Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...

Tiassa

05-25-08, 07:20 AM

Are you having reading comprehension issues, Tiassa?

Nope.

Where did I justify rape?

You tried to be subtle about it over the course of a couple of posts.

Did you read my post?

Sure I did. Both the relevant posts.

Think about it. Yeah, I said "rape is a fact." What's wrong with saying things that are true? I could have equally said "murder is a fact," or "falling out of rollercoasters is a fact." I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make. Again, true. I'm not saying the men who did it aren't evil and shouldn't be punished.

Poor you. There's nothing wrong with saying things are true. But it's absolutely disgusting to turn around and mitigate the fact you're acknowledging.

In the meantime, I might ask if you actually paid attention to my response.

Would you care to actually respond to it, or is this the best you can do?

To reiterate:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

Is there anything there you would like to respond to, or do you intend to continue to ignore the counterpoint in order to complain about how maligned you feel because someone else in the world doesn't agree with your attempts to justify rape and blame women for men's actions?

Now pay attention. Closely.

I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make.

People do stupid things all the time. A broken neck might happen sometimes because of someone's stupid decision to roller skate on the roof. Okay?

But rape happens because someone decides to commit rape.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?

Rape happens because of stupid decisions women make? Oh, right. A rapist just happened to slip on her skank juices and accidentally slide in between her thighs, causing them both to accidentally tumble to the ground where his fists just happened to accidentally pummel her about the face until she just happened to make the bad decision to stop trying to make him get off her in hope that at least he won't kill her?

Rape does not happen because of a woman's stupid decision. Rape happens because a rapist makes a decision.

Period.

So stop trying to justify rape by saying it happens because of a woman.

Now let's go back to one of your earlier posts:

It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different.

That's a great comparison. You have a condition or "she totally didn't deserve that[/i]. This would imply that, according to the condition—e.g., for dressing like a skank—she did deserve to get raped. You know, at least, partially. Because we all know it takes two to rape. A rapist to rape and a victim to be raped. And it just wouldn't be fair to the rapist to put all the blame on him, would it?

lepustimidus

05-25-08, 07:48 AM

Well, you can split that hair if you really want to try, but you're still wrong. In the meantime, though, just to satisfy your special needs, I'll point out that mitigation and advocacy are just as disgusting.

So suggesting that someone lock their car doors is advocating grand theft auto? :shrug:

francois

05-25-08, 11:32 AM

This is hilarious that you're trying to be condescending toward me, Tiassa. It's you who's being incredibly dense here.

“
Francois: Where did I justify rape?
”
You tried to be subtle about it over the course of a couple of posts.
No, as a matter of fact, I didn't. I simply said rape happens. That's not justifying it. I made a statement about an objective reality. I did not make a normative statement. It's a simple statement of what is. What's hard to understand? What's hard about taking what I say at face value? If you're incapable of understanding this, then I don't know what I can say to you.

But rape happens because someone decides to commit rape.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?
All I can say is wow. Do you ever find yourself surprised by the things you say?

No crap dude. I know rape happens because someone decides to commit rape. I don't know where I implied that I didn't know or acknowledge that. Would you care to point out exactly where I said or implied that? This should be fun. Again, your condescension is hilarious.

Rape does not happen because of a woman's stupid decision. Rape happens because a rapist makes a decision.
This right here is the crux of the matter. Why you didn't just come out with this from the outset is beyond me. Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes. As a matter of fact there are things women can do that can help reduce the probability of getting raped. Such as dressing less scantily.

For example, I already made this example, if a woman decides to stay home one night with her roommates instead of going out in a dangerous city by herself wearing barely any clothes, the the probability of her being raped is as a matter of fact less. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Tiassa

05-25-08, 12:45 PM

So suggesting that someone lock their car doors is advocating grand theft auto?

You know, we've covered this recently (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80987&page=12). Apparently you didn't understand?

Because one thing I don't understand is people who raise an issue, do not acknowledge the responses, and then raise the issue anew a week later as if it's an original point.

I addressed your question about locking the car, as well as your comparison of wolf-whistles and catcalls to carjacking and physical assault. Well, okay, there wasn't much to address on that latter. It was a ridiculous comparison.

But still, Bells addressed your question about locking the car. And, much like your earlier post in this topic, you responded by complaining that we'd missed your point, complaining about the length of our posts, and complained that you didn't have time to read it.

And here you are, about a week later, raising the same point that has already been addressed, and without adding anything new or ever acknowledging the prior responses.

It is both stupid and dishonest.

Like I said before: Do better.

• • •

This is hilarious that you're trying to be condescending toward me, Tiassa. It's you who's being incredibly dense here.

Whatever you say. After all—

No, as a matter of fact, I didn't.

—we believe you.

I simply said rape happens. That's not justifying it. I made a statement about an objective reality. I did not make a normative statement. It's a simple statement of what is. What's hard to understand? What's hard about taking what I say at face value? If you're incapable of understanding this, then I don't know what I can say to you.

Stop pretending that just because you said one thing you didn't say another. Ignore all you want my quotations of your posts. Pretend all you want that you never said that some rapes happen because of a woman's stupid choices.

All I can say is wow. Do you ever find yourself surprised by the things you say?

Nope. Nor am I surprised by the crap in your posts, either.

No crap dude. I know rape happens because someone decides to commit rape.

Good for you, sweetheart.

I don't know where I implied that I didn't know or acknowledge that. Would you care to point out exactly where I said or implied that?

Apparently you missed it the first time I quoted you? Here, let's do it again:

I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it. (#13 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1869513))

• • •

I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make. (#21 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1871614))

So, yeah. Quit with the deliberate statements that are observably untrue.

This should be fun. Again, your condescension is hilarious

Too bad your advocacy of rape isn't so amusing.

Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes. As a matter of fact there are things women can do that can help reduce the probability of getting raped. Such as dressing less scantily.

(chortle!)

For example, I already made this example, if a woman decides to stay home one night with her roommates instead of going out in a dangerous city by herself wearing barely any clothes, the the probability of her being raped is as a matter of fact less. Do you seriously disagree with this?

And if you want to reduce the chance of being murdered, you can always commit suicide. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Look at your recommendation: stay home. And look at your stereotype: dressing scantily.

Like I said before, and as you still have refused to acknowledge:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

At some point, I would hope you start at least pretending you're paying attention. I'll tell you what's condescending, Francois, your attempt to pretend that just because you said one thing means you didn't actually say something else as well.

Not everyone is going to be so selective, Francois. We want to give you credit for what you have to say. You, on the other hand, would apparently prefer to hide from it.

Your deliberate attempt to convince me of something that is observably untrue certainly doesn't help your case.

francois

05-25-08, 12:59 PM

Tiassa, we might as well be talking about murder.

My stance is that murderers are bad and evil, but regardless, there are things you can do to reduce the probability of getting murdered. The same is true about rape and... everything else.

If we were talking about murder and I was talking about things people can do to avoid murder would you tell me YOU SON OF A BITCH! YOUR JUSTIFYING MURDER.

Get a grip man.

lepustimidus

05-25-08, 07:19 PM

Francois, I tried to use a similar analogy with locking your car door to avoid getting car jacked, and not walking down a dark alley so you won't get bashed. But apparently the relevance is way over the head of Tiassa. He claims to have 'rebutted' the analogy, yet I have yet to see this.

He just can't seem to grasp the concept that if you don't like suffering from X, then you should take precautions to lower the chance of X happening.

It's not about placing blame, or mitigating a crime. It's about plain common sense. A woman who parades down a dark alley scantily dressed is fucking stupid, much like an individual who leaves their car door unlocked and then acts bemused when they return to find their Porsche has disappeared.

visceral_instinct

05-26-08, 12:15 PM

Lepus:

If I rounded up a horde of mentally deranged man hating uberfeminists and roamed the countryside throwing napalm at any males who were out after dark, would you tell them they were asking for it and should have been sensible and 'taken precautions', since they were aware that me and my cohort of napalm-throwing misandrists were out on the rampage??!!

If you would, then fair enough...

Gustav

05-26-08, 12:53 PM

some apparent assumptions in thread need to qualified

*acquaintance, date, and marital rape constitute the majority of reported cases.

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9223/maleneanderthalpullingfrm0.gif

*we have evolved somewhat from that

DeepThought

05-26-08, 02:17 PM

if you don't like being harassed. (I couldn't fit all that in the title...)

Let me put it this way. If I rounded up a horde of mentally deranged man hating uberfeminists and roamed the countryside throwing napalm at any males who were out after dark, would you tell them they were asking for it and should have been sensible and 'taken precautions', since they were aware that me and my cohort of napalm-throwing misandrists were out on the rampage??!!

Nope, I thought not.

I think your overreacting just slightly with this absurd comparison.

It's typical of Western women who have been indoctrinated into the false beliefs of women's rights - an ideology driven by greed - and now think they are equal to or the same as men, or even deserving of the same level of consideration.

You had to add the napalm in to your example, because really, how would a woman threaten a man, let alone rape him, just using her own body?

Nature has made things the way they are, and if we cannot accept that we just bring more suffering upon ourselves.

visceral_instinct

05-26-08, 04:34 PM

I think your overreacting just slightly with this absurd comparison.

It's typical of Western women who have been indoctrinated into the false beliefs of women's rights - an ideology driven by greed - and now think they are equal to or the same as men, or even deserving of the same level of consideration.

You had to add the napalm in to your example, because really, how would a woman threaten a man, let alone rape him, just using her own body?

Nature has made things the way they are, and if we cannot accept that we just bring more suffering upon ourselves.

1. Did you actually just intimate that women do not deserve the same amount of consideration as men? That they are not equal in that they do not deserve the same rights and freedoms??!!

Fucking Christ, I need to hit something really bad.

2. How would I threaten a man using merely my own body? Well, a roundhouse kick to the face usually does it...

Yeah, and according to your logic, who cares if I had to add the napalm? He's still lying there with his skin melted off. Survival of the fittest, or rather, the ones who know how to make napalm. Nature made us that way, you know, and if the men couldn't accept that they would have brought more suffering on themselves.

And you didn't actually answer my post.

Note to everyone else: I'm not actually this misandristic. I'm just trying to make a point.

DeepThought

05-26-08, 05:46 PM

Fucking Christ, I need to hit something really bad.

Like I said, why bring suffering upon yourself?

Women are certainly not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as men, due to their physical and psychological natures being very different. You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.

The 'independent woman' is a media fabrication of late capitalism,
as private enterprises and governments have sought to turn women into greater consumers.

2. How would I threaten a man using merely my own body? Well, a roundhouse kick to the face usually does it...

Quite simply you couldn't.

You could make a fool of yourself trying, but would eventually have to learn that some things are just inevitable. If it rained nearly every day, would you leave the house without an umbrella?

Yeah, and according to your logic, who cares if I had to add the napalm? He's still lying there with his skin melted off. Survival of the fittest, or rather, the ones who know how to make napalm. Nature made us that way, you know, and if the men couldn't accept that they would have brought more suffering on themselves.

Men invented napalm.

Oli

05-26-08, 05:56 PM

You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.
How true.
We most certainly had none of those problems at all before women's emancipation. Not a single one.

The 'independent woman' is a media fabrication of late capitalism,
as private enterprises and governments have sought to turn women into greater consumers.
You know, every time you post you completely betray your user name.
Congratulations.

Quite simply you couldn't.
And again.
I took kick boxing with women half my size that could take you AND me down without breaking stride.
Learn something before spouting crap.

You could make a fool of yourself trying,
Nah, one person per thread is fine.

Men invented napalm.
You missed the point in the pursuit of pedantry.

Bells

05-26-08, 06:00 PM

Like I said, why bring suffering upon yourself?

Women are certainly not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as men, due to their physical and psychological natures being very different. You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.

What does their physical stature have anything to do with women being granted equal rights and freedoms?

Do you consider a woman to be of lesser value than a man? I know of some women who are probably stronger than most men, are they more worthy of rights? Tell me DeepThought, how do you determine who should be granted equal rights?

Do you think women should not be granted the right to leave an abusive relationship? And for your information, equal rights and most importantly, women's rights, is not linked to prostitution, alcoholism, drug addiction or family breakdowns. Those things were prevalent in society even in the middle ages, where women had no rights.

pjdude1219

05-26-08, 06:34 PM

James R

05-26-08, 11:47 PM

DeepThought:

Women are certainly not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as men, due to their physical and psychological natures being very different.

Please explain to me why men's physical and psychological natures make them entitled to more rights than women. It's not obvious to me.

You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.

Can you actually show that any of the things you mention are a product of "women's rights"?

I think not.

The 'independent woman' is a media fabrication of late capitalism,
as private enterprises and governments have sought to turn women into greater consumers.

It seems to me that there are plenty of single, successful women around. It seems like more than a mere fantasy to me.

You don't live in some backward nation where women are regarded as inferior, by any chance?

madanthonywayne

05-27-08, 12:56 AM

Please explain to me why men's physical and psychological natures make them entitled to more rights than women. It's not obvious to me.
It seems to me that there are plenty of single, successful women around. It seems like more than a mere fantasy to me.
Women and men are not the same. One of the central tenants of feminism was that sex roles were wholely a societal convention. This is clearly not the case.

Males and females are different from the day they are born. They develop at different rates, often have different strengths, and play very different roles in reproduction.

Treating males and females exactly the same ignores these different roles we play. Is it mere coincidence that most modern industrial societies where feminism have taken root are no longer reproducing at a rate high enough to even replace themselves?

Women were told they could "have it all". Career, family, everything. But the reality is a little different. Yes women are perfectly capable of doing damned near every job a man can do. But that takes time. Many of your single successful women find themselves wanting a family and realize they're too old. They've missed their chance.

The result? Many nations (like Spain) have a fertility rate of around 1, meaning their population drops by half with each generation. Clearly if this were to continue indefinitely, it would result in the extinction of the human species.

But, of course, it won't. Populations with different ideas about sexual roles and much higher fertility rates will simply replace the feminist societies by sheer demographics.

We are a sexually reproducing species, and unless feminism becomes compatible with reproduction, it will force itself into extinction.

Roman

05-27-08, 01:45 AM

Pandaemoni

05-27-08, 01:47 AM

Women and men are not the same. One of the central tenants of feminism was that sex roles were wholely a societal convention. This is clearly not the case.

Males and females are different from the day they are born. They develop at different rates, often have different strengths, and play very different roles in reproduction.

Treating males and females exactly the same ignores these different roles we play. Is it mere coincidence that most modern industrial societies where feminism have taken root are no longer reproducing at a rate high enough to even replace themselves?

Women were told they could "have it all". Career, family, everything. But the reality is a little different. Yes women are perfectly capable of doing damned near every job a man can do. But that takes time. Many of your single successful women find themselves wanting a family and realize they're too old. They've missed their chance.

The result? Many nations (like Spain) have a fertility rate of around 1, meaning their population drops by half with each generation. Clearly if this were to continue indefinitely, it would result in the extinction of the human species.

But, of course, it won't. Populations with different ideas about sexual roles and much higher fertility rates will simply replace the feminist societies by sheer demographics.

We are a sexually reproducing species, and unless feminism becomes compatible with reproduction, it will force itself into extinction.

But its the great conundrum of the west....we evolved to maximize our chances of reproductive success, but western values now lead us to consciously maximize our personal happiness...the problem being that in any wealthy society, more children tend to be suboptimal from the standpoint of personal satisfaction. That's true for both men and women. At the end of the day though, what is more important to me? My personal happiness or my self-imposed duty to stave off replacement by other people who derive more happiness from child-reading that my wife or I do? It seems to me that my personal happiness wins.

(In the poorer past, that might not have been the case. Apart from sex having been far and away the most entertaining thing there was to do with one's day as compared to the next best alternative ("Let's see what's on 'Fire' tonight....hmm look like rerun of last night's Fire...Fire pretty"), children were more vital to hunting/gathering/farming surplus food and resources. With expanded wealth, the utility generated by that surplus production declines. At the most extreme level...when the parents become too old or sick to produce anything...we know have cushy medical insurance and 401K's to take care of us, wo who needs children? If one did need chilren, then having lots of them was a good idea, given how likely they were to die before your golden years.)

I trust that evolution will kick in before we go extinct and the people who enjoy having children the most will pass that trait forward....but I include men and women in that, as I don't see men pining away for large families either.

I do agree that feminism is a part of the trend, but I think the role of feminism was to tell women "do what makes you happy." It just so happens that the happiness derived from the second income and spending that income on modern conveniences and fun things, generally trumps having (or spending income on) a first, second, third, fourth, etc., child.

In fact...the rubric of capitalism leads us to exactly the same problem. Economics shows that the creat strength of capitalism is that it leads to efficient outcomes, but all of economics is underpinned by marginal utility theory. The "efficient" outcomes of modern capitalism mean "good at promoting personal happiness," which children tend not to do. The birth rates on the west were declining before the rise of feminism, which I tend to think is a wealth effect buttressed by the logic of capitalism.

Not that children can't make you happy, but studies have shown that from infancy through adolescence a married couple's satisfaction generally declines with children, only returning to pre-child levels after that latter stage. That's a big investment of 12+ years with no clear payoff in long-run happiness according to the research. Psychologists have also found that people are generally less happy when dealing directly with their children than they are while exercising, watching TV, or otherwise doing things that do not relate to the children.

The net effect is seems to be that having a child is a very small net negative of personal happiness...but subsequent children don't seem to make the numbers any better. They are also a small net negative.

Perhaps what we should do is (a) scrap social security and make it illegal to save for retirement; then (b) require by law that children tithe their income (pre-tax income) to their parents to pay for their support and care after retirement. Parents can then be free to declare retirement at any age they wish. That should increase the satisfaction obtained from children, just like in the good old days, by making our future physical well-being tied to their own. ;D

[For clarity, my "solution" above was made facetiously.]

DeepThought

05-27-08, 04:33 AM

What does their physical stature have anything to do with women being granted equal rights and freedoms?

Do you consider a woman to be of lesser value than a man?

Please explain to me why men's physical and psychological natures make them entitled to more rights than women. It's not obvious to me.

Practically every culture on earth considers women of lesser value than men.

Womens femininity and physical weakness made them poor hunter gatherers, and even poorer philosophers. In the case of the physical argument, it should be obvious that the reason we separate the sexes in sport is because men would dominate otherwise. They are superior both in terms of strength and dexterity.

On the psychological side, femininity (a disconnection from the physical) makes women poor philosophers and decision makers. Descartes jumped the gun when he imagined complete separation of the mind and body, something only a few European male thinkers have achieved.

Tell me DeepThought, how do you determine who should be granted equal rights?

Equal rights are an intellectual abomination on a par with belief in the Holy Trinity or the resurrection. They must be abolished, and Western people steered away from seeking to gratify their appetites at every turn.

Do you think women should not be granted the right to leave an abusive relationship?

A single parent family is an abusive relationship.

It seems to me that there are plenty of single, successful women around. It seems like more than a mere fantasy to me.

Yes, and what are they doing? Consuming more than if they were mothers living a family life. They need their own accommodation, transport, holidays, social lives etc..., all of which adds up to a multi billion dollar market in economic terms.

Don't be fooled, there's not an ounce of intellectual credibility behind the concept of 'rights'.

Bells

05-27-08, 06:55 AM

Practically every culture on earth considers women of lesser value than men.

And?

Many cultures also performed human sacrifices to their gods. Does that mean we should not have abolished that particular practice?

Do you view women as being beneath you and not worthy of equal rights? Should the law discriminate against women because they are women?

Womens femininity and physical weakness made them poor hunter gatherers, and even poorer philosophers. In the case of the physical argument, it should be obvious that the reason we separate the sexes in sport is because men would dominate otherwise. They are superior both in terms of strength and dexterity.

Again. And?

Do you think a woman doing the exact same job as a man should not be paid equally as her male counterpart? Or do you hold the view that women are only good for being tied to your sink, barefoot and pregnant?

Women are deemed to be poorer philosphers simply because back in the day, women were not allowed to be educated. And those who did manage to get an education, were not allowed to become philosphers. Those who did manage to get things into print (as one example), had to do so under a pseudonym.. a male name basically.

Just because the fields of sports are separate in regards to sex and just becamse many men are physically stronger than their female counterparts does not mean that women should be denied equal rights.

On the psychological side, femininity (a disconnection from the physical) makes women poor philosophers and decision makers.
Really?

You're a male and look at what you are posting. And you are accusing women of bad decision making?

Equal rights are an intellectual abomination on a par with belief in the Holy Trinity or the resurrection. They must be abolished, and Western people steered away from seeking to gratify their appetites at every turn.

Yes. Bring back the days where only the white males in society had any rights and/or say. Keep the negroes and bitches down!

A single parent family is an abusive relationship.

So you don't think a woman (or a man for that matter) caught in an abusive relationship should have legal recourse in getting out of said relationship? My, how cavemanish of you. Knock me on the head and say Ugg! You big man.. big strong.. me woman.. weak and meek.

