL (with no connection to this forum whatsoever).
LOL? God forbid TL prevent rapists from interacting with its members. You deserve your permaban and (hopefully) the next one on its way to your smurf account. You raped that girl regardless of what you thought entitled you to have sex with her unconscious body. The fact that she claimed to have enjoyed the abuse - I wonder who else in her life did this to her before you? - only proves what a sad and broken person she was inside. The "dynamics of the situation" was that you raped a passed-out woman's body while she was defenseless and non-consenting.
On April 07 2011 02:15 Blardy wrote:She was conscious to know he was having sex with her and didn't say no to it, she couldn't have won the case because she allowed it. She can't prove he had sex with her if she was sleeping but since she wasn't sleeping and knew it was going on and in no way tried it stop it, it was consensual.
Read above, but I can hardly believe that it will stop you from being so moronic. NOT SAYING NO is a million miles away from SAYING YES. From whence comes your incredible sense of entitlement to women's bodies?
You, just like others in the thread need to get your boot of the rage pedal and your finger of the judge button. While I certainly agree with some of your points, calling people moronic is, as you're well aware, a very easy way get you banned (also it makes you look shitty at debating).
On the topic of consent I feel your view is a bit too black and white. I fear it's not that simple. While I agree that not saying "no" does not equal a green light, your water analogy holds, hah, no water with me. I certainly have had sex while not really in the mood. Maybe I changed my mind during the act but I'm still sure my girlfriend wasn't raping me for the first part of it, even though I wasn't "enthusiasticly consenting" the entire time. This is what can make rape cases so damn difficult to judge at times- sex while drunk or on drugs, "rape" in relationships etc. Are there even legal definitions of "consent" ? Also, in the case of relationships that "sense of entitlement" to your partners body (and feelings) is, while certainly debateable, part of what makes a relationship (and the foundation for marriage rape I assume ) for a lot of people.
more bullshit. having sex with someone that is incapable of saying yes or no is rape, period. if someone gets so drunk or is on drugs and a rapist takes advantage of that and "fucks the shit" out of her while she is incaple of even talking, let alone trying to prevent it, its rape. even if she "enjoyed" it afterwards its STILL RAPE.
also some women do not fight back when there getting raped because that is something to protect there own lives. not fighting back can lead to the rapist being more aggressive and dangerous and the women could end up seriously hurt or dead. so sometimes it is best for the women to not fight back against rapists, which is why his comment was infact moronic.
I assume you mean 90% unconscious? people really need to take a chill pill by the way, hwo on earth can we have a mature discussion if people keep overreacting to what others are saying, putting words in their mouths and such. It's like this thread is filled with people that want to say "It was not the girls fault she gets raped but there are means to keep unnecessary sexual attention at a minimum when you go out because some guys are really douchebags', while the other half goes"OMG you are saying she asked for it LALALALALALALA *fingers in ears*". Listen to each other for gods sake, and if you are unsure about their meaning ask them. And forget about the trolposters, which are rather obvious. I'll admit, I make these mistakes myself as well, it can be difficult.
yes i meant unconcious*
and i did read everything blardy was saying. he was saying that the girl couldnt win the case and that it would not be considered rape cuz she was still awake. but idk about u or anyone else in this thread, but do u have any idea on what its like to only be 10% concious and on the virge of passing out? i do. she may have knew what was going on, but i promise u that even if she did know she wouldnt have been able to do shit about it. if she was even capable of talking at all in that state then it would have just been bearly audible whispers.
so thats why i call his comment bullshit because you cant do anything at all while being only 10% concious.
just to prove a point lets imagine the girl he raped did not enjoy it at all. infact lets pretend that she was heavily tramatized for the ordeal. if she took him to court she would have easily won beacuse there was 0% chance of her doing anything to be able to stop it or prevent it.
but that did not happen and the ONLY reason it didnt happen is because she has a rape fetish i guess and enjoyed it and decided not to take him to court. thats the ONLY reason the guy isnt in jail right now. which is sad because ppl like him needs to be in jail.
rape cases are hard i aggree with that. but with that alex guys case it would have been very easy to charge him with rape. very easy.
to anyone actually arguing he didnt actually rape her, you're dead wrong. U.S. law says without question its rape. if you want to debate whether or not the law is silly( it's not you perverts,) fine. But to debate it isnt technically rape is ignorant.
honestly what do you guys think date rape is all about? its about getting a girl too intoxicated to have the mental capacity to make appropriate decisions and abusing her. they dont call it date rape cause its stylish, it's because it's actually rape.
I bring up US Law specifically because i wont purport to know any other, and the story was from an american
On April 09 2011 09:32 Gene wrote: to anyone actually arguing he didnt actually rape her, you're dead wrong. U.S. law says without question its rape. if you want to debate whether or not the law is silly( it's not you perverts,) fine. But to debate it isnt technically rape is ignorant.
honestly what do you guys think date rape is all about? its about getting a girl too intoxicated to have the mental capacity to make appropriate decisions and abusing her. they dont call it date rape cause its stylish, it's because it's actually rape.
I bring up US Law specifically because i wont purport to know any other, and the story was from an american
Now, while I've read most of the posts in this thread, I haven't read the last few pages as it became a bit meaningless at some point. So, I'm commenting this out of context. However, if this is in reference to the poster who got banned for saying that he had sex with someone 90% unconscious, then:
Your reference to alcohol/intoxication is quite terrible. People get drunk and have sex mindlessly all the time. Is this rape? No, because to the outside world as well as their partner, it would seem that they are consenting. Rape in about force (often physical force) and non-consent. Making it otherwise would just blur the lines. In the case discussed, the girl didn't have any chance to consent, either through verbal communication or body language, since she was unconscious, also meaning that she could not resist. So, it's up to her to decide afterwards whether she feels it was "forced" (and thereby, in reality, the power to decide whether it was rape). The line here between getting intoxicated and being fed a date-rape drug would be that in the latter instance one person conspires to make another powerless to resist their actions, actively removing the other individual's ability to utter or express non-consent.
Like is said in my earlier post, this thread seems really diffuse, and discussions are going in all directions. By now, people are discussing semantics. Me as well, admittedly - just had to respond to the unfortunately phrased comment quoted above
EPT
I have read the whole thing (not just skimmed), and Silmakuoppaanikinko (the OP) has really kicked up a shitstorm. He or she has posted dozens of times, mostly sounding like someone practicing for a debate club competition. Why the convoluted, nitpicking, hair-splitting arguments? Did some middle schooler just discover J. L. Mackie? I tried to find out a little about this person's agenda.
