|
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.
Also I can really really recommend this blog entry I found some time ago:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
"the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist."
|
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.
+ Show Spoiler +"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."
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 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote: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 drink ers) 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.
|
@ Silmakuoppaanikinko
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 19:22 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote: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 drink ers) 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.
|
thought at first the OP was going to announce a new red light district in toronto 
|
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:Show nested quote +(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 consent ruins 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.
Get it?
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 consent ruins 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." Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? 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). Show nested quote +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 23:21 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +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 consent ruins 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? 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 23:36 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 23:21 buhhy wrote: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 consent ruins 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? 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...
|
On April 06 2011 10:26 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 10:05 buhhy wrote:
Justice is based off our desire for vengeance. Then surely it is relative? 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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 10:12 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: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 ??
I don't think so.
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.
Imagine the joy George II of America must have felt after torture brought him a possible Al-Qaeda link. Show nested quote +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.
You are ridiculous.
|
On April 06 2011 23:44 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 23:36 Ropid wrote:On April 06 2011 23:21 buhhy wrote: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 consent ruins 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? 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 10:26 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 10:12 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: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 19:22 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote: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 drink ers) 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.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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 07 2011 00:19 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 19:22 Monsen wrote:On April 06 2011 16:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote: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 drink ers) 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.
User was banned for this post.
|
On April 07 2011 00:13 PrincessLeila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 10:26 buhhy wrote:On April 06 2011 10:12 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 09:19 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 09:15 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 08:59 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 08:35 PrincessLeila wrote:On April 06 2011 07:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