:rolleyes:

Yes, and what are they doing? Consuming more than if they were mothers living a family life.
Having been both a single and working woman and now a 'mother living a family life', I can assure you, I was consuming a hell of a lot less back when I was single and working, than I do now.

They need their own accommodation, transport, holidays, social lives etc..., all of which adds up to a multi billion dollar market in economic terms.

And mothers living the family life do not? What? Do you think mothers sleep outside on a doggy bed? On the contrary. When I was single and living the successful working life I had, I lived in a smaller apartment, drove a smaller car (when I was running late for work mostly), took fewer holidays, etc than I do now as a mother with a family. Since having had children, I have had to live in a bigger house, buy a much bigger car, we take more holidays with the kids, social life extended to include mothers groups, etc. I use a lot more fuel than I did when I was single. I have to purchase a lot more food than I did when I was single. I also have to keep buying new clothes because my children ruin what I have very quickly (spills, drool, baby puke and all the rest of it).

You need to get with reality. Single women consume a hell of a lot less than their counterparts who happen to be mothers and living the 'family life'.

Don't be fooled, there's not an ounce of intellectual credibility behind the concept of 'rights'.

Oh there is. You just haven't been able to recognise it yet.

Pandaemoni

05-27-08, 09:13 AM

Practically every culture on earth considers women of lesser value than men.

Womens femininity and physical weakness made them poor hunter gatherers, and even poorer philosophers. In the case of the physical argument, it should be obvious that the reason we separate the sexes in sport is because men would dominate otherwise. They are superior both in terms of strength and dexterity.

On the psychological side, femininity (a disconnection from the physical) makes women poor philosophers and decision makers. Descartes jumped the gun when he imagined complete separation of the mind and body, something only a few European male thinkers have achieved.

Everything I have read about hunter-gatherer societies suggests that men were the hunters and women and children were the gatherers...and that women's position was more equal there than it was in subsequent agricultural communities. The research suggests that their status seems to have varied depending on the relative importance of foraging in the diet, or conversely the status of men was dependent on the relative importance of the hunting they tended to do.

There is also a school of thought that says that women have greater dexterity than men (which I have seen used to explain why women pick up typing faster than men do).

Also, that you prefer masculine philosophers does not mean that female philosophers (whether disconnected from physicality or not) are inferior. They would be inferior if it could be shown that their philosophical systems were internally inconsistent or illogical, but that they might not be popularly accepted means nothing.

If "practically every culture on Earth" believed that 2+2=5, that would not make it true, it would just mean that practically every culture on Earth was wrong. If "practically every culture on Earth" believed that snow cones are delicious, that it would not make it true, it would just be indicative of a particular set of subjective believes that are, by their very nature, neither true nor untrue.

I tend to but questions of equality and inferiority in the latter category...but that in and of itself is based on a personal preference that cannot itself be validated on an absolute level.

I do tend to agree with the proposition (with which I believe you may also agree) "rights" do not inherently exist—that they are social constructs only and not logical or otherwise absolute imperatives that have some separate, concrete existence apart from what the society says they are. To me the question of whether man and woman-kind should have a "right" is therefore not answerable by some appeal to logic or natural law.

To me the question of what rights "should be" then, turns on the question "Given the milieu in which we live, what set of socially agreed upon 'rights' is most likely to maximize my personal happiness." Now, the answer to that question on a superficial level may look to be "Pandaemoni can do whatever he wants, and all others must do as he says." That would certainly go a long way to maximizing my happiness and would therefore be acceptable to me. The problem with that answer is that obviously no one else would happily accept that system of rights. Instead, I must accept the constraint that I am trying to maximize my happiness within a system where everyone else is trying to do the same, and that the most likely outcome is one where I accept that everyone who has a voice in setting of these norms has roughly equivalent power to my own. (It is, in effect, a hunt for a certain Nash equilibrium, where each player achieves the greatest payoffs for himself in light of the payoffs that all the other players are getting.)

The problem, from your perspective, is that the relentless march of democracy seems to have given women (and minorities for that matter) a voice in this process of norm-setting. It seems very natural to me that in a democratic system, that this would be inevitable. Even if it is rare, once every great while men will share small bits of power with women, and in democratic systems, once the right to vote is shared, people have a way of hanging on to whatever power they happen to be granted, and it's very hard to dislodge it. Once women obtain the right to vote, then, the dream of social equality becomes extremely difficult to dislodge or block.

I would concede that I would likely be happier is women were relegated to the status of second-class citizens,just as I believe I would be happier if all humanity were subordinate to me and my whims. Given that I am already constrained to the point where I must allot "rights" to the likes of "non-me" males everywhere, it does not seem to me that giving the same prerogatives to women everywhere costs me much in marginal terms. In fact, it gives me and the woman in my life options, like having a two-income household, since women can now hold lucrative jobs. (My position on that might be different is I felt that the increased job competition from women was hurting me, but I don't feel that way, personally).

A certain part of me is amused by your theory though. It would be a government of the starting line-up of the NFL, by the starting line-up of the NFL and for the starting line-up of the NFL (not to mention philosophy texts by the starting line-up of the NFL), since they would tend to be the strongest and most agile people out there. It seems clear to me that the only reason we have laws restricting things like "assault" is that people realized that physical domination is not a sound basis on which to build a society and that, collectively, they were stronger than the small coalitions of the physically powerful who might otherwise oppose such laws. Once laws taking power out of the hands of the physically gifted are passed, though, they redound to the benefit of the 90-pound science nerd and the 90 pound runway model alike.

visceral_instinct

05-27-08, 03:10 PM

Like I said, why bring suffering upon yourself?

Women are certainly not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as men, due to their physical and psychological natures being very different. You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.

The 'independent woman' is a media fabrication of late capitalism,
as private enterprises and governments have sought to turn women into greater consumers.

Quite simply you couldn't.

You could make a fool of yourself trying, but would eventually have to learn that some things are just inevitable. If it rained nearly every day, would you leave the house without an umbrella?

Men invented napalm.

1. So a short, slight man should have less rights than a tall, heavyset man?

2. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how these thing are caused by women's rights? How exactly does women's liberation lead to drug abuse, alcoholism etc?

3. Yeah, right. So that single woman I know who runs her own business isn't really independent, she just likes to think she is.

4. Bollocks. See Oli's post.

A single parent family is an abusive relationship.

I live in one of those and I'm fucking glad. My father caused me and my mother nothing but anxiety and hell.

lepustimidus

05-27-08, 06:35 PM

Why hasn't this thread been locked, and the OP warned? It's clearly aimed at belittling and baiting particular members.

Tiassa, ban and lock!

Roman

05-27-08, 11:27 PM

Why hasn't this thread been locked, and the OP warned? It's clearly aimed at belittling and baiting particular members.

Tiassa, ban and lock!

How childish.

lepustimidus

05-28-08, 03:38 AM

Oh?

If I had written a thread titled "One for the likes of S.A.M: Don't act like an infidel..." and then ranted on about some retarded analogy involving Muslims beheading infidels, I wonder what the fate of that thread would have been?

lepustimidus

05-28-08, 03:39 AM

Holy shit, someone changed the topic as soon as I posted! Talk about McDonald's moderation :D.

Tiassa

05-28-08, 03:46 AM

Mod Hat — Dart board

It's not an everyday thing, but people have called one another out in a topic title before. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've done it a few times.

Neither is the complaint without merit.

visceral_instinct

05-28-08, 04:47 PM

I was not belittling anyone, I was trying to make a point in response to something someone had posted.

lucifers angel

05-29-08, 03:14 AM

people should be left to dress how they want to dress, women in my opinion do dress slutty cause they like the attention, regardless of what they say

phlogistician

05-29-08, 03:58 AM

Nobody on this thread is attempting to justify rape, Tiassa.

Francois was, he used the phrase 'asking for it'.

How people dress is not an excuse however, and the OP is deluded.

phlogistician

05-29-08, 04:03 AM

My advice: if you want to slut it up, do it in a safe place or only when there are people there to protect you. You know? Just use common sense.

Damn, you are flawed goods. I object to your use of the word 'slut' and the denigration of women due to how they dress.

francois

05-29-08, 07:27 AM

Francois was, he used the phrase 'asking for it'.

How people dress is not an excuse however, and the OP is deluded.
I might have used that, or a similar phrase, but that doesn't justify rape.

Damn, you are flawed goods. I object to your use of the word 'slut' and the denigration of women due to how they dress.

I was using it as a colloquialism.

Simon Anders

05-29-08, 07:54 AM

If someone thinks a women is dressed 'slutty' they can get angry or concerned. They can have an emotional response and walk on by. To somehow make the jump to thinking they get to have sex with her, as if she has made some sort of enforcible contract with them is evil. And third parties who think she was asking for rape are joining in on that evil. On a given outing a woman may not have been cautious enough, but this has little to do with justifying rape. Just as having expensive jewelery or a nice car is not justification for a mugging or a carjacking. "You have to be more careful, honey," said with love - and probably much later after expressing love and sympathy and anger about what the rapist did - can be part of a moral, loving response to a rape victim. Anyone who does not care about the victim should shut the hell up with their strange notions of causation and responsibility for violent actions.

I suppose the people in the twin towers were all asking for it.

phlogistician

05-29-08, 08:17 AM

I might have used that, or a similar phrase, but that doesn't justify rape.

Your use of the phrase uncovers your Misogyny.

I was using it as a colloquialism.

That's a weak excuse.

francois

05-29-08, 09:28 AM

Your use of the phrase uncovers your Misogyny.
If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid. You're incredibly simple minded if you think the fact that I sometimes think women make stupid decisions makes me a misogynist.

That's a weak excuse.

It's not an excuse at all; it's an explanation.

Simon Anders

05-29-08, 10:27 AM

If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid. You're incredibly simple minded if you think the fact that I sometimes think women make stupid decisions makes me a misogynist.

Dressing up sexy is analagous to pushing a dangerous looking thug. No.
If a woman intentionally rubs her ass on the front of his jeans, that might be analogous to your silly example, and I think we could make a case that she is asking to be groped back. But even then. Not raped.

You can see that cant you_

And it is misogynistic to say that a women is asking for it if she dresses up in a way you think is slutty. She is not asking to be raped, period. She may be asking for men to be attracted to her, or, often, that other women think she is attractive. She may be. But asking for me to be attracted to her is not asking to be raped. And she will make this clear immediately by the terror in her eyes, or when she says get away or when she struggles and screams, etc.

If you look me in the eyes can I assume it was meant as a challenge and beat the shit out of you. I mean we are passing each other on a city street. Are you asking for me to beat the shit out of you. Oh, yeah right, you thought you recognized me. Nah, you were fucking challenging me.

Hey, you got a problem, dont come to the city. Here you are asking for it.

You can certainly say that in some situations women are not being careful enough because there are asshole men out there. If you cant see the difference between saying she wasnt careful enough and shes asking for it, you probably are very confused about women and what motivates them.

phlogistician

05-29-08, 10:40 AM

If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid.

And just how does this analogy compare to a woman dressed however she pleases, minding her own business, being raped by some guy? It only compares because in your warped mind both are inviting the situation, but then that is just in _your_ warped mind. In my mind the situations differ wildly, in that a woman, however dressed, does not invite anything.

You're incredibly simple minded if you think the fact that I sometimes think women make stupid decisions makes me a misogynist.

No, you seek to excuse the darker sides of your character and transfer the blame onto women. You use derogatory terms such as slut;

Women should be able to dress like sluts, but they should know to do it in safe places. They should know they're increasing the inherent risks involved in skanking it up.

First, you assume there is a type of woman who it's OK to call a slut. Here, I disagree, and this shows your misogyny in the first, that you judge some women to be sluts by their behaviour. Women are free to behave how they please without prigs like you judging them.

Second, you assume that the way someone dresses means it's OK to draw conclusions about their character, and label them, or compare them to 'sluts', this again shows your misogyny.

Third, you assume that because you throw these labels around, and call women sluts that they are 'asking for it'. That again shows your misogyny.

It's not an excuse at all; it's an explanation.

No, it's a little peak into your fetid mind. I wouldn't hire you as a babysitter, put it that way.

phlogistician

05-29-08, 10:44 AM

If you cant see the difference between saying she wasnt careful enough and shes asking for it, you probably are very confused about women and what motivates them.

I don't think it's his understanding of the motivations of women that's the key here, but I think it's francois' motivations that are. I think he's bordering on a psychotic personality. Transferring blame is a classic symptom.

Simon Anders

05-29-08, 10:56 AM

I don't think it's his understanding of the motivations of women that's the key here, but I think it's francois' motivations that are. I think he's bordering on a psychotic personality. Transferring blame is a classic symptom.

I think a big factor in this is that some men think that the shift from reaction to action is inevitable. She did something that was sexy to me therefore I am allowed to act in response. They know damn well that the woman is quite likely not asking for sex, certainly not right now on the street, and even if she is hoping for sex she has not decided it is with them she wants to have it. Even if that is her stated goal for the evening, to have sex and attract a man, this does not mean they are that man.

But they see stimulation without a contract built into it as a kind of crime. Not once do they consider going into the scared, sad, lonely, hopeless parts of themselves that this brings up. Not once do they consider moving into the conversation that would include the full range of their emotions in relation to women. Not on the street with that women, but with women they know and can talk to. (ha, ha)

The only emotion that is acceptable is anger, and the primary reaction is to act.

That they have painted their own experience of themselves into a corner and allow themselves to express only a small portion of who they are is a tragedy they defend with great vigor.

This ends up as you say as transferring blame. It seems inevitable what they have done or what other men do. It is simply part of the furniture of the world. However if they are ever the victim of a violent crime suddenly the perpretrator is a clear asshole who could have and should have done something else.

visceral_instinct

05-29-08, 11:08 AM

I don't think it's his understanding of the motivations of women that's the key here, but I think it's francois' motivations that are. I think he's bordering on a psychotic personality. Transferring blame is a classic symptom.

Ack, be fair, he's not blaming the women, he was just pointing out that dressing a certain way would endanger yourself. Purely from an objective point of view, yes, he's right, someone in a miniskirt is probably more likely to get raped than, say, a girl wearing combat pants and a leather jacket. If you are trying to point out that the onus is on the rapist not to rape, rather than the woman to avoid being raped, I agree with you, but nowhere did francois say that it was a woman's fault for being raped.

francois

05-29-08, 12:06 PM

And just how does this analogy compare to a woman dressed however she pleases, minding her own business, being raped by some guy? It only compares because in your warped mind both are inviting the situation, but then that is just in _your_ warped mind. In my mind the situations differ wildly, in that a woman, however dressed, does not invite anything.
Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not. Simple as that. It's an extremely simple fact to grasp, isn't it? I'm not saying that's the way it ought to be. I'm saying that's how it is. But nooooo, dipshits like you have to make personal attacks on my person simply because I don't live in some Cartesian fairyland, as if my person has anything to do with the argument. That's how I know I've already won this battle: idiots like you can't stop focusing on me and my "misogyny" when it's clear that I never expressed any such inclination.

No, you seek to excuse the darker sides of your character and transfer the blame onto women. You use derogatory terms such as slut;
Again, me, me, me. You can't stop focusing on me. I could ask you to focus on the argument, but that's asking too much from a sack of blood like you. I was simply using the language of the OP, dipshit.

Tiassa

05-29-08, 04:23 PM

Ack, be fair, he's not blaming the women, he was just pointing out that dressing a certain way would endanger yourself.

An excellent issue. What is the difference between saying it's your own fault that it happened and simply saying you deserved it?

visceral_instinct

05-29-08, 04:30 PM

There isn't one really...

and I don't think he actually meant that it was the woman's fault...

Asguard

05-29-08, 08:45 PM

tiassa to be fair to the debate, if you know that there is a bank robbery happerning and you walk into that bank or you know that there is a police chace in a certian area yet you still chose to drive there then yes your not legally responcable for the coniquences. That being said legal responcability doesnt matter to the dead

They say the same thing about learning to drive, just because you KNOW you were in the right doesnt change how dead you are. So take care and if that means walking to your car with a key between your fingers just in case or not dressing in the smallest skirt and shirt you can find or not assuming that you can take the gap on the roads that is just plain old risk management and if it keeps you alive then its a good thing. However if you get raped or murded or hit by a driver who is breaking the law then your still not at fault and no blame should be atached to you

Tiassa

05-29-08, 08:51 PM

There isn't one really...

And yet ...?

and I don't think he actually meant that it was the woman's fault.

Well, that presents a certain problem. Especially given that many people around here are regularly called upon to answer for things they did not say.

So while we might agree that there's no apparent practical difference between saying a rape is the victim's fault and saying the victim deserved it, we are also supposed to accept that Francois didn't actually mean the things he posted?

Okay, let's take a look at a few of the things posted:

I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it ....

.... Reverse the situation of the all skanked up woman. Instead this time, she's in a super safe place, like, say, her mother's womb. If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable ....

.... It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different. (#13 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1869513))

• • •

I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make. (#21 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1871614))

• • •

Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not. (#62 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1876987))

So what did he mean, VI? Don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept an explanation of poor communication, but the repetition really undermines the idea that Francois is conveying the wrong message by choosing his words wrongly.

Furthermore, as upset as he might get because people are apparently taking him so wrongly, the one thing he doesn't seem to want to do is actually address the points being put before him. I've now repeatedly proposed logical extensions of his "common sense", and while he might have the energy to be haughty, he hasn't, apparently, the knowledge or desire to make his allegedly intended point clearly.

To consider the examples listed above, the parts from #13 are fairly obvious:

• "a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it" — Any questions on this one?

• "If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable" — As opposed to what? Only partially objectionable? Oh, hold on. We do, in fact, have something of an answer.

• "It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different." — Ah. So either a woman is stupid or else "totally didn't deserve" to be raped. Apparently, the women who don't hide enough of their sexuality—e.g., wear a burqua, although, it is entirely possible someone is turned on at the thought of such outward sexual repression, which would mean the woman was stupid and therefore asking to be raped—kind of, sort of, somewhat deserve whatever evil is visited upon them.

And then there is the (fairly explicit) proposition in #21 that "rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make". In other words, a rape might happen, but it's not the rapist's fault? Well, we could leave Francois to plead that's not what he meant, and certainly he's welcome to do so, but compared to the ease of including some kind of mitigating modifier in the statement, it does not seem a stretch to consider the thematic repetition of a woman's guilt in a man's decision the more compelling key to resolving whatever gray zones we might invent about the proposition.

Lastly, we come to an example posted after all of this bluster and complaint about how people are receiving Francois' argument already began. Notice the inherent comparison: Wearing a skirt is comparable to physically assaulting someone.

Here, let's bring that one out to stand on its own for you to consider:

"Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not."

While I don't disagree with the idea giving a member the benefit of the doubt, I'm hard-pressed to see the basis of that doubt. What you don't think he meant is pretty apparent in the words he posted, and having encountered such rejection of his point, he is only getting angry about it. Would you propose that our neighbor Francois is simply incapable of expressing himself the way he intends?

If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the talking for him, explain what he meant, and perhaps address people's concerns and extrapolations along the way.

After all, purely from an objective point of view, the vast majority of women in the United States who are raped are attacked by men they know. So we ought to stop and consider the fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.

So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be seen by men?

Tell me what I need to tell my daughter so that she understands how to totally not deserve to be raped. After all, I wouldn't want to give the men any kind of excuse, right? Because there are degrees of non-totality. Like, you know, "She mostly didn't deserve to be raped, but I think her butt looked hot in those jeans, so she kind of did."

How do women avoid that kind of culpability?

Roman

05-29-08, 10:02 PM

He's using the wrong words to get you riled up, Tiassa. It should be pretty obvious that the hyperbole is there to upset you.

francois

05-29-08, 10:34 PM

He's using the wrong words to get you riled up, Tiassa. It should be pretty obvious that the hyperbole is there to upset you.

No, I'm really not. I'm treating rape like a crime. But there are also other crimes and there are different levels of culpability for them. He's not acknowledging that. For example, if you walk out of your doorstep and get murdered instantly for no apparent reason, that's different from provoking a thug in a dark alley and getting murdered: there are different levels of culpability here. The same is true for all crimes, including rape. Rape is not some special crime, in which magical rules apply. I'm saying don't act like all rape is the same. It's an insult to women who have been raped. I'd like to see Tiassa tell that to a woman who had a rapist break into her apartment to rape her.

Asguard

05-29-08, 10:38 PM

ALL rape IS the same. ok there are various levels of torcher that can go with a rape that will differentiate but the crime itself is the same no matter what. If a girl (or guy) goes on a date and decides to have sex then for some reason changes there mind and the other person continues that is NO DIFFERENT than someone jumping out and raping someone. Its a loss of control which is unaceptable no matter what the circumstances.

Bells

05-29-08, 10:40 PM

It's an insult to women who have been raped.

I think comments such as this:

"I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it"

as one example, is probably a bigger insult to any rape victim.

I mean for god's sake Francois, you made the statements. You.

At some point, you'll simply need to accept your statements and stop trying to backpedal.

francois

05-29-08, 10:44 PM

I never backpedaled. Everything I've said in this thread is true. You act like that quote is blasphemous, but you didn't tell me whether or not you think it's true.

Roman

05-29-08, 10:47 PM

No, I'm really not. I'm treating rape like a crime. But there are also other crimes and there are different levels of culpability for them. He's not acknowledging that. For example, if you walk out of your doorstep and get murdered instantly for no apparent reason, that's different from provoking a thug in a dark alley and getting murdered: there are different levels of culpability here. The same is true for all crimes, including rape. Rape is not some special crime, in which magical rules apply. I'm saying don't act like all rape is the same. It's an insult to women who have been raped. I'd like to see Tiassa tell that to a woman who had a rapist break into her apartment to rape her.

So you're honestly arguing that if a man rapes a woman in a burka, he should be more culpable than a man who raped a woman in a miniskirt?

Bells

05-30-08, 12:46 AM

I never backpedaled. Everything I've said in this thread is true. You act like that quote is blasphemous, but you didn't tell me whether or not you think it's true.

What is true? That you think a woman's dress is somehow connected to her rape? The majority of reasonable thinking people out there would disagree with you. As do I.

Rape is not the fault of the victim. The sole responsibility is with the rapist. He/she has a responsibility to not rape. Whether the victim is dressed in a mini skirt or a burka does not determine whether they are more or less likely to be raped. Short of living in a self imposed prison, where no one can get in or out of the house, there is no way to determine who will be raped and where or when.

The fact that the majority of rapes are committed by people known to the victim is completely ignored by you. Do you honestly think a guy would care if his wife is wearing a mini skirt or not when he rapes her? Think about it.

You are putting the blame on the victim, saying that if she dressed or behaved a certain way, she could avoid being raped or attacked. When that is completely false. A woman can be raped having a cup of coffee with a trusted friend or relative in her home or on the way to her car, as she can be raped by a complete stranger who breaks into her house. What she happens to be wearing at the time or where she happens to be at the time has nothing to do with it.

Your quote is not blasphemous. It is down right stupid.:)

Asguard

05-30-08, 12:51 AM

Tiassa

05-30-08, 01:11 AM

Rape is not some special crime, in which magical rules apply. I'm saying don't act like all rape is the same. It's an insult to women who have been raped. I'd like to see Tiassa tell that to a woman who had a rapist break into her apartment to rape her.

So rape is like, what, having your car stolen?

Very well. How will an insurance company replace, for instance, a young girl's virginity? Better yet, how will an insurance company replace a newly-infected HIV patient's clean health? I mean, sure there is plastic surgery for the scars, or time in the dentist's chair for the broken teeth. Certainly torn flesh can heal. And then what? It's all over? Good as new? Just like it never happened?

I'm curious, Francois. How many times have you been raped? And what, exactly, did you do to deserve it?

Because, frankly, I don't see the dignity in pretending a woman is a car or flatscreen television. The police cannot recover, and an insurance company cannot replace, the things taken in a rape.

One other note, though:

You act like that quote is blasphemous, but you didn't tell me whether or not you think it's true.

It's not just any idiot that "would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it". Specifically, it takes a very special brand of idiot.

Bells

05-30-08, 01:19 AM

Bells stop being so biased. Men can be raped to as can children, locality or opertunity may increase the liklyhood a paticualar person MAYBE raped but this is still not there fault. The blame goes to the rapist just as it goes to the drink driver even if the other car driver didnt check there was no one comming before driving through the green light.

No.. really?

:rolleyes:

Rape is not the fault of the victim. The sole responsibility is with the rapist. He/she has a responsibility to not rape. Whether the victim is dressed in a mini skirt or a burka does not determine whether they are more or less likely to be raped. Short of living in a self imposed prison, where no one can get in or out of the house, there is no way to determine who will be raped and where or when.

Yes, victims of rape can be men and women. I was answering Francois' assertion about female rape victims.

You really do not need to lecture me about rape, its perpetrators and victims. I've dealt with enough of it to know where the responsibility lies.

lepustimidus

05-30-08, 01:54 AM

I don't agree that a male who rapes a scantily clad women is less culpable than a male who rapes a conservatively dressed woman. I mean, the culpability of a thief isn't altered simply because the victim leaves their valuables unsecured.

I do think that if a woman is socially smart and doesn't like being raped, she would take certain precautions to avoid rape. That's my main contention, a contention which is yet to be addressed by all the disapproving feminists here.

Tiassa:

So rape is like, what, having your car stolen?

No, it's worse. That's exactly why you should take precautions to lower the chances of being raped. I mean, you lock your car doors, lock your steering wheel, and have a car alarm to protect a piece of metal on wheels. So why wouldn't you be just as (if not more) careful with your own body?

I just don't understand why the feminists get so riled up when it's suggested that they take measures to avoid rape.

Tiassa

05-30-08, 01:58 AM

Notes for Asguard

It's not that I'm trying to ignore you, Asguard. It's just that every time I look, there's something else going on. I'll probably miss a few here, but a couple of things do stand out.

if you know that there is a bank robbery happerning and you walk into that bank or you know that there is a police chace in a certian area yet you still chose to drive there then yes your not legally responcable for the coniquences

Well, what in a rape is the equivalent of a bank robbery taking place? If you walk into an orgy of rape and sexual violence? Or if you know a man has a sexually-functioning penis? What is the comparable if, in this case?

They say the same thing about learning to drive, just because you KNOW you were in the right doesnt change how dead you are. So take care and if that means walking to your car with a key between your fingers just in case or not dressing in the smallest skirt and shirt you can find or not assuming that you can take the gap on the roads that is just plain old risk management and if it keeps you alive then its a good thing.

There is a difference between risk management and living in fear. As I have repeatedly reiterated, and our man Francois has refused to address:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:
• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

Have you ever been in a club, mate, and just watched some random woman dance? Not because you intended to be creepy, but because something about the way she moved just caught your fancy?

Just remember the moment. Remember the beauty you perceived. And remember that risk management suggests that neither you nor I should ever see such things again, because a woman who lets herself be seen being beautiful is not managing her risks well.

Imagine what would happen if the women in our lives took this degree of risk management remotely seriously.

ALL rape IS the same. ok there are various levels of ....

Actually, I'm going to disagree. We tend to make the point that rape is rape is rape is rape because there are actually people out there who will tell a rape survivor to get over it. It was just her boyfriend. It was just her husband. It was just her father or brother or the neighbor boy. It's not like some home invasion or brutal gang rape in the park or whatever.

Or something like that.

There are common effects found among rape survivors. And in a practical context, I would have difficulty telling any rape survivor to cheer up, it could have been worse.

Men can be raped to as can children, locality or opertunity may increase the liklyhood a paticualar person MAYBE raped but this is still not there fault.

I don't disagree on this one, but I would suggest that it is not a symptom of any bias on Bells' part that we're focused so intently on the rape of women. It is, after all, at the heart of the issue. Part of the problem is that it would be hard for me to look at some guy dressed up like a Slim Shady and tell him he shouldn't make such a point of dressing sexy. This isn't just because I reject the general argument, but because I fail to see what is attractive about the look. In fact, most of what counts as sexy men seems to puzzle me. By the time we get into what counts for men as the equivalent, there really isn't much question as to what the guy is asking for.

Really, between the leather chaps and the "Give me your Glory!" scrawled on his bare ass in lipstick, I can probably figure out which one I'm supposed to jump at random. Now, maybe gay men are that much more civilized than heterosexual men, but I'm actually of the opinion that the differences are mostly superficial. Seriously, though, when are you ever going to hear, "His Joe Boxers were showing over the top of his baggy jeans. The way he let the crotch of his pants hang just above his knees, you could tell he wanted it."

And you're never going to hear someone say, "He was wandering around in a golf shirt and a Speedo. So hot. So sexy. You could just tell he wanted me to drag him into the alley and fuck him in the ass until he required surgical repair."

Besides, given that the argument about dressing like a slut originates with men intending to justify their own desires, we should not expect to hear much about the rape of children, or of grown men. Because even if people believe it, most are smart enough to not talk about what a two or three or five year old did to deserve or ask for it. And, yeah, since most heterosexual men simply don't look at other men that way ...?

And, just to cover that base, if you want to bring us the pathology of female-on-male rape and sexual assault, by all means do so. We don't intend that these attackers or survivors should be excluded, either.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 03:25 AM

but nowhere did francois say that it was a woman's fault for being raped.

He used the phrase 'asking for it', so yes he was. Learn to read, and stop excusing the disgusting prig.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 03:49 AM

Simply put, moron,

You call me a moron because you are a closet rapist, interesting. Blaming me, for not seeing it your way does nothing to dispell the idea that you have some dark thoughts in your mind.

a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not.

Got statistics to back that up? I bet not. Rapists are mentally unstable. Hell they attack wrinkly old ladies sane people would not get aroused by. It's not just about clothing, but about their messed up heads, the hatred they carry, and their inability to interact with women satisfactorily in real life.

Also, as it has been pointed out to you, women are not 'asking for it' for dressing a certain way, and using the term 'sluts' is unacceptable. Changing your terms to 'woman' now is too late, you've shown yourself up to be the petty little hate monger.

This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug

No it's not, and stick to the topic.

But nooooo, dipshits like you have to make personal attacks on my person simply because I don't live in some Cartesian fairyland,

So calling me a diphsit isn't a personal attack? Again, you show your ego, and that little streak of hatred you carry.

as if my person has anything to do with the argument.

Your opinion, the one you express here, is part of your personality. You show your flaws, your hatred, and spite in this thread, by the terms you use, and the way you excuse rapists.

That's how I know I've already won this battle: idiots like you can't stop focusing on me and my "misogyny" when it's clear that I never expressed any such inclination.

I'm an idiot because you used the word 'slut' and thought it was OK? No, you are just a nasty piece of work. Maybe you don't consider yourself a misogynist, but you do try and defend rapists, so your view is warped. Try looking at life from the sane side of the fence, eh?

Again, me, me, me. You can't stop focusing on me. I could ask you to focus on the argument, but that's asking too much from a sack of blood like you. I was simply using the language of the OP, dipshit.

You didn't have to use the phrase 'asking for it', for the term 'sluts' to enter the debate. Others have made their points without such denigration. And again, the insults just prove your frustration that you can't put yourself across, and I guess you feel inadequate around women too because you aren't that articulate. Keep it coming, you are making my case for me; you are a flawed individual.

Tiassa

05-30-08, 04:17 AM

No, it's worse. That's exactly why you should take precautions to lower the chances of being raped. I mean, you lock your car doors, lock your steering wheel, and have a car alarm to protect a piece of metal on wheels. So why wouldn't you be just as (if not more) careful with your own body?

There was a comedian a few years ago who went on about people having affairs. His point was that "it just happened" wasn't an excuse for cheating on your partner. What, were you walking down the street one day when suddenly you were sucked, against your will, into a super-powered pussy?

And he did a bit about putting an alarm on your woman, like you would your car. You know, press the button, hear the beep to tell you it's armed. Then you can get on your flight and not worry. And, you know, when your best friend gets too close, the alarm goes off: "Please step away from the pussy."

But here's the deal. My brother protects his car with an alarm. My car is old enough that it didn't come with one standard. Instead of having my car scream and yell every two hours for no good reason like one of my neighbors with a cheap aftermarket alarm, I just use this thing called a Club. I'm guessing you have it in your corner of the world, too. If not, you probably have something similar (http://www.winner-intl.com/default.asp) available. Now, I'm not sure what kind of computerized alarm we might attach to a woman, but the panic button will be of no use, since most people in my area simply ignore such alarms. (They even put signs on buildings politely asking you to call emergency services if the bell immediately above it is ringing: "If alarm sounds, please dial 911.")

So think about that for a moment. Even if there was some sort of alarm, my American neighbors generally ignore alarms. The only ones that matter to us generally are on our clocks, tell us when the building we're in is on fire, and when someone is fucking with our cars. Now, given that this is a country in which people will actually stand around and watch a rape take place, rape alarms don't strike me as a particularly effective measure.

Neither does a Club. Because no matter how much someone wants to blame victims for their suffering, I'm not about to lock down my daughter in such a manner. And, besides, making it so a woman can't move does at least half the rapist's work, anyway.

So here's the problem: In a world where people smoke and drink and fuck recklessly, dive out of airplanes and ride bicycles down mountains, it seems to me that merely existing isn't one of those things that should be inherently dangerous. Which leads—I know it's tricky, but see if you can follow—to the next point:

I just don't understand why the feminists get so riled up when it's suggested that they take measures to avoid rape.

There are a couple of reasons that stick out like a boner in a convent.

First, it's because the "suggestions" are typically made in crude fashion or at the wrong time. Feminists, in fact, teach girls how to take precautions and protect themselves. Maybe they don't where you're from, but even the Jesuit school I attended told prudish parents to shut the hell up when people complained that fifteen year-old girls shouldn't be taught how to protect themselves because (gasp!) people were talking about sex (rape) in front of them. So catch up to reality, Lepus.

The current discussion is an excellent example of the problems people encounter with the argument. This topic came about in consideration of an argument about sexual harassment. The argument about how a woman dresses was raised to justify harassment. In other words, when someone says, "Because we refuse to be civilized, you should simply curtail your freedoms so that we don't 'trespass' on them," it's kind of annoying.

Additionally, the current discussion makes some absurd, completely stupid comparisons: rape and car theft, for instance, or what one wears and physically assaulting someone. Comparing a woman to a car is offensive. Even though you're trying to be somehow civilized, you're blowing the effort entirely. A woman is a human being. A car is not. I can prevent my car from moving when I don't want it to. Doing the same to a human being is an entirely different question.

So what is a woman's equivalent to locking the steering wheel, setting the alarm, and locking the doors?

I, actually, am curious as to the answer. Don't tell me a somber paint job and ugly rims, either.

Another reason is that pretty much any time misogynists give women "advice", it's going to be offensive. Every once in a while, it's funny, and if you throw enough darts, you're bound to hit the board occasionally.

But between the messenger, the manner of the message, and the context of the discussion, it seems fairly easy for some people to offend. When you compare human beings to mere things in order to justify treating people like things, it's not going to fly.

So to use you as an example:

I do think that if a woman is socially smart and doesn't like being raped, she would take certain precautions to avoid rape. That's my main contention, a contention which is yet to be addressed by all the disapproving feminists here.

So please enumerate those precautions. Repeatedly I've listed potential measures extrapolated from the general principle, and people tend to want to avoid the point. Bells and I have already put the issue of the burqua in front of you. I mean, you're using rhetoric that is familiar to people who have listened to the argument that forcing women to wear the burqua is actually a measure of respect. In fact, you used the same argument about harassment, and it sounds like you're using it here.

So, for what will be at least the fifth time in this topic:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:
• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

Although, to be fair, one of those repetitions was in a post to Asguard, and I have every confidence in his outlook on these points. However, I'm curious where the points above fall on your list of precautions.

DeepThought

05-30-08, 05:39 AM

To me the question of what rights "should be" then, turns on the question "Given the milieu in which we live, what set of socially agreed upon 'rights' is most likely to maximize my personal happiness."

Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYMID5qCdE).

This is all such a philosophy amounts to, an advertising slogan used to sell a commodity. One cannot make oneself happy, nor is it a worthy goal. Maximizing happiness is no different to stuffing as much food into your gut as possible, we simply become pigs competing with each other at the trough of what (the advertizing men tell us) makes us happy.

One of my favorite examples is how the ad men associated feminism with cigarettes at the turn of the twentieth century. No self-respecting feminist would then be seen without one, so it became easy to spot the 'independently minded' woman, she carried a 'torch of freedom'. (http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/torches.html)

http://gammablog.com/gammablablog/images/10-3/10-3/torches-of-freedom.jpg
A woman proudly parades her 'torch of freedom'.

This campaign increased American Tobaccos revenue by $32 million dollars in 1928 alone.

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/CWimages/LuckyStr2.jpg

See how easy it is to create the illusion of an independent woman? Just a few pictures in the mainstream media to get the ball rolling.

The problem, from your perspective, is that the relentless march of democracy seems to have given women (and minorities for that matter) a voice in this process of norm-setting. It seems very natural to me that in a democratic system, that this would be inevitable.

What you call the 'relentless march of democracy' is only a euphemism for colonialism. The more faith one puts in the false doctrines created by the economic powers which dominate the world, the harder one will be hit when they are removed.

DeepThought

05-30-08, 05:42 AM

I just don't understand why the feminists get so riled up when it's suggested that they take measures to avoid rape.

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

visceral_instinct

05-30-08, 06:11 AM

And yet ...?

Well, that presents a certain problem. Especially given that many people around here are regularly called upon to answer for things they did not say.

So while we might agree that there's no apparent practical difference between saying a rape is the victim's fault and saying the victim deserved it, we are also supposed to accept that Francois didn't actually mean the things he posted?

Okay, let's take a look at a few of the things posted:

So what did he mean, VI? Don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept an explanation of poor communication, but the repetition really undermines the idea that Francois is conveying the wrong message by choosing his words wrongly.

Furthermore, as upset as he might get because people are apparently taking him so wrongly, the one thing he doesn't seem to want to do is actually address the points being put before him. I've now repeatedly proposed logical extensions of his "common sense", and while he might have the energy to be haughty, he hasn't, apparently, the knowledge or desire to make his allegedly intended point clearly.

To consider the examples listed above, the parts from #13 are fairly obvious:

• "a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it" — Any questions on this one?

• "If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable" — As opposed to what? Only partially objectionable? Oh, hold on. We do, in fact, have something of an answer.

• "It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different." — Ah. So either a woman is stupid or else "totally didn't deserve" to be raped. Apparently, the women who don't hide enough of their sexuality—e.g., wear a burqua, although, it is entirely possible someone is turned on at the thought of such outward sexual repression, which would mean the woman was stupid and therefore asking to be raped—kind of, sort of, somewhat deserve whatever evil is visited upon them.

And then there is the (fairly explicit) proposition in #21 that "rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make". In other words, a rape might happen, but it's not the rapist's fault? Well, we could leave Francois to plead that's not what he meant, and certainly he's welcome to do so, but compared to the ease of including some kind of mitigating modifier in the statement, it does not seem a stretch to consider the thematic repetition of a woman's guilt in a man's decision the more compelling key to resolving whatever gray zones we might invent about the proposition.

Lastly, we come to an example posted after all of this bluster and complaint about how people are receiving Francois' argument already began. Notice the inherent comparison: Wearing a skirt is comparable to physically assaulting someone.

Here, let's bring that one out to stand on its own for you to consider:

"Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not."

While I don't disagree with the idea giving a member the benefit of the doubt, I'm hard-pressed to see the basis of that doubt. What you don't think he meant is pretty apparent in the words he posted, and having encountered such rejection of his point, he is only getting angry about it. Would you propose that our neighbor Francois is simply incapable of expressing himself the way he intends?

If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the talking for him, explain what he meant, and perhaps address people's concerns and extrapolations along the way.

After all, purely from an objective point of view, the vast majority of women in the United States who are raped are attacked by men they know. So we ought to stop and consider the fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.

So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be seen by men?

Tell me what I need to tell my daughter so that she understands how to totally not deserve to be raped. After all, I wouldn't want to give the men any kind of excuse, right? Because there are degrees of non-totality. Like, you know, "She mostly didn't deserve to be raped, but I think her butt looked hot in those jeans, so she kind of did."

How do women avoid that kind of culpability?

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily. Maybe that's just my ASD tendencies again.

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

NO, IT'S BECAUSE UNBELIEVABLY, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES WITHOUT BEING RAPED.

lepustimidus

05-30-08, 07:08 AM

visceral:

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily.

Bingo.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 07:18 AM

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

That is so messed up. My expectation is that people should be able to go about their business unmolested.

You seem to accept rape as a fact of life. Your attitude implies that nothing can be done about it. Well, simply, we can do something about it; we can foster a society that makes it clear that it is unacceptable, but that is hard when misogynists such as yourself spring to the defence of rapists. You aren't part of the solution, so you are part of the problem.

francois

05-30-08, 07:29 AM

What is true? That you think a woman's dress is somehow connected to her rape? The majority of reasonable thinking people out there would disagree with you. As do I.

Rape is not the fault of the victim. The sole responsibility is with the rapist. He/she has a responsibility to not rape. Whether the victim is dressed in a mini skirt or a burka does not determine whether they are more or less likely to be raped. Short of living in a self imposed prison, where no one can get in or out of the house, there is no way to determine who will be raped and where or when.

The fact that the majority of rapes are committed by people known to the victim is completely ignored by you. Do you honestly think a guy would care if his wife is wearing a mini skirt or not when he rapes her? Think about it.

You are putting the blame on the victim, saying that if she dressed or behaved a certain way, she could avoid being raped or attacked. When that is completely false. A woman can be raped having a cup of coffee with a trusted friend or relative in her home or on the way to her car, as she can be raped by a complete stranger who breaks into her house. What she happens to be wearing at the time or where she happens to be at the time has nothing to do with it.

Your quote is not blasphemous. It is down right stupid.:)

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily. It's about women putting themselves in dangerous positions in general. That does nothing to change the argument. A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not. Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.

"I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it"
Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.

So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are.
"I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily should expect a much greater probability of getting raped"

I have the feeling that this will take a while to sink in, so I'll give a few more examples.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you're asking for your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you should expect a much greater probability of getting your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you eat lobster without a bib you're asking for a mess.

If you eat lobster without a bib, you should expect a much greater than average probability of making a mess.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you're asking to get soaked.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you should expect a greater than average probability of getting soaked.

They. Mean. The. Same. Thing.

I can't believe we're actually arguing this point. This really needs its own thread. People have will power. As I've shown with my example, there are ways to avoid things from happening, from getting rained on, murdered, getting your car broken into, etc. Why do you all consider it impossible for women to decrease the probability of getting raped?

phlogistician

05-30-08, 07:39 AM

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily.

Did you read the title of the OP? It says 'Don't dress like a slut', you have then yourself regurgitated that slur, and now are pathetically trying to draw the debate into something it is not. You are only ignoring myself and Tiassa because you have no intellectual response, having lapsed into insults previously.

A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not.

Hah, here you really show how shallow you are!

Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.

Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.

If you'd meant that, you should have said that, but you didn't, you screwed up and said what you thought, which was misogynistic crap.

So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are.

You're backpeddling now, and it's pathetic. When you are in a hole, just stop digging, eh?

francois

05-30-08, 07:53 AM

Did you read the title of the OP? It says 'Don't dress like a slut', you have then yourself regurgitated that slur, and now are pathetically trying to draw the debate into something it is not. You are only ignoring myself and Tiassa because you have no intellectual response, having lapsed into insults previously.
You ninnies haven't give me anything worthwhile to respond to. Only ad homs and a miserable failure to distinguish how things ought to be and what is. There's nothing to respond to.

Hah, here you really show how shallow you are!
Funny how you neither agree or disagree. Instead you just throw out a good non-sequitur. A mark of a great mind. Retard.

If you'd meant that, you should have said that, but you didn't, you screwed up and said what you thought, which was misogynistic crap.

You could have taken what I said at face value and with intellectual integrity, but you reacted instead. I said nothing that was misogynistic. Simply saying something is misogynist without any good explanation or argument is weak.

You're backpeddling now, and it's pathetic. When you are in a hole, just stop digging, eh?

Nope, not backpeddling anywhere. You've honestly never heard of 'asking for it' used that way? Seriously? If you do something that increases the probability of A happening, then you're asking for A to happen. What's complicated about that? "You're asking for trouble, Son!" Stop doing what it is that you're doing that's pissing off your dad!

Tiassa

05-30-08, 07:54 AM

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily.

See, that's where phrases like "asking for it" and considerations of whether or not someone "deserved" to be raped come into play. In order to reach your assumption, we must ignore what he actually said.

Furthermore, it's a slightly ridiculous focus, since as Gustav, Bells, and I—at least—have pointed out, the majority of rapes of women are committed by perpetrators known and familiar to the victims.

So how do you not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape?

Well, don't dress in any way that might be considered sexy or attractive. This, of course, should also account for the odd pervert who thinks women dressed up in sexually repressed clothing is hot, and thus only wants to bang you if you're wearing a burqua or habit. Which raises a question that is answered coincidentally.

Because most of these rapes are what are colloquially called "date" rapes. The obvious precaution here is to never go out on a date without chaperones. Unless the chaperones are conspirators to the rape, then you're ... well, you're really screwed.

The best thing, then, is for women to simply never be alone with men. Until their wedding night, of course. And, hey, history is so clear on this point: such repression causes no problems whatsoever, right?

The problem is that the current advocacy of precautions seems unwilling to discuss the full range of those precautions, preferring instead to exploit a really cheap men's sexual fantasy about a scantily-clad, innocent woman wandering alone through dark alleyways as the sex-hungry pervert vampires assemble and consider the harm they can do.

It's a stroke fantasy, VI, and nothing more. If it was more, its advocates would be better prepared to discuss the breadth of precaution. If it was more, Francois wouldn't be scrambling so hilariously into a nonsensical retreat: "Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'."

I mean, really. Jesus god-fucking-damn it. That must be a regional peculiarity of speech, I confess. As in, a peculiarity particular to some region of his brain.

Let's try it out: "Having black skin in the United States is asking to be thrown in prison."

Hell, language evolves. Let's call him a goddamn pioneer, why don't we?

francois

05-30-08, 08:04 AM

It's not a retreat, Tiassa, that's what I meant the entire time.

Edit: If I'm to be completely honest, I originally carefully considered whether or not I should have used the phrase "asking for it." I thought about it, and it means the same exact thing. How does it not mean the same exact thing? It's just an abbreviation, albeit, one that really got you riled up.

lepustimidus

05-30-08, 08:08 AM

Fuck, Tiassa's posts never end. They are like an infinite turd coming out of my ass.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 08:13 AM

You ninnies haven't give me anything worthwhile to respond to. Only ad homs and a miserable failure to distinguish how things ought to be and what is. There's nothing to respond to.

Ad homs? That's rich coming from you, considering the name calling you've lowered yourself to!

Funny how you neither agree or disagree. Instead you just throw out a good non-sequitur. A mark of a great mind. Retard.

Yes, adding 'retard' onto the end of a sentence using 'non-sequitur' (incorrectly) shows what an intellectual powerhouse you think you are. You are shallow because ogling a woman turns you on more than a woman's personality, and you assume everyone is like you. You do not have the dpeth to understand some people are different.

You could have taken what I said at face value and with intellectual integrity,

Tell you what, explain how you used the word 'slut' with integrity, and I'll get back you.

nothing that was misogynistic. Simply saying something is misogynist without any good explanation or argument is weak.

You used the phrase 'asking for it', how is that not misogynistic?

ot backpeddling anywhere. You've honestly never heard of 'asking for it' used that way? Seriously?

Yes, I have, by misogynists.

do something that increases the probability of A happening, then you're asking for A to happen.

You haven't proven that dressing a certain way does increase that likelyhood, and you totally ignored the post I made about rape not just being about sex, but the mental instability of the rapist, about power, their inability to interract normally with women, and the fact that they rape pensioners. It's not just about getting an uncontrollable boner, and using that as an excuse, and transferring the blame onto the victim. The fault lies entirely with the rapist, nobody invites it, however they are dressed.

What's complicated about that? "You're asking for trouble, Son!" Stop doing what it is that you're doing that's pissing off your dad!

Of course, you have to see it simply, because nothing else will fit in your mind. For the last time, people do not invite rape, the perpetrator is to blame.

francois

05-30-08, 08:31 AM

Ad homs? That's rich coming from you, considering the name calling you've lowered yourself to!
lol, I know.

But you honestly can't see the difference between our ad homs, besides the fact that you initiated the attacks?

Let me explain. True ad homs are not insults. Ad homs simply divert attention from the argument to the arguer, as you have done repeatedly by calling me a misogynist (without offering any good reasons, no less). The point of the ad hom is to call into question the integrity of the person arguing and to taint that person's argument illegitimately by proxy. Do you know what an ad hom is now?

On the other hand, I called you, what, a dipshit? While true, does that really divert the argument to the arguer? No. In fact, I was only addressing my arguments and your shitty tactics while at times referring to you with pejoratives. In other words, yours were ad homs in the true sense of the word. Mine were illegitimate ad homs, hardly ad homs at all. Congrats, you're better at dishonest argument than me.

Yes, adding 'retard' onto the end of a sentence using 'non-sequitur' (incorrectly) shows what an intellectual powerhouse you think you are. You are shallow because ogling a woman turns you on more than a woman's personality, and you assume everyone is like you. You do not have the dpeth to understand some people are different.
Actually I used the word correctly, ninny. Now you're fucking nitpicking. I'm right, but I'm not going to pursue it because it's a minor point. That's what people who are losing an argument always resort to: nitpicking.

Tell you what, explain how you used the word 'slut' with integrity, and I'll get back you.
Bah, you guys really get hung up on language. Do you know what a colloquialism is? It's easy to infer what I meant. To 'slut it up' is to dress scantily. Is that so hard to figure out? Again, I'm not going to respond to this shitty nitpicking.

You used the phrase 'asking for it', how is that not misogynistic?

I've already explained. Please refer to post 87.

Yes, I have, by misogynists.

Yes, perhaps but misogynists, but also by nearly everyone who speaks English too.
[/QUOTE]

phlogistician

05-30-08, 08:44 AM

lol, I know.

But you honestly can't see the difference between our ad homs, besides the fact that you initiated the attacks?

I called your character into question because you were posting remarks that defended rapists. It wasn't an ad hom, but an observation.

as you have done repeatedly by calling me a misogynist (without offering any good reasons, no less).

Yes I have, I have explained that the type of language you use is denigrating to women.

Actually I used the word correctly, ninny. Now you're fucking nitpicking. I'm right, but I'm not going to pursue it because it's a minor point. That's what people who are losing an argument always resort to: nitpicking.

Non-sequitur mean that it does not follow logically. My assumption did follow logically, I said you were shallow because of your comment, and then had to explain that ogling wasn't the sole or primary turn on for everyone. You know, sexual activity between humans often starts when both are dressed, so people do find clothed people alluring.

Bah, you guys really get hung up on language.

This being a forum where ideas are conveyed with words, what else is there to judge someone on? You used some inappropriate words, and if you were wise, you'd just admit that was a mistake, instead of continuing this post justification bullshit spree you are on.

Do you know what a colloquialism is? It's easy to infer what I meant. To 'slut it up' is to dress scantily. Is that so hard to figure out? Again, I'm not going to respond to this shitty nitpicking.

I already explained that calling a woman a slut is not acceptable, and that how women choose to behave does not give you the right to judge nor label them. I also explained that it's not fair to label a woman based on how she chooses to dress, but here you are defending you denigrating prose again. It's not nitpicking, it's you using abusive terms towards women, and if you want to be taken seriously, it must stop.

Yes, perhaps but misogynists, but also by nearly everyone who speaks English too.

No, just english speaking misogynists. I would never use that phrase, because it's bullshit. I don't repeat bullshit just because it's a colloquialism or a cliche. That's another lame excuse of yours.

francois

05-30-08, 08:56 AM

I called your character into question because you were posting remarks that defended rapists. It wasn't an ad hom, but an observation.

Yes I have, I have explained that the type of language you use is denigrating to women.
Blah, blah, irrelevant.

I already explained that calling a woman a slut is not acceptable, and that how women choose to behave does not give you the right to judge nor label them. I also explained that it's not fair to label a woman based on how she chooses to dress, but here you are defending you denigrating prose again. It's not nitpicking, it's you using abusive terms towards women, and if you want to be taken seriously, it must stop.
I'm pretty sure you can scour this entire thread and find that I never called a woman a slut. Not that it's a relevant point. Why are we even talking about misogyny? It has nothing to do with this thread. Man, you're scatterbrained. I'm no slouch either, since I'm actually responding to your tripe.

No, just english speaking misogynists. I would never use that phrase, because it's bullshit. I don't repeat bullshit just because it's a colloquialism or a cliche. That's another lame excuse of yours.

I honestly cannot believe this. You've never been in a situation where a friend or acquaintance is about to do something stupid or dangerous and you say "Dude, I wouldn't do that. You're asking for something bad to happen." Inconceivable. I had no clue that "asking for it" is a phrase that only misogynists use. Ah. The new things I learn every day from dipshits at this place.

Bells

05-30-08, 09:06 AM

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily. It's about women putting themselves in dangerous positions in general. That does nothing to change the argument. A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not. Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.

Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.

So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are.

I have the feeling that this will take a while to sink in, so I'll give a few more examples.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you're asking for your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you should expect a much greater probability of getting your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you eat lobster without a bib you're asking for a mess.

If you eat lobster without a bib, you should expect a much greater than average probability of making a mess.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you're asking to get soaked.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you should expect a greater than average probability of getting soaked.

They. Mean. The. Same. Thing.

I can't believe we're actually arguing this point. This really needs its own thread. People have will power. As I've shown with my example, there are ways to avoid things from happening, from getting rained on, murdered, getting your car broken into, etc. Why do you all consider it impossible for women to decrease the probability of getting raped?

Amazing. You are comparing the theft of an unlocked car, its stereo and not taking an umbrella on a cloudy day as being akin to a woman wearing "slutty" clothes attracting rape.

What you keep failing to understand is that the greater majority of rapes are classified as acquaintance rape, in that the victim knows the assailant. It has nothing to do with what the victim happens to be wearing.

Most importantly, you are placing the onus to not be raped on the woman (or the victim in general, be it male, female or child), instead of on the rapist to not rape. At the end of the day, there is nothing a woman (or man) can do or not do to minimise her (or his) chances of being raped. The chances of her (or him) being raped while walking in a dark alley is actually minute compared to her (or his) being raped at home or while out with a male (or female acquaintance). As Tiassa pointed out, the only way for the victim to not be raped for the individual to never leave their house or be alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex.

You also fail to realise that men are also raped, by men and women. So what exactly can or should a man do to minimise their chances of being raped? Why do you place such a distinction on the women instead of the men who could be potential victims of rape? Should men never wear certain styles or forms of clothing that accentuates their bodies? What about children who are raped? How can you not dress a little girl, like a little girl? How can you minimise a little girl's chances of attracting unwanted attention from a pervert who might be sexually attracted to little girls dressed as little girls? Dress the girl like a boy?

A woman can be walking down an alley butt naked on a daily basis and not be raped. A woman can be sitting at home having a cup of coffee with her male boyfriend or date or husband (or any other male acquaintance really) and be violently raped. Can you see how ridiculous your proposal actually is?

Now, lets just imagine you are in fact correct. Women begin to dress conservatively, avoid dangerous and dark alleys. Do you think that will reduce the incidents of rape to the point where they are almost non-existent? I'll give you a hint to the answer. No.

Because again, women will more likely be raped by someone in their acquaintance than be raped by a total stranger.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 09:24 AM

Blah, blah, irrelevant.

No, it's an insight into your flawed character.

I'm pretty sure you can scour this entire thread and find that I never called a woman a slut.

Several times;

"If you're not safe to slut it up there, where can you?"

"Women should be able to dress like sluts..."

"My advice: if you want to slut it up, do it in a safe place ..."

Like I said, you cannot label a woman a slut due to the way they choose to behave, nor liken one to such due to the way they dress, but you did, and now you fail to acknowledge what you did, and that was to denigrate women.

Not that it's a relevant point. Why are we even talking about misogyny? It has nothing to do with this thread. Man, you're scatterbrained. I'm no slouch either, since I'm actually responding to your tripe.

Your use of denigrating terms and defending rapists by using the term 'asking for it' was misogynistic.

I honestly cannot believe this. You've never been in a situation where a friend or acquaintance is about to do something stupid or dangerous and you say "Dude, I wouldn't do that. You're asking for something bad to happen."

Not in the context of when they were just raped. Try and keep this in context. I know you can't make you point honestly, but all this back peddling and twisting off topic is making you look less than honest.

Inconceivable. I had no clue that "asking for it" is a phrase that only misogynists use. Ah. The new things I learn every day from dipshits at this place.

When the context is rape, that phrase is misogyny. Wise up, it was a stupid phrase to use, and you continual defense of it ill advised. Stop digging yourself in deeper.

francois

05-30-08, 09:29 AM

Bells, a woman has the capability of decreasing her probability of getting raped. True or false.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 09:41 AM

Bells, a woman has the capability of decreasing her probability of getting raped. True or false.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And other such lame logical traps. Yes, a woman could reduce her chances of getting raped, but that doesn't in anyway justify your usage of denigrating terminology.

francois

05-30-08, 09:52 AM

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And other such lame logical traps. Yes, a woman could reduce her chances of getting raped, but that doesn't in anyway justify your usage of denigrating terminology.

Niiiice job dude. Keeping up with the non-seqs I see.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped. You're not allowing for a difference. How insulting to women who have had rapists break into their homes to rape them! If you're going to be so insulting to those women, why don't you complete the deal by slapping them in the face and calling them whores?

phlogistician

05-30-08, 10:24 AM

Niiiice job dude. Keeping up with the non-seqs I see.

It was a logical follow on, maybe you don't understand the term you are recently so fond of!

You seem to be setting Bells a trap, trying to get a 'yes' answer to a rather vague question, as if that has any bearing on the specifics of the debate.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped.

There is no difference, in that neither 'asked for it'. Stop

You're not allowing for a difference. How insulting to women who have had rapists break into their homes to rape them! If you're going to be so insulting to those women, why don't you complete the deal by slapping them in the face and calling them whores?

Oh dear, straw man alert. It's you that's being insulting, not me.

francois

05-30-08, 10:33 AM

It was a logical follow on, maybe you don't understand the term you are recently so fond of!

You seem to be setting Bells a trap, trying to get a 'yes' answer to a rather vague question, as if that has any bearing on the specifics of the debate.

There's absolutely nothing vague about it. That's the precise meat of the debate.

There is no difference, in that neither 'asked for it'. Stop

Alright man. You see no difference. Fine. I call that crazy, and I believe other rational people would too. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 10:41 AM

There's absolutely nothing vague about it. That's the precise meat of the debate.

Bullshit, it was a trap, and a clumsy one at that.

Alright man. You see no difference. Fine. I call that crazy, and I believe other rational people would too. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I see no difference, because there is no difference. Nobody invites rape. You are implying that rape is somehow more justified if the victim is dressed a certain way, and that is just screwed up thinking. Rational people would disagree with YOU, and they are, right on this thread.

francois

05-30-08, 10:44 AM

Come back when you actually have something to say other than "I believe this because... this is what I believe!"

francois

05-30-08, 10:55 AM

I see no difference, because there is no difference. Nobody invites rape. You are implying that rape is somehow more justified if the victim is dressed a certain way, and that is just screwed up thinking. Rational people would disagree with YOU, and they are, right on this thread.

What about this scenario.

A person walks out of his doorstep and instantly gets murdered by a thug for no reason other than for being there.

A person provokes a thug in a dangerous city at night and gets murdered.

Do you see any difference?

phlogistician

05-30-08, 11:05 AM

Come back when you actually have something to say other than "I believe this because... this is what I believe!"

That's you, describing you. Various arguments have been made to you, but you have ignored them all. You're getting owned here, but you're too egotistical to see it.

phlogistician

05-30-08, 11:07 AM

What about this scenario.

A person walks out of his doorstep and instantly gets murdered by a thug for no reason other than for being there.

A person provokes a thug in a dangerous city at night and gets murdered.

Do you see any difference?

As you used the term 'murdered' in both scenarios, I guess you can't distinguish between the two events either! :bugeye:

Bells

05-30-08, 11:46 AM

Bells, a woman has the capability of decreasing her probability of getting raped. True or false.

If she wears iron underwear. And even then, that's a maybe. She can still be raped by the rapist jamming his penis down her throat.

But prey tell, how would you advise women in general to decrease the chances of their being raped? Keep in mind that the majority of women who become rape victims are raped by people they know, and that very few rape cases actually involve complete strangers. So, how should those women decrease their chances of being raped? What about men who walk down a dark alley and are raped. Should they dress differently as well?

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped.
The scenario leading up to the rape may be different, but the rape itself is still a criminal act whereby the victim has no control over the actions or thought processes of the rapist. And that's something you can't seem to grasp.

She (or he) could be wearing full body armour or dressed in a tent and she (or he) could still be raped in the public toilet at the local supermarket as well as in a dark alley, their home, doctors surgery, etc. I mean honestly. Think about it.

You are still placing the onus on the victim to not be raped. And you don't see anything wrong in that?

visceral_instinct

05-30-08, 12:05 PM

What about this scenario.

A person walks out of his doorstep and instantly gets murdered by a thug for no reason other than for being there.

A person provokes a thug in a dangerous city at night and gets murdered.

Do you see any difference?

That's not an accurate analogy. A woman walking down the street in skimpy clothing is just minding her own business. The person in your scenario is actively provoking someone.

Simon Anders

05-30-08, 12:07 PM

What about this scenario.

A person walks out of his doorstep and instantly gets murdered by a thug for no reason other than for being there.

A person provokes a thug in a dangerous city at night and gets murdered.

Do you see any difference?

You can always order food delivered to the apartment. But my guess is you go out occasionally and walk the city streets. Are you asking to be beaten up by thugs? Should women dress down? I'll bet a woman stands less chance of being raped if she scars her face or does not clean herself - not that this would stop many rapists, but some. Does this make showering an invitation for rape.

I assume you appreciate middle eastern dress codes for women. Covering the head, or everthing but the eyes also reduces attractiveness and perhaps some of the risk.

I assume you do not wear a watch and even if you had a lot of money you would not spend it on a car, since a car, being valuable, is asking to be robbed, carjacked.

Since men are also potential victims of rape, I assume you also do not leave the house much and when you do you have friends meet you.

Who is your ideal? I mean what women could not reduce the liklihood of being raped. She could rub shit on her clothes. Does every woman who does not own a German Shepherd or similar dog also ask for rape when she leaves her apartment, dogless?

You are focused on rape here and how women can reduce their chances of being raped. But the fact that suddenly you and other men think in these terms when it comes to rape and do not think in these kinds of critical terms when it comes to crimes that men are as likely to be suseptible to is telling. Oh, I am sure you say 'he was asking for it' if he took out a wad of money from his pocket, alone, late at night in a dangerous area, in front of strangers. I am sure you do this too. But the levels of idiocy would have to be higher, wouldn't they?

And you never notice how the arguments you put forward have no boundaries. We could use them to shift women back into the homes, period and have dress codes no longer fashionable in the West. In many cultures not having a male family member escort is seen as asking for it. Why is that wrong?

And how much time do you spend teaching men about how much women are not really asking for it compared to how much time you spend teaching women how it was really their own fault?

Simon Anders

05-30-08, 12:11 PM

That's not an accurate analogy. A woman walking down the street in skimpy clothing is just minding her own business. The person in your scenario is actively provoking someone.
And you are right on the mark here. Some men think it is an attack. A specific provocation aimed at them. I don't assume that a man dressed up in expensive clothes and wearing expensive rings or who has worked out a lot is provoking me personally, nor do I assume that he is asking for me to fuck up his clothes or steal his jewellery.

Lots of people have things I would like to have. Many of them could be said to flaunt this. I don't assume that they are asking for me to take these things from them.

Tiassa

05-30-08, 03:56 PM

It's not a retreat, Tiassa, that's what I meant the entire time.

Sorry, but you're just not believable on that. Perhaps if the statement in question was a one-time thing, but there's obviously no point in reiterating its juxtaposition with other things you wrote in this topic. Given the difficulty people have had in getting you to the point that you offered that really lame excuse, I don't expect you to pull back and attempt to address the broader issue.

Seriously, Francois, if you had actually attempted to answer the issues earlier, taken a broader approach to the subject, and not offered up anger and self-righteousness as an early response to the challenges you faced, maybe that truly pathetic excuse would be at least mildly persuasive. See, then, at least, we could pretend that you just never stopped to think about it.

Which brings us to the next point:

If I'm to be completely honest, I originally carefully considered whether or not I should have used the phrase "asking for it."

I'm not sure that helps your credibility. Especially given the conclusion you seem to have reached.

I thought about it, and it means the same exact thing. How does it not mean the same exact thing?

Well, you could try it according to the example I provided: "Having black skin in the United States is asking to be thrown in prison."

According to your argument, this would mean the same thing as what reality suggests. And, frankly, it doesn't.

For the record, reality suggests quite clearly that being a black male in the U.S., your chances of entering the penal system, statistically, are disproportionately higher than if you're white.

The thing is that a woman is not a car, and a man is not the weather. The car does not get the random urge to get up and go dancing. The weather does not single out anyone to rain on. And the goddamn lobster is dead. If it squirts you when you crack it open, I can promise you the thing wasn't thinking, "He's not wearing a bib! He wants me to squirt my hot stuff all over him!"

Let's be as simple as we can: Failing to acknowledge a statistical probability pertaining to inanimate objects is not synonymous with inviting a thinking creature to do harm.

There is a difference between taking your chances against the rain and encouraging a person to do harm.

There is a difference between putting a Club or alarm on your car and chaining your wife or daughter to the radiator.

There is a difference between what you're trying so desperately to pretend to be and what you're actually portraying.

DeepThought

05-30-08, 04:32 PM

That is so messed up. My expectation is that people should be able to go about their business unmolested.

I see, you've slyly changed it to 'people' now, instead of women, so as to muddy the issue.

In return for not raping a woman, the woman should dress very conservatively, showing off as little flesh as possible, so as not to goad the man. Preferably, she should be completely covered. Anything less than this is a degradation of nature, and an attempt to manipulate others.

visceral_instinct

05-30-08, 04:39 PM

I see, you've slyly changed it to 'people' now, instead of women, so as to muddy the issue.

In return for not raping a woman, the woman should dress very conservatively, showing off as little flesh as possible, so as not to goad the man. Preferably, she should be completely covered. Anything less than this is a degradation of nature, and an attempt to manipulate others.

Yeah, wearing a my loose Vader T-shirt that was probably made for a guy twice my size that actually shows my forearms is goading a man.

That's beside the point though.

When a woman goes up to a man and sexually assaults him, then he can say she was goading him or asking for it. But when she's walking down the street minding her own business, sorry but that's a matter for no one but her.

You just love to piss people off don't you?

Oli

05-30-08, 04:43 PM

In return for not raping a woman, the woman should dress very conservatively, showing off as little flesh as possible, so as not to goad the man. Preferably, she should be completely covered. Anything less than this is a degradation of nature, and an attempt to manipulate others.
Exactly.
Women should stay covered all the time.
It saves men having to act like responsible human beings and respect women.

DeepThought

05-30-08, 04:51 PM

Exactly.
Women should stay covered all the time.
It saves men having to act like responsible human beings and respect women.

A man acts like a responsible human being when he controls his sexual urges, but a woman does the opposite when she manipulates them to get attention.

Ignorance of the law does not excuse.

Oli

05-30-08, 04:55 PM

A man acts like a responsible human being when he controls his sexual urges, but a woman does the opposite when she manipulates them to get attention.
Manipulates?

Ignorance of the law does not excuse.
Which law?

codanblad

05-30-08, 08:45 PM

a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex, dressing in something sexy flips the switch labelled 'primal urges'. who's to say these urges aren't stronger than the moral codes you're expecting this person to have.

i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body. high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm. the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features.

Tiassa

05-30-08, 11:48 PM

Try again, Codanblad. In case you hadn't noticed, nobody's buying the routine whereby you say, "I'm not encouraging or condoning rape," and then turn around and make all sorts of excuses for rapists, like:

• "i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex, dressing in something sexy flips the switch labelled 'primal urges'." — See, don't condone rape and then try to pretend that you're not condoning rape.

• "who's to say these urges aren't stronger than the moral codes you're expecting this person to have." — If your urges are stronger than you are capable of controlling, seek inpatient psychiatric help.

• "i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." — You know what else we are, Codanblad? We're members of a society. See prior point about psychiatric assistance.

• "again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" — Comparing men to dangerous devices with no will of their own doesn't help your argument. In fact, you're escalating the argument from "Seek help" to, "Men should be locked up".

• "when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body" — Yeah. At least the really basic, simplistic men. Sometimes I don't understand the social definition of arousing. Like these mythical skanky women all slutted up and walking through an alley apparently hoping to be raped. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily kick her out of bed, but these arguments reduce male sexuality to a mere farce. Seriously, the women the rape advocates are describing aren't nearly as high on the arousal scale as the argument places them. Of course, we should not be surprised when an unhealthy perspective seeks unhealthy justification in unhealthy aesthetics.

• "high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm." — Well, that might be the funniest sentence I've encountered among the rape advocates. Really, this tells us more about you than anyone else. It really is too bad: Y'all would be alright, if only you weren't so dangerous.

• "the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features." — So we're back to putting our women in burquas?

codanblad

05-31-08, 02:00 AM

Try again, Codanblad. In case you hadn't noticed, nobody's buying the routine whereby you say, "I'm not encouraging or condoning rape," and then turn around and make all sorts of excuses for rapists

do you really think i'm trying to promote rape? i have a girlfriend i get to worry about when she goes to the city with friends etc. am surprised how aggressive you are. i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals. are you suggesting rapists rape people on a whim? is it purely opportunity? there's always reasons, i'm trying to discuss them.

i don't endorse rape, its inconsiderate. i stand by the arguments i've made.
the high heels thing, that's something i've heard before, don't attack me over it. i thought it was a pretty well known thing. chemical reactions occur regardless of what kind of man you are, they aren't determined by your integrity.

the grenade thing wasn't comparing men to weapons. its saying when you do something you can be responsible for the consequences. dressing like a slut doesn't justify rape, but i feel it makes them more likely to rape you.

and of course i don't want chicks to wear burquas. there are heaps of clothes i would say aren't designed to get male attention. i'm only talking about the clothes some girls wear clubbing etc. you can see everything but their nipples and genitals. which i love by the way, most guys do. chicks can dress however they want, i believe it carries risks though.

you're exaggerating or misconstruing everything i say in your zeal to persecute anyone who doesn't share your hatred of rapists. i'm not sexist or immoral or an animal, just discussing the topic.

DeepThought

05-31-08, 02:14 AM

who's to say these urges aren't stronger than the moral codes you're expecting this person to have.

If they weren't, the sexual instinct would have been so weak the human race would already have died out.

Tiassa

05-31-08, 04:21 AM

do you really think i'm trying to promote rape?

Well, I can see why you wouldn't want to be seen that way.

i have a girlfriend i get to worry about when she goes to the city with friends etc

Yeah, I've heard a few variations on that one.

am surprised how aggressive you are

In truth, something that surprises me is the number of people who say, "I'm not encouraging or condoning rape," turn around and do just that, and then wonder at the notion that someone would call you out on the conflict.

i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals

That would be even funnier than the high-heels bit, except it's kind of morbid.

are you suggesting rapists rape people on a whim? is it purely opportunity? there's always reasons, i'm trying to discuss them.

You're trying to discuss the reasons?

Let's stop and think about that for a moment. You're trying to discuss the reasons people commit rape by focusing on a stroke fantasy that represents, in the end, a severe minority of rapes. I have attempted repeatedly to address the implications of the excuses put forward according to this scenario, and get nothing in response except a blind repetition of the excuses.

i don't endorse rape, its inconsiderate.

Yeah, there's that. Murder, for instance, is inconvenient.

the high heels thing, that's something i've heard before, don't attack me over it. i thought it was a pretty well known thing.

Okay, for starters: high heels contribute more to a man's orgasm than a woman's. Secondly, a high heel doesn't have much effect on a woman's foot when it's dangling from her toe while she's on her back with her legs in the air. High heels are one of the greatest kink cliches ever.

chemical reactions occur regardless of what kind of man you are, they aren't determined by your integrity.

Who and what a man is depends on each individual. For instance, high heels. The intellectual aspect overrides whatever automatic response that is supposed to turn me into a raping robot. Seriously, on a good day, they're a neutral factor. If I stop and notice them, they're a turn-off. Mostly because I have yet to meet a woman who thinks the damn things are comfortable. So I do wonder why she's wearing them.

the grenade thing wasn't comparing men to weapons. its saying when you do something you can be responsible for the consequences. dressing like a slut doesn't justify rape, but i feel it makes them more likely to rape you.

Well, the problem with your comparison is that pulling the pin on a grenade essentially determines its eventual explosion. You could run around with rubber bands holding the trigger device in place, but still, that A leads to B in this case is a matter of design, physics, and intent. The grenade does not "choose" to explode.

There are, indeed, rapists who have no choice in the matter. We call them sociopaths or psychopaths, and try to keep them separated from society. The suggestion, however, that the average male has no choice in the matter only suggests that the average male should be locked away.

The problem with the whole "dressing like a slut makes them more likely to rape you" argument is that it fails entirely to address certain basic realities about rape. Again: the vast majority of women raped are assaulted by someone known to them.

So dressing like a slut doesn't actually have a whole lot to do with it. Which brings us to ....

and of course i don't want chicks to wear burquas. there are heaps of clothes i would say aren't designed to get male attention.

So why don't you enumerate for us your rape-prevention dress code?

Anyway, I think this is about the sixth time I've posted the following, and I'm going to continue pressing the issue until one of these ("I'm not a") rape advocates actually answers the issue:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:
• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

So take a shot at it, Codanblad. One of the reasons this whole "she was asking for it" excuse annoys people—well, okay, one of the reasons beside the obvious—is that it depends on such generalizations that it overlooks its own implications. Look at you: you've reduced the whole process of rape to something automatic.

Well, in what other ways was she asking for it? Accepting a date might suggest to a man that she wants him to fuck her. Being remotely intoxicated around a man might suggest she wants him to fuck her. Being alone with a man might suggest she wants him to fuck her. Not telling him to fuck off at the word "Hello" might suggest she wants him to fuck her.

Has it ever occurred to you that there is beauty among humans that doesn't lead to fucking?

And that's at the heart of it. While women are judged on their looks in matters of socialization, education, and hiring, apparently if they play along in the least, they're asking to be fucked.

Consider the implications of the "she was asking for it" argument you chose to defend and now stand by. Imagine for a moment, please, that women decide to take that argument seriously. You no longer get dates. If you're married, the only time you see your wife make any effort to show her beauty is for the five minutes before you shoot your load. Jesus, man, did you ever have one of those embarrassing moments when you asked a date, "What is that perfume?" and she said, "White Rain (http://www.whiterain.com/shamp_cond.asp)"? So think about that. The mere fact that she washed her hair might cause a man to become aroused. Hell, have you ever heard of "The Spanish Lady (http://www.contemplator.com/england/spanlady.html)", one of the greatest pub songs of all time?

As I came back through Dublin City
At the hour of half past eight,
Who should I spy but the Spanish lady
Brushing her hair in the broad daylight?
First she tossed it, then she brushed it,
On her lap was a silver comb.
In all my life I ne'er did see
A maid so fair since I did roam.

What I'm asking you to consider is what, beyond a woman's dress, might turn a man on. When I was in high school, there were these twins, see. And by popular standards, they weren't hot. One of them tried to be popular with the pop crowd, the other got along better with the art crowd. And the art one, she had an interesting wardrobe that pretty much hid her shape. Longjohns and a gypsy skirt, a t-shirt, long-sleeve pullover and jacket .... From both the physical and the psychospiritual, she was the more attractive one. The psychospiritual was clear. She wasn't as superficially oriented as her sister. She laughed more genuinely, as opposed to laughing on cue. Physically, though, while her sister showed off a little more, reserve won the day. I remember once I was sitting on the steps, looking up at her as she talked, and she turned to gesture, and for the briefest moment the perfect curve of the underside of her breast pressed through the layers of clothing, and in that moment, I really, really wanted her. And the physical response was not from anything that could remotely qualify as "slutting it up". Rather, it came as a result of her reserve, of hiding her form. So start with that. As you enumerate your rape-prevention dress code, consider that what you don't think of as overtly sexy will still turn men on.

But what else can a woman do, aside from how she dresses, that might turn a man on? Pretty much anything. It depends on the man. I mean, think about a scene from a cheap comedy:

Man: Hey, sweetheart. If I told you you had a wonderful body, would you hold it against me?

Woman: Fuck off.

Man: (to buddy as they watch her leave) She wants me.

Now, every once in a while, I'll hear, "She wants me". And for the most part, it's a joke. But I would be lying if I said I've never seen someone who actually believes that cold, outright rejection is simply part of the game, her way of telling him how much she wants him.

So think about it: How she dresses provokes a man. Washing her hair provokes a man. Rejecting his advances provokes a man.

And there's always someone out there who will say she was asking for it.

you're exaggerating or misconstruing everything i say in your zeal to persecute anyone who doesn't share your hatred of rapists.

I would suggest that if you do not wish to be included in a certain classification, you should not behave according to its identifying criteria. For instance, if you do not wish to be seen as a rape advocate, you should probably avoid statements like, "i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' ...", or comparing a man's decision to commit rape to a designed process that only fails according to a manufacturing error or circumstantial compromise.

In that context, though, I should note that it is interesting to see how men factionalize. There are those who identify against feminists who resent extreme depictions of men as robots eternally in pursuit of sexual gratification. And then there are those who are more than willing to depict men as robots as long as they get to justify rape.

i'm not sexist or immoral or an animal, just discussing the topic.

Right. Whatever you say.

You're clearly sexist. Morality is variable. And apparently you're transgendered°.

Just think about the implications of what you're pushing. I know it all sounds great when you're looking through the narrow gap, but since this is the sort of thing that pertains to people's entire lives, perhaps you might consider giving it some deeper thought.
____________________

Notes:

° transgendered — Help us out. What was your physical state as birth? And how do you identify now? The confusion arises because of two seemingly contradictory statements:

• "i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals." (#119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1878878))

• "i'm not sexist or immoral or an animal, just discussing the topic." (#121 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1879105))

So help us out. Are you a man? Are you not? Did it just seem like a good line when you posted it, but not so good when it came to disclaiming yourself?

phlogistician

05-31-08, 07:10 AM

I see, you've slyly changed it to 'people' now, instead of women, so as to muddy the issue.

Women are people. Maybe you think you can get away with objectifiying them and denigrating them, but I don't. BTW, that was a really lame attempt at weakening my argument, showing me that you have no honest or rational points to make on the subject.

In return for not raping a woman, the woman should dress very conservatively, showing off as little flesh as possible, so as not to goad the man. Preferably, she should be completely covered. Anything less than this is a degradation of nature, and an attempt to manipulate others.

Oh dear, that really is blame transference, and sounds like some throwback religious belief. It's the 21st century, wake up.

phlogistician

05-31-08, 07:14 AM

do you really think i'm trying to promote rape? i have a girlfriend i get to worry about when she goes to the city with friends etc. am surprised how aggressive you are. i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals.

Share these thoughts with your girlfriend. Tell her how you understand it would be her fault if she went out in a short skirt and got fucked and beaten, and that you would have no sympathy for her.

Hopefully she would dump you and find a decent human to spend her time with. You are an abomination.

DeepThought

05-31-08, 03:04 PM

But when she's walking down the street minding her own business, sorry but that's a matter for no one but her.

Wrong.

If a woman is attacked she must depend upon other men to help her, also, men must enforce her 'rights' through physical force, if necessary. Men are being bought into conflict with other men, all because of the corrupt desires of women, nurtured and encouraged by a power hungry economic elite.

Oli

05-31-08, 03:09 PM

Wrong.

If a woman is attacked she must depend upon other men to help her
Or take self-defence lessons.

Men are being bought into conflict with other men, all because of the corrupt desires of women, nurtured and encouraged by a power hungry economic elite.
"Corrupt desires of women"?? :eek:
What do you actually use in place of what would be thought processes in a human being?

visceral_instinct

05-31-08, 03:09 PM

A man acts like a responsible human being when he controls his sexual urges, but a woman does the opposite when she manipulates them to get attention.

Ignorance of the law does not excuse.

What makes you think that a woman must be manipulating them to get attention? This might be a difficult concept for you to get your head around, but some of us happen to dress to express ourselves. Sometimes the clothes we like to wear are tight and show our female morphology. Deal with it.

a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex, dressing in something sexy flips the switch labelled 'primal urges'. who's to say these urges aren't stronger than the moral codes you're expecting this person to have.

i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body. high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm. the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features.

So basicaly, according to your logic, we should all wear burqas, seeing as if you can see our female morphology, we're probably goading some poor innocnet male into raping us.

And if it's purely about uncontrolled sexual urges, why can't the man just go and sate his chemical lust by masturbating? And why do elderly women and pre-adolescent girls get raped??????

Tiassa

05-31-08, 03:36 PM

Oh dear, that really is blame transference, and sounds like some throwback religious belief. It's the 21st century, wake up.

You know, Phlog, Roman tried to give me some advice (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1877737) earlier in this topic, and I probably should have taken it. Except, of course, one of our rape advocates insisted that the basis of Roman's advice was wrong (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1877762), and, frankly, that was about all the encouragement I needed to keep trying to drive the point home.

That advice was, "He's using the wrong words to get you riled up .... It should be pretty obvious that the hyperbole is there to upset you."

And, in truth, Francois has done a pretty good job of pretending he sincerely believes the shit he's posting.

But I wanted to try to pass that advice along, sort of. Because I would suggest that DeepThought is desperately trying to tip his hand. I mean—

If a woman is attacked she must depend upon other men to help her, also, men must enforce her 'rights' through physical force, if necessary. Men are being bought into conflict with other men, all because of the corrupt desires of women, nurtured and encouraged by a power hungry economic elite.

—that is the most hilariously absurd thing written so far in this topic. Okay, it's the funniest thing that isn't also sickeningly morbid. The morbid competitor came from Codanblad:

i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals

See, the thing about this is that once upon a time, I actually made the mistake of saying, "I understand," to a rape survivor. You know, it's one of those things we toss around casually until we cross a line with it. And then we are reminded that some things we can't understand unless we've actually been there.

So I'm kind of torn. Our man Codanblad says he understands why people would commit rape. Is he being grossly irresponsible in trying to make a point, or is there, you know, a reason he understands?

And that kind of sucks the levity out of that bit, and, of course, spits it back up all over the upholstery.

But Deep Thought? I must admit, that's a good one. It's ridiculous, deliberate, and a tacit request to give some space so that he can stop digging and try to climb out of the hole.

• • •

A general note to those who intend to use humor as an excuse for repugnant arguments:

First, you need to work on your deliveries. One thing I'm well aware of is that in an arena like this, certain sarcasm and irony does not come across the way it is intended.

Secondly, the combination of subject matter and the dearth of sophistication about the "jokes" suggests a certain depravity. As long as your senses of humor are reserved entirely for yourselves, they're completely worthless.

So it's time for your confessions: How many times have you had a penis forced inside your body against your will?

Because some of us would greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn something about how denigrating your fellow rape survivors is helping you heal.

So you "humorists": the honest answer better be greater than zero.

• • •

Recommended reading for our "humorists":

McEwan, Melissa. "Rape is Hilarious #18". Shakesville. January 22, 2008. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/rape-is-hilarious.html

The excerpt:

Let me just reiterate my utter perplexity that anyone wants to be the total asshole who blindsides someone by evoking her (or his) memories of being raped, in the guise of "humor." Rape jokes can be as triggering as a rape scene in a film—and sometimes even more so, if they fly unexpectedly out of left field.

As I've said before, my objection isn't even rooted in finding rape jokes personally triggering anymore; I generally just find them pathetic and inexplicable. I'm more bothered by the fact that the jokes normalize and effectively minimize the severity of rape and thusly perpetuate the rape culture.

And I'm bothered by the thought of a woman who's recently been raped, who's just experienced what may be the worst thing that will ever happen to her, who turns on the telly to watch her favorite comedian and have a much-needed laugh—only to hear him using that horrible, life-changing thing as the butt of a joke. I still don't understand—and I don't believe I ever will—why anyone wants to be the guy who sends that shiver down her spine, who makes her eyes burn hot with tears at an unwanted memory while everyone laughs and laughs.

codanblad

05-31-08, 08:30 PM

Share these thoughts with your girlfriend. Tell her how you understand it would be her fault if she went out in a short skirt and got fucked and beaten, and that you would have no sympathy for her.

Hopefully she would dump you and find a decent human to spend her time with. You are an abomination.

i never said i have no sympathy for rape victims. of course i do. all i've said is i feel the way a girl dresses might contribute to her being raped. according to tiassa, statistics say otherwise, and i'm fine with that. maybe its only a tiny percentage of rape where that's a factor, perhaps not.

i did talk to my girlfriend. she thinks i'm offensive but can see what i'm saying. i think in every post i've mentioned that i think rape is wrong. everyone's so passionate about saying how bad rape is, that if i mention anything that's not a furious rant about evil rapists, you all vilify me.

tiassa, what i was saying about heels was that they simulate the feet during orgasm. i wasn't suggesting they pleasure a woman, i've only heard that they're uncomfortable. the stuff you brought up about rape being by people who know the person, i didn't know about that. i wasn't trying to refute any statistics or whatever, just saying the way a girl dresses might impact her chances of being raped.

I HATE RAPE! i think its awful. i don't feel any need to write more than that about it, anyone with half a brain knows its a despicable thing, end story. its like anyone who doesn't spend their posts in this topic abusing anyone who's not screaming at the top of their lungs how bad rape is, and how unfortunate people are, is a rapist. so fuck off.

Simon Anders

05-31-08, 08:59 PM

Perhaps it was a good thing that you were pressed into expressing your hatred of rape or facing what not saying it in this context leads to. Perhaps that is the main thing that needs to be expressed in this context. There's so much code 'philosophy' that is always 'innocent'. But we really don't need it. We can leave the nuanced reactions to what rape victims might have done to prevent that rape to their parents and friends and self-defense teachers teachers who can say these things in ways that are clear and are not code for blaming the victims. You can always go and talk with you guy pals about how fucked up a certain online forum was and how it is true that some women should really have done something different, etc.

codanblad

05-31-08, 09:41 PM

tiassa, i reread your post 123, and think you're just drawing way too many conclusions about me, and you're just wrong. just to help me out, for a moment forget all my posts on sciforums.

rape is wrong. i would be mortified to hear that anyone i know had been raped. women shouldn't have to do anything to avoid rape, men should stop raping women. i am not sexist, i don't judge people on gender.

clearly in not emphasising my values throughout posts, its making people think i'm deranged or evil or something. i am not kadark. i thought that girls dressing sexily MIGHT increase their chances of being raped. this in no way mitigates committing rape, i am just suggesting that in some cases, it might be a way of exciting rapists, or helping them choose targets. should statistics say otherwise, i accept that.

tiassa said

Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:
• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)

you're right. its completely ridiculous that some men are so primal, sexist, stupid etc. i also think it sucks that women should have to go to any length to avoid being raped. but i agree that taking those precautions might help her avoid rape or other unwanted attention. again, unfair to women.

as for 'there's more to life than sex', i completely agree. 'there is no greater truth to be found below the navel' - quote i heard somewhere.

for those of you thinking i'm just desperately conforming, due to my fear of your righteous fury (in post form), i'd like to say i've been described as blunt and tactless many times in my life. when i talked to my gf as suggested by phylogistician, she said could see why people were attacking me, due to how my arguments were worded. so this is my effort to fix that, i hope it clears things up.

phlogistician

06-01-08, 06:59 AM

i never said i have no sympathy for rape victims. of course i do. all i've said is i feel the way a girl dresses might contribute to her being raped.

So you'd have less sympathy, thinking they somehow brought it on themselves?

Look bub, your philosophy is skewed. If your girlfriend was raped one night when she was out dressed in a short skirt, would you dare say to her afterwards that she was partly responsible for what happened?

Because if you wouldn't say it, then you don't really think it. Imagine your girlfriend crying, bloodied, beaten, with some monster's semen inside her, and try and tell me you would pontificate.

Gustav

06-01-08, 07:12 AM

i hope it clears things up.

nice
thank you

Gustav

06-01-08, 07:13 AM

pardon but do hookers have a dress code?

Simon Anders

06-01-08, 08:25 AM

...........

for those of you thinking i'm just desperately conforming, due to my fear of your righteous fury (in post form), i'd like to say i've been described as blunt and tactless many times in my life. when i talked to my gf as suggested by phylogistician, she said could see why people were attacking me, due to how my arguments were worded. so this is my effort to fix that, i hope it clears things up.
I think it's great that you took this up with your girlfriend and can see why people are reacting the way they have. That's pretty raw.

And it speaks well of being blunt and tactless if one learns from what happens afterwards. More people should be blunt and tactless and capable of learning.

Politeness has not got us anywhere despite civilizations pretentions.

Simon Anders

06-01-08, 08:26 AM

pardon but do hookers have a dress code?

How do you want me to dress, baby?

But of course prostitutes can be raped, despite the contradictions this seems to reveal for certain minds. And protitutes who are raped were not asking for it either.

Gustav

06-01-08, 12:58 PM

/aghast

but of course
"fuck me" is not "rape me"

/slinks away

Varda

06-01-08, 02:07 PM

Aren't you forgeting that rape is actually about power, control and anger, not necessarily about sexual desire? That most rapists have acess to non-criminal sex? That what the rapist is not able to control is not a sexual urge, it's a need to gain power over a person and use it to unleash their anger?

How much would the dress code actually influence a person's capacity to control that?

Gustav

06-01-08, 02:30 PM

How much would the dress code actually influence a person's capacity to control that?

in that particular case not much. yet the dress code cannot be factored out as a variable in that context. contrast the emotions induced by a matronly or a nun's habit vs a boob top and mini skirt.

perhaps moving away from the bitches........a job interview....casual vs suit. the latter would be favorable to the goal. the suit induces the expected emotions in that context (respect,stability, competence, etc)

once again, one would have to be sociopathic to imagine "fuck me" attire is a green light to fuck. there other additional cues required like a verbal or physical assent. it most certainly is not a green light for rape.

studies have indicated that bitches have rape fantasies (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Women's+erotic+rape+fantasies:+an+evaluation+of+th eory+and+research.-a0176374283). i hold that is semantically an impossible state of affairs.

they are giving consent thus it is not rape. just masochism. quite humdrum actually

Gustav

06-01-08, 02:35 PM

Aren't you forgeting that rape is actually about power, control and anger, not necessarily about sexual desire? That most rapists have acess to non-criminal sex? That what the rapist is not able to control is not a sexual urge, it's a need to gain power over a person and use it to unleash their anger?

the first sentence is contradictory. it is either wholly, partially or not at all (power). the rest are unwarranted assumptions in that context

visceral_instinct

06-01-08, 02:43 PM

Re: the assertion that rape is about uncontrolled sexual urges. I'm not a man, so I wouldn't know, but however sexually excited I might be, the idea of forcing myself on someone, not that I actually could, would kind of take the edge off it just a little...know how I mean?

Gustav

06-01-08, 02:58 PM

pardon but do hookers have a dress code?

i was initially dumbfounded at that. a backtrack seemed in order so i did so.
however the idea was intended as an anthropological and sociological observation of grooming and the reasons behind doing so. a dynamic is being initiated and the stage is being set. i believe we are discussing the script

moving on....

provocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal))...

In criminal law, provocation is a possible defense by excuse or exculpation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control (a permanent loss of control is in the realm of insanity) as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge. Provocation can be a relevant factor in a court's assessment of a defendant's mens rea, intention, or state of mind, at the time of an act of which the defendant is accused.

Provocation is generally the result of some conduct witnessed or experienced by the defendant. In some states, mere gestures, taunts or fighting words are insufficient. ...

neither is cockteasing (unfortunately)

Gustav

06-01-08, 04:18 PM

For instance, high heels. The intellectual aspect overrides whatever automatic response that is supposed to turn me into a raping robot. Seriously, on a good day, they're a neutral factor. If I stop and notice them, they're a turn-off. Mostly because I have yet to meet a woman who thinks the damn things are comfortable. So I do wonder why she's wearing them.

umm
it accentuates the buttocks, lengthens the legs and tightens the calves

alternate reply

instant butt lift, baby! the bitches offer the ass up. the guys do thier best to tap it

codanblad

06-01-08, 08:06 PM

So you'd have less sympathy, thinking they somehow brought it on themselves?

Look bub, your philosophy is skewed. If your girlfriend was raped one night when she was out dressed in a short skirt, would you dare say to her afterwards that she was partly responsible for what happened?

Because if you wouldn't say it, then you don't really think it. Imagine your girlfriend crying, bloodied, beaten, with some monster's semen inside her, and try and tell me you would pontificate.

i wouldn't say it because it'd be rubbing salt in the wounds, and it'd do way more harm than good. and of course i'd say to my mates 'i wish she hadn't dressed so attractively'. i'd also say 'i wish she hadn't gone', 'i wish i'd gone with her', etc. anything to have prevented it from happening.

my sympathy for my girlfriend and all people depends on how much they're suffering. you can acknowledge they might have made bad choices, but people suffering is always a sad thing.

i can see what you're trying to say, but the way i act isn't decided by my opinions, only influenced. what i say doesn't have to be what i think. my thoughts remain private when suitable (sometimes lol).

purple_hairstreak

06-02-08, 05:36 AM

I find the whole idea of "dressing provocatively" ridiculous. Let me talk completely subjectively, as an Indian woman. The traditional attire for a female Indian adult is the sari. Now, it's too complicated to explain the sari if you haven't seen one being worn but it's basically a long piece of cloth wound around the body over a short, tight blouse. Basically, the whole body is covered except the waist... (Incidentally, the female waist is considered extremely sexy by Indian men, I'd say even more so than breasts or legs) Now this is considered the "proper" traditional clothes for a woman to wear. However, wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt is considered less proper than a sari despite the fact that it covers every inch of skin that could be considered provocative. Now, according to several enlightened men here, I'd be "asking for it" if I wore the jeans because it is considered more "slutty" where I live. But, in fact, a "virtuous" woman who wears only saris is equally likely to get raped as is a women who wears a salwar-kameez which covers even more of the body than jeans. So no matter which outfit I choose, I'm "asking for it", because I can never say which man would find which outfit arousing. What I'm trying to say is that the definition of "slutty" varies from individual to individual, culture to culture--and any argument based on such a variable would be invalid. So let's stop trying to pretend that a woman can control a man's mind and desires by what she wears.

codanblad

06-02-08, 05:59 AM

purple_hairstreak

06-02-08, 06:31 AM

Bells

06-02-08, 07:33 AM

there's a lot more clothes than saris and jeans. i bet certain clothes would attract a whole less attention than the clothes chicks wear clubbing. sure there'd be a tiny number that like whatever clothes we can pick, but it about reducing likelihood, not eliminating it.

Just imagine you are driving down the road looking for a carpark near your favourite club. What would stand out to you the most? A woman wearing "slutty clothes" or a woman wearing a burka (as one example)? What would attract your attention the most?

A rapist doesn't care about what the woman (or the man or child) happens to be wearing. You are also ignoring the fact that the greater majority of rape victims know their rapists, in that the rapist is either a relative, spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, workmate, etc. Do you think a husband, for example, would only be inclined or tempted to rape his wife when she was wearing a mini skirt? Which leads us onto your next point..

that said, apparently most rape is about power. i'm only talking about the portion that is affected by what women wear. no one thinks 'im gonna rape that cardboard box shuffling across the pavement'.
Lets use the husband raping his wife as another example. Why do you think he would rape her? Why do you think men beat and rape their wives? You see, rape is not "apparently" about power. The greater majority of rapes is about power. It is about subjugating the victim and making them feel that they are powerless. Rape is about taking away the victim's rights over their own body and their lives.

And you are wrong. A rapist would not care about whether the victim was wearing a cardboard box, a burka, slutty clothes, jeans, etc. If their clothes was a primary cause, then the figures would show it via a greater number of 'stranger rapes'. But they do not. The facts and the figures show and support the simply truth that the majority of rapes are committed by people known to the victim.

So the only way of reducing rape numbers or reducing the chance of being raped is to simply never meet with anyone of the opposite sex or of the same sex as well (men do rape other men, as to women rape other women).

visceral_instinct

06-02-08, 12:25 PM

What if scanty clothing is in fact functional (to avoid overheating), like when you're dancing in a nightclub, or it's a brutally hot summer? What if you've got a high metabolism and overheat easily? Should a woman wear 'modest' clothing and suffer from heatstroke, because otherwise she's asking to be raped?

sniffy

06-02-08, 12:39 PM

Women should wear whatever the hell they like.

Women who are raped should report it.

And for those men who think women who dress in 'small' clothes are 'asking for it'. Please do not confuse 'asking for it' with 'yes loser I'd like to fuck you now so why don't you come over and brutally assault me against my will.' as a good few years in jail often offends (as any rapist whose ever bent down in the showers of an all male prison will tell ya.)

So to reiterate to those men who think that women are asking to be raped because they dare to be out at night dressed in anything less than a burka.

WOMEN WHO ARE OUT AT NIGHT REGARDLESS OF THEIR ATTIRE ARE NOT ASKING TO BE RAPED!

Is that clear enough for you fellas?

visceral_instinct

06-02-08, 12:48 PM

I agree with you, I was being sarcastic, or I wouldn't have started this thread.

sniffy

06-02-08, 01:42 PM

I agree with you, I was being sarcastic, or I wouldn't have started this thread.

Do not assume that I was addressing you.

As far as I'm concerned such a matter is not a matter for debate; hence the style of my post. If a woman walks the street naked she is not 'asking' to be raped. No woman is asking for, or deserving of, rape.

Gustav

06-02-08, 04:36 PM

an age old ritual......
"you are not going out dressed like that, are you?" says mom

generational mores or something more?

Tiassa

06-02-08, 05:08 PM

umm
it accentuates the buttocks, lengthens the legs and tightens the calves

One wonders how much social conditioning comes into that. Because, like I said, I don't recall ever hearing anyone assert that high heels are comfortable.

Something I noted to Codanblad implies a certain contrast:

Has it ever occurred to you that there is beauty among humans that doesn't lead to fucking?

And that's at the heart of it. While women are judged on their looks in matters of socialization, education, and hiring, apparently if they play along in the least, they're asking to be fucked.

I made this point because I regularly encounter women in business attire that includes high heels. I don't think a lawyer in a thousand-dollar suit is suggesting with high heels that anyone should try to penetrate her.

So the contrast is why a woman would wear high heels:

• Because she's horny and wants someone to have sex with her.
• Because she perceives such shoes as part of an expected "uniform".

In the vast majority of cases, I'm going to go with #2, or even a third, more obscure reason that, in wearing high heels, a woman increases her apparent height and projects a notion of power or authority that may or may not be real. What, for instance, is the current rule of thumb for those who would "dress for success"?

Anyone remember Robin Williams' lesbian joke from Good Morning Vietnam? We don't call them dykes. We call them women in comfortable shoes.

Feminism 101: A woman is expected to tart herself up in order to be taken seriously, although, since she is tarted up, she is not to be taken seriously.

This is true almost exclusively because phallocentric society has such a broad definition of what constitutes tarting or slutting it up.

• • •

A note for Codanblad:

I haven't been ignoring you, but rather, in light of #132 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1880076), I intend to give you room to work and maneuver. Part of the reason is that you really do seem to be trying. At the same time, I confess I find the obligation to take certain ideas seriously wearying. And, to be sure, you appear to still be thinking too much about yourself. Rubbing salt in the wounds? That would suggest the point is excessive. Do more harm than good? Absolutely correct. But you'd still say it to your mates, and still make it about you: "anything to have prevented it from happening".

No. You know what, man? There's nothing you or anyone else could have done to prevent it from happening. Woulda-coulda-shoulda disappears once the reality is upon someone close to you. One of the first things you realize when it's someone close to you is that none of that matters. As a practical matter, it's a strange place to be. Part of you wants to bolt; this is more than most of us, as friends and family of rape survivors, are prepared to deal with. But another part will beg for impossibility: What can I do to bring about healing?

It seems a contradiction. There is nothing you can do to bring about healing. To the other, though, there is a lot you can do to help.

When you stay, you accept certain burdens that can, if you let them, drive you mad. They're dynamic obligations that never present themselves in any definitive sense. But at the same time, they are insubstantial in a certain context: it is absurd to complain about them. After all, when it's not your ass that requires surgical repair, or your blood that needs to be tested over and over again for HIV, or your wardrobe, reputation, musical taste, hairstyle, manner of talking to people, and essential self that is put on trial in order to defend a rapist, you're the lucky one.

When we stay, we accept our burdens gladly. And if we cannot do that, we should abandon ship and never pretend for a moment that we do so for any other reason than our inability or unwillingness to stand with our friends and family in hours of dire necessity.

Asguard

06-02-08, 06:31 PM

here is another point. Your going to meet your partner for his\her Birthday (aniversary, who cares what its about) and yes you intend to have sex so you dress up "provoctivaly" to surprise them.

Now some people on here seem to be suggesting that because a person has an intention to alow ONE person to have sex with them and acts acordingly that means its ok for every other person to rape them???

Your joking right

To the person who was talking about rape fantasy it has nothing to do with REAL rape. Alot of partners fantasise about power and control, why do you think handcuffs are so popular. Firstly it goes back to the supression of womens sexuality because if a women is forced then she isnt responcable for wanting it and so can lay back and enjoy it without guilt. There are alot of other reasons as well going deeper into dominace and submission which i cant be bothered going into but the big difference between this and REAL rape is that the submissive partner knows that if they want to stop (by using a code word or whatever) the other person WILL stop (ie they have trust in there partner). This most cirtanly isnt the case in rape.

Lastly bells and tiassa are right in there comments that a) rape is MOST common by someone you know (ie a partner, date rape, a family member or a close friend). Random rapes are quite uncommon and though i dont have exact statistics i would guess they are probably around the same level as random murders (ie VERY low)

and b) that rape is about power rather than sex. Hell if sex was all it was about then we could end rape by the state subsidising hookers.

Now we all know there are cirtan things ANYONE can do to protect themselves in SOME situations. For instance making sure you buy your OWN drinks and that no one else every touches them, yet even these protections dont always work. A friend of PB's had her drink spiked when she was at a club recently. She did the right thing and looked after her drink and she was with not only her partner but with a bouncer who was a close friend of hers (which was VERY lucky it turns out). She colapsed and ended up in hospital and when the police investigated it turns out it was the barmen who was spiking the drinks. How do you protect yourself from that?

Life is about risk and even locking yourself up in your house wont mitigate that risk, all anyone can do is be cauious but when that fails we shouldnt be blaming the victom. Its the person who comits the offence who is at fault

Gustav

06-02-08, 11:20 PM

i think perhaps if the disparity in income b/w the sexes is eliminated, women could be just like men. a fuck for fucks sake and not as a bargaining chip or leverage.

i got a lot of pleasure from eyeballing the gi bitches in iraq barking orders to the native menfolk

codanblad

06-02-08, 11:33 PM

here's my opinion, as simple as i can put it.

an amoral man who enjoys sex is out for a stroll in the park at night. he's been to jail before, he's not afraid of the law. while walking he thinks to himself:

'hmm you know, this park is really dark at night. and women walk through here by themselves. perhaps i'll lie in wait, capture a beautiful woman and have glorious sex with her, confident in the odds that i won't be caught. many rapes aren't even reported, and seeing as i'll be wearing a balclava, her police report will be meaningless.'

so he lies in wait for a beautiful woman. like most men, he finds girls dressed sexily more attractive than girls wearing a hoodie and jeans. so that's who he rapes.

all i'm saying is that situation is a possibility. wearing sexy clothes might make you the target, or encourage men capable (but not determined at the time, until seeing you in skank attire and being turned on) of rape. i'm working on the assumption slutty clothes make women more attractive to men. and that some men decide to rape simply cos they see something they want. they probably love dominating that person as well, they love power.

is my suggestion a possibility? i read a book by a woman who survived rape, and she didn't know the man who raped her, he just grabbed her in a park and did her in the bushes. whether or not you believe that is up to you i suppose, her story was that she later helped police catch her rapist and wrote the book to help women deal with rape.

RAPE IS AWFUL

WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, RAPISTS SHOULD STOP RAPING

THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANCE WHAT YOU WEAR MIGHT AFFECT WHETHER YOU GET RAPED BY A CERTAIN KIND OF RAPIST. I'M NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO WEAR, I'M JUST RAISING A POINT.

the measures a person takes to avoid rape is up to them. i reckon the values of wearing sexy clothes outweigh the minute chance you have of being raped due to what you wore. but it is a POSSIBILITY that it will have an effect.

should you disagree with me, you must be presuming to know the exact motives of every rapist and potential rapist who ever lived. that is why i have an issue with people disagreeing with me.

CutsieMarie89

06-02-08, 11:48 PM

the measures a person takes to avoid rape is up to them. i reckon the values of wearing sexy clothes outweigh the minute chance you have of being raped due to what you wore. but it is a POSSIBILITY that it will have an effect.

should you disagree with me, you must be presuming to know the exact motives of every rapist and potential rapist who ever lived. that is why i have an issue with people disagreeing with me.

But you could say the same thing the other way around, that a woman wearing conservative attire turned on some psycho because the tought of making a prim and proper women submit to his whiles trns him on. Bottom line women and men should be careful when walking alone regardless of the time of day. And if your like me and constantly attract unwarranted attention then learn self defense or learn how to wield and carry a weapon, I've managed to do both. Its worked so far... *knock on wood*

Gustav

06-03-08, 12:08 AM

RAPE IS AWFUL

WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, RAPISTS SHOULD STOP RAPING

THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANCE WHAT YOU WEAR MIGHT AFFECT WHETHER YOU GET RAPED BY A CERTAIN KIND OF RAPIST. I'M NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO WEAR, I'M JUST RAISING A POINT.

it sickens me to see males get to this point
we are groveling in fear

fucking bitches
i know your game
expect hell

Pandaemoni

06-03-08, 12:10 AM

I am surprised to see people who think that women who dress to look nice are partly responsible for their own sexual assaults. It's rather like thinking that the U.S. was partly "asking for" 9/11 based on our policies in the Middle East, or that people who live in mansions are enticing burglars to come rob them.

Gustav

06-03-08, 12:15 AM

out of the mouths of babes

/chuckle

codanblad

06-03-08, 01:43 AM

goddammit. saying their clothes had something to do with it, doesn't mean i think they were asking for it. they're entitled to wear whatever they want. i'm saying it may have been a factor during the rapist selection process. and i believe a greater number of rapists would be attracted to women wearing clothes designed to make women attractive, compared to everyday clothes.

why do people think sexual urges have NOTHING to do with rape? rape is obligation free sex.

codanblad

06-03-08, 01:53 AM

So basically you're saying: "Oh you'll get raped anyway, but dress conservatively, in a way that wouldn't arouse men, just in case."

You have completely missed my point. I'm trying to say that no matter how women dress, men still rape them.

i'm not telling people what to do. its a person's own choice

of course, no matter how women dress they get raped. that's cos nudity isn't really an option. that doesn't mean clothes haven't affected various situations.

I am surprised to see people who think that women who dress to look nice are partly responsible for their own sexual assaults. It's rather like thinking that the U.S. was partly "asking for" 9/11 based on our policies in the Middle East, or that people who live in mansions are enticing burglars to come rob them.

rich people own mansions. rich people have stuff worth stealing in mansions. despite people deserving to own whatever they want, and despite no one wanting to be robbed, mansions do entice burglars.

didn't america carpet bomb afghanistan a few years before 9/11, and invade iraq a couple of years after? its nice how you call them policies, but what kind of response do you expect?

Randwolf

06-03-08, 02:25 AM

Oh, good grief... If you get over the semantics, there are valid points here... Maybe, it's just a matter of perspective. Maybe men are projecting[I] their viewpoint unto women. For example, there are plenty of places in the city, that if I am walking there, I would not want to be dressed in nothing but a pair of skimpy shorts, no shirt, no shoes, etc. (And I am a 200 lb muscular male) It just makes you feel more vulnerable, and probably means you [I]are more vulnerable. This does not mean that i am "asking for" violence or harassement. It does, however, IMHO, increase the probability that I will be harassed in someway. Conversly, walking alone down certain streets dressed in a $2,000.00 suit also (again, IMHO) increases the probability that I will be harassed by certain unsavory elements. If everything we hear in the media is true, rape is about violence, not sex, so isn't there some kind of parallel here? Even if it's not a one hundred percent correct analogy? Are you really trying to say that you have no infuence over the likelihood of staying safe by taking precautions, or are you confusing caution with the right to do as you please? In an ideal world, anyone should be able to do anything, without fear of harm or reprisal, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's right to do the same. We don't live in a perfect world....

Gustav

06-03-08, 02:32 AM

ja
i am sure that is what mom had in mind when advising her little girl

Creeptology

06-03-08, 02:37 AM

I agree that rape is more about violence and less about sex. Obviously rapists ARE sexually aroused by the act, but it's not romantic or sexual, it's the violence/power side that gets them aroused. Hence many rapists are incapable of "normal" arousal because it's not "sexily dressed" women that they get off on, it's violence and overpowering someone. Many people seem ignorant of this and think it's about not being able to control their sexual desire.

What's the problem with women wearing what they want, of course they are not to blame for any harassment. The fault lies with the ignorant men who are doing the harassment. It might be easy to blame the women for their clothing but if you check it logically it's the fault of the person who harasses or attacks the woman. Many people with this mentality will do so no matter what people wear but if they stand out it might be more likely they attract the attention of others. This however is not an excuse for people acting like that, just because someone wears clothing that attracts attention doesn't mean you can blame them for the ignorance and poor behaviour of those who direct abuse of any kind at them.

Randwolf

06-03-08, 02:49 AM

Please bo not confuse blame, or more appropriately perhaps, responsibility, with prudence. In no way whatsoever does a woman take ownership of being raped, or imply in any form or fashion that there is a desire to be raped or harassed, because of what whe wears. (or doesn't wear, the same argument extends if she chooses to walk naked) However, prudence dictates that we do certain things in certain settings, and perhaps not in others. Again, my personal example still stands... If I (as a male) walk down a street in the bad part of town dressed in nothing but a skimpy bathing suit / $2,000 silk suit, am I increasing my vulnerability, am I "standing out", and are my chances of being physically accosted increased? Yes or no?

phlogistician

06-03-08, 03:39 AM

so he lies in wait for a beautiful woman. like most men, he finds girls dressed sexily more attractive than girls wearing a hoodie and jeans.

You said it was dark. How can he see what they are wearing? Surely, it would be easier to grab a girl in a hoodie; when I studied Judo, we used to wear Gi, to grab a hold of.

You sound rather immature, to be honest, I think you need to get some more life exeprience, and find out more about the victims and perpetrators, and fantasize less about the mechanics.

Randwolf

06-03-08, 03:51 AM

"why do people think sexual urges have NOTHING to do with rape? rape is obligation free sex"

RUBBISH!
Obligation free? As opposed to consensual sex? Have you ever had sex? With a willing partner?

Furthermore, no one is saying "sexual urges have NOTHING to do with rape", sexual urges have a great deal to do with every type of human behavior! However, that does not mean that rape is primarily about sex, it simply says that sex is a "factor" in rape... By all accounts, a very minimal factor, compared to violence and control...

In any event, the question is, can a woman change her chances of being traumatized sexually? Specifically, does her clothing (or lack thereof) have any bearing on rape or harassment? If it doesn't, does she have any influence, whatsoever, over the probability of being raped, or is it purely random chance? :shrug:

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:02 AM

Anyone? Anyone at all? Beuller?

If I (as a male) walk down a street in the bad part of town dressed in nothing but a skimpy bathing suit, or conversly, a $2,000 silk suit, am I increasing my vulnerability, am I "standing out", and are my chances of being physically accosted increased? Yes or no?

sniffy

06-03-08, 04:20 AM

Everyone here is assuming that all rape victims are skimpily dressed lasses wandering around alone at night in nefarious parts of town. The truth is somewhat different I'll wager.....

Here's some news that some here may find startling:
Children are raped
Elderly people are raped
Mothers who do not dress in nighclubbing clothes are raped
Women who wear floor length saris are raped
Women who dress from head to toe in cloth are raped
Women are raped within their own homes
Men are raped
Married women are raped
Single women are raped
Prostitutes are raped
Girls are raped by their own family members
Women are raped by strangers

So dears. What do you conclude? Exactly how does a person avoid being raped?

codanblad

06-03-08, 04:24 AM

You said it was dark. How can he see what they are wearing? Surely, it would be easier to grab a girl in a hoodie; when I studied Judo, we used to wear Gi, to grab a hold of.

You sound rather immature, to be honest, I think you need to get some more life exeprience, and find out more about the victims and perpetrators, and fantasize less about the mechanics.

he'd pick a park with streetlights or some form of visibility. generally moonlight and lampposts are sufficient enough, but i suppose he could carry a torch if necessary. a hoodie would make things easy, but he has all night to pick someone, and is fully capable of subduing a woman. he's armed and capable.

i can see why you think i'm immature and fantasizing, but i've had to create this elaborate story just to explain that its possible for a man to be in a position to pick someone to rape. check out the statistics-

http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/stop.html

-70% of rapees knew their attacker.
-On average, from 1992-2000, only 31% of all rapes were reported.
-Probability that an arrest will be made when a rape is reported: 1:2. (50.8%) (National Center for Policy Analysis, 1999)
-The overall probability that a rapist will be sent to prison for his crime: 16.3%-The average sentence: 128 days

by raping someone, you have about a 16% chance of going to jail for committing rape. these calculations don't even include being a smart rapist, picking targets less likely to report you, the manner in which you rape them, your disguise etc. could all lessen your odds of being caught.

the point of this is with such low risks, is it possible some men prefer the excitement, sex and power of raping someone, to having to pay for sex with some worn out old hooker, or putting the work (and money) in with a gf? if they chose rape for such reasons, might they pick their women based on attractiveness? might their clothes determine their attractiveness?

could anyone agree to such a suggestion? if you could agree its even a tiny possibility, regardless of the lack of likelihood, regardless of the fact women shouldn't have to fear rapists, please post so.

codanblad

06-03-08, 04:35 AM

"why do people think sexual urges have NOTHING to do with rape? rape is obligation free sex"

RUBBISH!
Obligation free? As opposed to consensual sex? Have you ever had sex? With a willing partner?

Furthermore, no one is saying "sexual urges have NOTHING to do with rape", sexual urges have a great deal to do with every type of human behavior! However, that does not mean that rape is primarily about sex, it simply says that sex is a "factor" in rape... By all accounts, a very minimal factor, compared to violence and control...:

i don't see how you've disputed rape being obligation free sex. other than calling it rubbish. girlfriends cost time and money, so do hookers. rape is an economical alternative. with bonus feelings of power, adrenaline rush, and perhaps access to women you couldn't normally sleep with.

if it ends up that power etc. is a greater bonus to sex, ok. they still might have selected the victim on appearance. check post 173

codanblad

06-03-08, 04:36 AM

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:37 AM

Not at all... As numerous posters have pointed out, there is little/no correlation between being "scantily clad" and being raped, as most rape victims know their attackers...

However...

I am trying to find out if people believe that a female has

A:No, B:Little, C:Some, D:Total...... you get the idea

influence on her likelihood of being harassed and/or raped, by a stranger, in a "public" environment.

Note: This is not the same as "asking for it", being "at fault, blamed" or anything else other than the question as it is phrased... (Including the how can she "avoid being raped" question - stop trying to sidetrack...)

Is this, like, an extremely difficult concept? Why won't anyone directly address this? It has been alluded to many times... Is it just that this is such an emotionally charged issue that no one can respond logically?

And once again, regardless of your answer to the above, I am interested to see how these same people feel about the following:

If I (as a male) walk down a street in the bad part of town dressed in nothing but a skimpy bathing suit, or conversly, a $2,000 silk suit, am I increasing my vulnerability, am I "standing out", and are my chances of being physically accosted increased? Yes or no?

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:38 AM

Sorry, 3 posts appeared before i hit enter... :p :p

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:42 AM

i don't see how you've disputed rape being obligation free sex. other than calling it rubbish. girlfriends cost time and money, so do hookers. rape is an economical alternative. with bonus feelings of power, adrenaline rush, and perhaps access to women you couldn't normally sleep with.

if it ends up that power etc. is a greater bonus to sex, ok. they still might have selected the victim on appearance. check post 173

Let's see....

Obligation free? Hope you don't get caught...

Most people put a pretty heavy obligation on rape... Hardly seems worth it... 20 yrs?

Still think rape is obligation free?

What about any decency you used to have as a human being? Kind of makes a dinner and a movie seem kind of "obligation free"....

sniffy

06-03-08, 04:46 AM

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:51 AM

So statistically speaking, 70% of women who have reported being raped know their attacker you are still clinging to the 'women stop going out scantilly clad and you'll reduce your chances of being raped' assertion?

Are you being deliberately stupid or are you just arseholes?

I wonder how many times, in how many ways, I can ask this? :confused:

Not at all... As numerous posters have pointed out, there is little/no correlation between being "scantily clad" and being raped, as most rape victims know their attackers...

However...

I am trying to find out if people believe that a female has

A:No, B:Little, C:Some, D:Total...... you get the idea

influence on her likelihood of being harassed and/or raped, by a stranger, in a "public" environment.

And, once again... (redundant, yes?)

And once again, regardless of your answer to the above, I am interested to see how these same people feel about the following:

If I (as a male) walk down a street in the bad part of town dressed in nothing but a skimpy bathing suit, or conversly, a $2,000 silk suit, am I increasing my vulnerability, am I "standing out", and are my chances of being physically accosted increased? Yes or no?

No one will touch this, will they?

Gustav

06-03-08, 04:58 AM

/waiting

codanblad

06-03-08, 05:00 AM

If I (as a male) walk down a street in the bad part of town dressed in nothing but a skimpy bathing suit, or conversly, a $2,000 silk suit, am I increasing my vulnerability, am I "standing out", and are my chances of being physically accosted increased? Yes or no?

No one will touch this, will they?

i would say yes it would, depending on when and where you are. mardi gra - no it wouldn't.

So statistically speaking, 70% of women who have reported being raped know their attacker you are still clinging to the 'women stop going out scantilly clad and you'll reduce your chances of being raped' assertion?

Are you being deliberately stupid or are you just arseholes?

i'm not telling women to do anything. i think there's a tiny possibility that what you wear might affect your chances of being raped. i'm emphasizing how miniscule the difference in likelihood might be though.

codanblad

06-03-08, 05:03 AM

Gustav

06-03-08, 05:04 AM

i want a synopsis of this thread. the players and arguments
i will then make it worth your while
i promise

Randwolf

06-03-08, 05:05 AM

Does anyone disagree with codanblad's #182 post?

Do you really?

Perhaps people have absolutely no control over their destinies? What a stupid proposition that would be... (of course, that leads to a discussion of determinism, I guess)

Gustav

06-03-08, 05:07 AM

i'm only suggesting....

you are drafted
hop to it
a synopsis of thread

Randwolf

06-03-08, 05:10 AM

i want a synopsis of this thread. the players and arguments
i will then make it worth your while
i promise

Guess "rape" doesn't warrant, like, actually reading the thread?

Gustav

06-03-08, 05:26 AM

Guess "rape" doesn't warrant, like, actually reading the thread?

you ask...Does anyone disagree with codanblad's #182 post?

if you read thread, you would know

now, ignoring the bracketing, who and where is the victim in order that i be concerned? what i see is a goddamn strawman.

do it!
post a synopsis
analyze gender of posters as well

Randwolf

06-03-08, 05:35 AM

you ask...Does anyone disagree with codanblad's #182 post?

if you read thread, you would know

Slow down there, big rigger...

The important point, which I'm sure you embraced but chose not to notice...

codanblad's ]#182 - only... as in, no reference made to the rest of his post's...

So, since you're the only one to reply afterward, I fail to see how I would know that answer if I read the thread...

Enlighten me with a limerick, perhaps?

sniffy

06-03-08, 05:46 AM

No one will touch this, will they?

Because it is irrelevant to the argument dufus!

The majority of rapists are neighbours, husbands, boyfriends, relatives, co-workers, etc. In other words - the common denominator is being KNOWN to the victim NOT victim's clothing!

Now fuck off with your pathetic women who are .......oh I can't even be bothered.

codanblad

06-03-08, 05:52 AM

even if the victim is known to the rapist, did the victim's clothes influence the rapist's decision?

whether the rapist's motivation was sexual, or a need for power, or love of violence, or the adrenaline rush - did the victims clothes help them pick a target?

does a girl in slutty clothes appear more vulnerable? wouldn't that appeal to rapists?

sniffy

06-03-08, 05:59 AM

Codanblad you are now flaming.

The answer is No!

Randwolf

06-03-08, 06:05 AM

Randwolf

06-03-08, 06:07 AM

Yaaaaayyyy sniffy - font size wins!!!!

Randwolf

06-03-08, 06:24 AM

Now fuck off with your pathetic women who are .......oh I can't even be bothered.

Whatever are you going on about, my dear? :bugeye:

phlogistician

06-03-08, 06:33 AM

he'd pick a park with streetlights or some form of visibility. generally moonlight and lampposts are sufficient enough,

But you said;

'hmm you know, this park is really dark at night

So, is it dark, or lit? Seems your rape fantasy needs some work. Anyway, what the person wears is immaterial, but being out at night, in a park, in the proximity of a rapist intent on committing the act, is far more the point. Think they pick and choose that much? Think nutters like 'The Yorkshire Ripper' used to watch the girls go by until the right one happened along, or do you perhaps, think it was senseless?

Gustav

06-03-08, 06:35 AM

codanblad's ]#182 - only... as in, no reference made to the rest of his post's...

why should it? you were looking for answers contrary to his assertion.
the fact that you asked indicates you take issue with the tenor of the thread.
that in turn.......

i find it strange you consider me an antagonist.......

phlogistician

06-03-08, 06:42 AM

does a girl in slutty clothes

Just quit with the fucking judgmental comments, eh? 'slutty clothes'? For fucks sake, how many times are you going to denigrate women?

Listen you idiot, dressing in a certain way conveys no clues. Do you think women on the beach, or at the pool are in a more 'slutty' mood than when they cover up? Does wearing a bikini equal an invite to have their tits groped?

NO.

Why don't rapists frequent the beach if they like scantily clad women, eh? Why are nudist colonies/beaches rife with crime against the person?

Gustav

06-03-08, 06:44 AM

in the proximity of a rapist intent on committing the act, is far more the point.

a convicted rapist, ja?
who here is arguing in behalf of him?

Randwolf

06-03-08, 06:45 AM

gustav, i don't... (consider you an antagonist)

I just would like someone to actually address the issue that I presented...

Do women, or do they not, have any control / influence/ power over the probability of harassment by virtue of their behavior, specifically in the way they dress?

Let's leave all the hyper-emotionalism out of it... I tried to give an example from a diametric point of view, but everyone seems to trivialize this... Is there a valid difference?

Do women have any influence or control over the probability of sexual harassment? Does anyone have any influence over their likelihood of becoming a victim of violence? Are these valid questions?

Gustav

06-03-08, 06:47 AM

dressing in a certain way conveys no clues.

never mind the bitches
do you dress for the occasion?
why?

Gustav

06-03-08, 06:52 AM

Are these valid questions?

yes!
give me what i want. goddamn names
200 odd posts and no resoution?

Tiassa

06-03-08, 06:57 AM

even if the victim is known to the rapist, did the victim's clothes influence the rapist's decision?

Possibly. Depends on the rapist.

whether the rapist's motivation was sexual, or a need for power, or love of violence, or the adrenaline rush - did the victims clothes help them pick a target?

Possibly. Depends on the rapist.

does a girl in slutty clothes appear more vulnerable? wouldn't that appeal to rapists?

Possibly. Depends on the rapist.

What if part of the rapist's criteria is the appearance of innocence?

You know, when I was younger, part of the sport of being perpetually horny was spying whatever verboten elements of the opposite sex I could. Now, I can't pretend this is universal, but neither can we pretend it is unique. There are, after all, websites and newsgroups devoted to subjects like voyeurism, bras, and here's a great one to chuckle nostalgically at: panty lines.

What constitutes dressing like a slut? Our friend Gustav raises a point (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1882104):

"you are not going out dressed like that, are you?" says mom

Because there is plenty that qualifies as not being slutty—even stuff her mom might have bought for her—that would allow a glimpse of a bra strap or the polka-dotted underwear, or ... whatever ... that might catch someone's attention.

So ... what if the rapist, being known to the victim, selects her not because she dresses like a slut, but rather because she doesn't? He may well have had plenty of opportunities to catch a glimpse.

Has she failed to protect herself against rape by wearing pants that fail to hide the fact that she doesn't wear a g-string?

• • •

... preclude you from contemplating any possibility of similarities between a male victim of violence, and a female victim of violence?

This topic derives from a discussion about catcalling (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80987&page=12), including the proposition that women who do not want to be constantly sexually harassed should dress conservatively. We did actually attempt to cover the issue of men being harassed, but the anti-slut faction couldn't come up with much:

"Yeah, its good policy not to walk past gay bars while wearing skintight jeans while displaying your six pack and rippling musculature, unless you're, well, gay." (#1864064/239 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1864064))

The counterpoint to that—

Or maybe you're suggesting women should simply avoid anyplace where heterosexual men might be found? (#1864065/240 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1864065))

—still awaits address.

As this thread originally concerned itself with a specific proposition applied to a mere fraction of rapes against women, we haven't yet made the transition to include male victims in this.

phlogistician

06-03-08, 07:00 AM

a convicted rapist, ja?
who here is arguing in behalf of him?

Straw man, nobody has defined that, I was picking holes in Codanblad's scenario. Stick to the topic.

phlogistician

06-03-08, 07:01 AM

never mind the bitches
do you dress for the occasion?
why?

Straw man, keep it in context, the context is women should dress conservatively to avoid the attention of rapists. Stick to the topic.

Gustav

06-03-08, 07:11 AM

Straw man, keep it in context, the context is women should dress conservatively to avoid the attention of rapists. Stick to the topic.

rapists?
as in convicted?
it is a forgone conclusion. the mentality is one where violence is an option in any endeavor.
why 200 odd posts tho? rehabilitation works?

how do you infer rapist as the context?
in detail please

codanblad

06-03-08, 07:28 AM

Straw man, nobody has defined that, I was picking holes in Codanblad's scenario. Stick to the topic.

i'd say you were desperately defying everything i say because you see everything in black and white. everything you say misses the point of what i've said. the park will be dark away from lamp posts. use ur fucking brain.

all i wanted to hear was tiassa's agreement, the idea of its possibility is all i was entertaining. and thank fucking god tiassa agreed, i was at the end of my tether trying to reach some kind of understanding between myself and people.

whitewolf

06-03-08, 07:31 AM

Women get raped even if they're not wearing anything slutty, even if they're covered up head to toe, even if they're not that pretty. There is nothing a woman can do to provoke a man to rape her.

Gustav

06-03-08, 07:37 AM

why do you make that assertion?

Gustav

06-03-08, 07:43 AM

sniffy

06-03-08, 08:14 AM

OP: Don't dress like a slut if if you don't like being harassed.

Synopsis of reactions:
1. She's "asking" for it...
Literally - desires it... OF COURSE NOT
2. It influences the "probability" of harassment....
Too inflammatory to discuss...

Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

So, sniffy, you ignoramus, do you refuse to debate this issue, or do your hormones simply preclude you from contemplating any possibility of similarities between a male victim of violence, and a female victim of violence?

I would suppose that your well thought out stance is simply - "Rape is bad, therefore we can't discuss it" .... therefore .... we can't entertain whether our actions influence our destinies, as it pertains to this subject?

Or, perhaps you have a much more pertinent argument that does not depend on hypotheticals?

I await your profound response...

My argument is not based on hypotheticals as your bathingsuit/business suit argument appears to be! I have pointed out that women of different ages, in varying form of dress and in a wide variety of locations are harassed and raped you will see that how they dress was not an issue. As the OP is about modes of attire in relation to harrassment and assault then I feel I have successfully put that one to bed.

If you want to talk about the similarities between male victims of violence and female victims of violence I suggest you start another thread with a different title such as;

Are there any similarities between female victims of violence and male victimes of violence?

What causes violence in society?

Or
In cases of violent assault; is it right to blame the victim?

Or
Is violence an acceptable tool for social control?

Or why are women who dress in a particular way constantly referred to as 'sluts' and what does that say about the attitude of men towards women?

Or even

If I go out in a bathing suit or a $2000 business suit am I increasing my chances of being assualted?

codanblad

06-03-08, 08:15 AM

Women get raped even if they're not wearing anything slutty, even if they're covered up head to toe, even if they're not that pretty. There is nothing a woman can do to provoke a man to rape her.

you're right that women get raped in all kinds of clothes.

do you think slutty clothes might entice a rapist though? a person who is capable or rape, but without a victim in mind, might be persuaded by his dick after seeing a chick wearing revealing clothes. rape can be an act of passion.

stories in aussie media said that lebanese gang rapists raped women who the lebs felt dressed like sluts. this is a clearcut case of 'dont dress like a slut to lower your chance of being raped'. so at least under some circumstances the argument held true.

i understand that in most cases rape is with people who know each other, and that its more to do with power than sex, blah blah blah i know the facts. all i'm saying is there are situations where rapists are influenced towards rape by what people wear.

sniffy

06-03-08, 08:26 AM

you're right that women get raped in all kinds of clothes.

do you think slutty clothes might entice a rapist though? a person who is capable or rape, but without a victim in mind, might be persuaded by his dick after seeing a chick wearing revealing clothes. rape can be an act of passion.

stories in aussie media said that lebanese gang rapists raped women who the lebs felt dressed like sluts. this is a clearcut case of 'dont dress like a slut to lower your chance of being raped'. so at least under some circumstances the argument held true.

i understand that in most cases rape is with people who know each other, and that its more to do with power than sex, blah blah blah i know the facts. all i'm saying is there are situations where rapists are influenced towards rape by what people wear.

Your consistent use of the word 'slut' is beginning to gall me. Just thought I'd mention it as it says RATHER a lot about you. May I suggest that you and your Lebanese friends have a good long think about the word 'slut' and what it says about you rather than what it says about the women to whom it is randomly applied. And whilst you're at it have a little think about what it might feel like to be gang raped. After you've had a little think about that imagine it was your little sister out there being branded a 'slut' and gang raped and then hold onto that feeling for a while.

You little slut.

phlogistician

06-03-08, 09:10 AM

rapists?
as in convicted?

Why is that important to you?

Seems you are trying to draw the debate. And failing.

Do you want to put some context around why you want to know if they are convicted?

Codanblad used the term 'rapist' in his scenario, because the person he mentioned intended to commit the act. I don't give a rat's ass if the person he envisages has been punished for it previously. I can't see what difference that makes, and it seems you are trying to nit pick.

phlogistician

06-03-08, 09:14 AM

i'd say you were desperately defying everything i say because you see everything in black and white.

Because it is black and white. It's black and white when you type the words 'slutty' and mean it. I say there is no such thing, and you shouldn't judge people on how they dress. You seem to think that hurling labels and denigrating women is OK though. You are wrong.

everything you say misses the point of what i've said. the park will be dark away from lamp posts. use ur fucking brain.

Dude, you are trying to explain this little fantasy scenario of yours, and contradicting yourself. Use your brain, and tell us how you fantasize stalking this woman. I don't share the fantasy, so can't fill out the details you omit.

phlogistician

06-03-08, 09:16 AM

does a girl in slutty clothes appear more vulnerable? wouldn't that appeal to rapists?

Women who can wear skimpy clothes are confident, not vulnerable. That's just your fantasy speaking.

codanblad

06-03-08, 09:51 AM

sniffy

06-03-08, 10:17 AM

sniffy and phlogistician

whatever. i don't think you listen to a word i say, your 'womens rights' agenda overrides everything. you both think i'm a rapist or something, and perceive my posts as opportunities for you to attack me.

my use of the word slut comes from the title. i'm sorry i wasn't politically correct enough for you guys, but that's all there is to it. i wasn't denigrating women etc. Saying 'women dressing sluttily are more likely to get raped' is a statement, rather than an opinion. its either true or false, it doesn't stem from any kind of sexism, just my understanding of the motives of rapists. its only in league with the idea that dressing like a slut is asking to be raped, that it justifies rape, that it becomes despicable. and i abhor such a perspective.

if you guys don't think that there's a possibility a man's inclination to rape someone would be affected by attire, fine. agree to disagree, and lets move on. i don't think i have the patience to take the matter any further.

Don't make assumptions about my agenda or what I think; you'll only make an ass of yourself.

As for political correctness - hah I just love how folks like to throw this out when they're caught in the headlamps with no-where to run. Rape is a brutal, personal, CRIMINAL assualt on another person; uninvited and undeserved. Rape has been used across the centuries to try to control and subjugate.

Attempts to blame women (oh if only were they to behave differently they wouldn't get raped!) are the bleatings of cowards seeking to justify the violently criminal behaviour of other cowards - or perhaps they are hoping they might get away with it themselves one day if they help perpetuate the bullshit....

phlogistician

06-03-08, 10:57 AM

sniffy and phlogistician

whatever. i don't think you listen to a word i say, your 'womens rights' agenda overrides everything.

You don't think women have rights then?

you both think i'm a rapist or something, and perceive my posts as opportunities for you to attack me.

I think your sympathies lie with rapists, and not the victims, if that makes my position any clearer for you?

my use of the word slut comes from the title.

Many people here have used quotes around the word to denote they are quoting the title. You however had said;

and when they dressed like a slut
does a girl in slutty clothes appear more vulnerable

You think that women dress like 'sluts'. You think there is a class of women who it's OK to label 'sluts', you denigrate women with every post you make and dig yourself in deeper.

Saying 'women dressing sluttily are more likely to get raped' is a statement, rather than an opinion. its either true or false,

If it's true or false, it is just your opinion. Once it's true, it's a fact, but so far no support has been given for the argument, so it remains your twisted opinion.

it doesn't stem from any kind of sexism,

Using the word sluttily is sexist.

just my understanding of the motives of rapists.

I don't understand those, but then, you are closer to the psychology of one than I am.

its only in league with the idea that dressing like a slut is asking to be raped, that it justifies rape, that it becomes despicable. and i abhor such a perspective.

There you go using the 'slut' word again. GROW THE FUCK UP.

if you guys don't think that there's a possibility a man's inclination to rape someone would be affected by attire, fine. agree to disagree, and lets move on. i don't think i have the patience to take the matter any further.

We can discuss the topic without you denigrating women. Your use of such words without quotation is very telling. You disgust me.

lucifers angel

06-03-08, 11:14 AM

sniffy and phlogistician

whatever. i don't think you listen to a word i say, your 'womens rights' agenda overrides everything. you both think i'm a rapist or something, and perceive my posts as opportunities for you to attack me.

my use of the word slut comes from the title. i'm sorry i wasn't politically correct enough for you guys, but that's all there is to it. i wasn't denigrating women etc. Saying 'women dressing sluttily are more likely to get raped' is a statement, rather than an opinion. its either true or false, it doesn't stem from any kind of sexism, just my understanding of the motives of rapists. its only in league with the idea that dressing like a slut is asking to be raped, that it justifies rape, that it becomes despicable. and i abhor such a perspective.

if you guys don't think that there's a possibility a man's inclination to rape someone would be affected by attire, fine. agree to disagree, and lets move on. i don't think i have the patience to take the matter any further.

what about the women who are raped in business suits, i think a man will rape for various reason,

1, he wants total control
2, he likes to instill fear into people
3, he thinks they ask for it by dressing with legs showing,
4, and he simply wants it, and will be anything to get it.
5, or he has becomme infatuated with the victim

obviously i know women rape aswell, i was using he has an example, if someone is going to rape then they will rape doesnt matter what they are wearing.

what about girls who were raped in the 20's and they were wearing a few layers of clothing, and they didnt show anything?

visceral_instinct

06-03-08, 11:18 AM

Creeptology

06-03-08, 12:16 PM

Randwolf

06-03-08, 12:44 PM

This topic derives from a discussion about catcalling (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80987&page=12), including the proposition that women who do not want to be constantly sexually harassed should dress conservatively.

Thank you, as is obvious, I am new to this forum, so I was not aware of previously relevant threads. It does clarify what I perceived as reluctance to address the points I raised.... Thanks again :)

There is nothing a woman can do to provoke a man to rape her.

Really? This is what I was trying to discuss, or rather the antithesis... However, this comment definitely sparked an idea - see below...

My argument is not based on hypotheticals as your bathingsuit/business suit argument appears to be! I have pointed out that women of different ages, in varying form of dress and in a wide variety of locations are harassed and raped you will see that how they dress was not an issue. As the OP is about modes of attire in relation to harrassment and assault then I feel I have successfully put that one to bed.

You are right - women get raped whether they dress conservatively or not, whether
in a bikini or a burqa, whether they are at the beach or in a church - ad infinitum... We get it... and we agree, at least I do.

What I do not agree with is the inappropriateness of using hypotheticals to help illustrate a viewpoint, especially when communicating with someone that is, ermmm, let's see... Not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

In that spirit, let's try to get back on topic... In fact, let's try something radical...

Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we were dealing with a particularly perplexing case (hypothetically , of course, sniffy...)

There exists a certain, extremely unstable and self destructive, female that (hypothetically, try not to freak out people - it is a gedanken boys and girls) LIKES, WANTS and DESIRES to be raped....

I ask you, if that were the case, could she influence her fate? In other words, if the objective was the exact opposite of what has been discussed so far, is there anything (in terms of dressing a certain way) that this woman could do to further her ends? Obviously, if she could provoke this violent act if she wanted, than why, pray tell, could she not take some steps to lessen the probability that she is harassed? This in no way is an indication of her desire, merely a reflection of her prudence....

Randwolf

06-03-08, 01:13 PM

. Women are picked on the basis of being an easy target/weaker target....

.The suit analogy is to do with theft in an area were it is prevalent, the victims are picked on the basis of looking like they are a viable target.

OMG! How stupid of me... Imagine equating "easy" with "viable"... sheeeshhh...

I do not think this thread was designed solely to point out that rape has no equivalent, equal, nearly equal, or even comparable crimes or actions that would be meaningful in a discussion about:

Can a woman do anything, anything at all, in terms of dress, to mitigate the probability of sexual harassment, including rape? Again, think of the corollary to this assumption - she couldn't do anything to increase her chances of being raped, if for some twisted reason she wanted to...

Even the most adamant of the participants here seem to feel that womend could reduce the chance of rape, i.e. by never leaving the house. Obviously, this is an extreme and hardly enjoyable alternative, but at least it grants the point that a woman (may I say person?) can influence their own future!

If a woman can not reduce her chances of sexual abuse by being realistic about this sometimes evil world (not by becoming a hermit, refusing to associate with the opposite sex, etc., but just taking sensible precautions), then her fate is totally out of her control!!!! Is that what you are trying to say? Women are helpless? I don't think so.....

I guess the prevailing attitude is that rape is merely, totally and completely a random act, not at all dependent or related to anyone besides the rapist... That seems to be a pretty pessimistic point of view.

I maintain that anyone, male or female, can mitigate their chances of being harmed by others in any situation through their own prudent actions. Does no one else agree with this? :shrug: (Note: Mitigate, not eliminate / avoid / prevent, etc...)

Creeptology

06-03-08, 01:19 PM

no I am not saying that at all. I am pointing out the view of dressing scantily increases the chances of rape. That attire actually makes a difference to a rapist. This is nonsense.

Your analogy I pulled not on the point it's equating rape with theft but because you talk about attire affecting choice of victim which it can in that case, but in the case of rape it doesn't hence your analogy is wrong.

It's clear attire doesn't affect it. There is your answer, if you still dispute it no proof in the world will suffice to change your mistaken views.

Simon Anders

06-03-08, 01:27 PM

OMG! How stupid of me... Imagine equating "easy" with "viable"... sheeeshhh...

I do not think this thread was designed solely to point out that rape has no equivalent, equal, nearly equal, or even comparable crimes or actions that would be meaningful in a discussion about:

Can a woman do anything, anything at all, in terms of dress, to mitigate the probability of sexual harassment, including rape? Again, think of the corollary to this assumption - she couldn't do anything to increase her chances of being raped, if for some twisted reason she wanted to...

Even the most adamant of the participants here seem to feel that womend could reduce the chance of rape, i.e. by never leaving the house. Obviously, this is an extreme and hardly enjoyable alternative, but at least it grants the point that a woman (may I say person?) can influence their own future!

If a woman can not reduce her chances of sexual abuse by being realistic about this sometimes evil world (not by becoming a hermit, refusing to associate with the opposite sex, etc., but just taking sensible precautions), then her fate is totally out of her control!!!! Is that what you are trying to say? Women are helpless? I don't think so.....

I guess the prevailing attitude is that rape is merely, totally and completely a random act, not at all dependent or related to anyone besides the rapist... That seems to be a pretty pessimistic point of view.

I maintain that anyone, male or female, can mitigate their chances of being harmed by others in any situation through their own prudent actions. Does no one else agree with this? :shrug: (Note: Mitigate, not eliminate / avoid / prevent, etc...)
Yes, let's focus on this way of wondering about and contemplating rape because....

it's a distraction. You can learn a lot about someone by what they want to focus on.

Randwolf

06-03-08, 01:29 PM

That attire actually makes a difference to a rapist. This is nonsense.

Cite your source!!! Certainly not common sense, especially if you believe that sexual arousal is a component of rape.... (My understadning is that it is not the driving factor, if it's relevant at all, in most sexual crimes)

Even if you you agree that rape is not about sex, but rather violence and control, then you are still left with refuting the analogy illustrating (by your own admission) that violence upon a male can be influenced by attire...

Simon Anders

06-03-08, 01:42 PM

Cite your source!!! Certainly not common sense, especially if you believe that sexual arousal is a component of rape.... (My understadning is that it is not the driving factor, if it's relevant at all, in most sexual crimes)

Even if you you agree that rape is not about sex, but rather violence and control, then you are still left with refuting the analogy illustrating (by your own admission) that violence upon a male can be influenced by attire...

What you want is for everyone here to just take what you are doing at face value. Like you are simply interested in finding the truth about women's behavioral effect on the liklihood of rape. But what you are doing and how you want to be seen are two different things. The bizzare and really very angry male urge to have discussions about what a woman could have done to have reduced the liklihood of rape VASTLY overshadows their interest in looking at what makes it, for example, more likely for men to want to rape at all.

These men who want to have this 'intellectual' discussion think that the discussion is contextless and is objective on their side, which is not the case.

Why the hell do you want to focus on the issue in this way?

It is pretty obvious from the outside.

If everyone got down on their knees for you and decided that your statistical ideas and implied ideas are correct, your whole interest in rape as an issue would stop.

It is possible that the behavior of some slaves made it more likely for them to get whipped. And when they gathered together in their shacks a discussion about how not to get on the wrong side of they guy with the whip might have been useful.

But a bunch of non-slave owning white guys to sit around in Charlestown and try to get abolitionists to admit that the slaves who got whipped probably could have reduced the liklihood of it by this or that behavior

ARE UP TO SOMETHING.

It might be good for your own growth to figure out what you are really up to, rather than just getting pissed off that no one want to be as rational and contextless as you think you are.

Of all the positions you could take on the wide variety of issues out there you want women and men to admit that women could reduced the liklihood of getting raped.

Why would it make you feel good to hear that?

You can kneejerk attack this argument and pretend what I am saying about you is bullshit for all I care, but on your own, in private, where none of us will notice that you are doing it, take a look at your self.

Cause 1) it is adding to the BS in the world and 2) it is not doing you any good either.

White noise.

What are you doing?

Randwolf

06-03-08, 01:50 PM

Yes, let's focus on this way of wondering about and contemplating rape because....

it's a distraction. You can learn a lot about someone by what they want to focus on.

OK, so anticipating such shallow reactions and specifically disclaiming them obviously make no impact....

Lets try it straight again, this time with quotes:

http://www.selfdefensewithanattitude.com/through-a-rapists-eyes/

"1. The first thing men look for in a potential victim is hairstyle. They are most likely to go after a woman with a ponytail, bun, braid or other hairstyle that can easily be grabbed. They are also likely to go after a woman with long hair. Women with short hair are not common targets.

2. The second thing men look for is clothing. They will look for women whose clothing can be quickly and easily removed. Many said they carried scissors specifically to cut clothing." (Note "clothing" doesn't necessarily imply "scanty, or "lack thereof", as I tried to illuminate by analogy...)

I still believe that a being (geez, woman, man, chimpanzee, whatever) can influence the consequences of interacting in a dangerous environment by taking care with their appearance and demeanor...

Stop confusing the issue! This is not about whether people (women if you prefer) have the right to dress and appear as they choose without harrasment! It is about whether their choices influence their likelihood of staying safe... Isn't it? OMG, it's not... sorry... :p:p:p

Randwolf

06-03-08, 01:59 PM

It might be good for your own growth to figure out what you are really up to, rather than just getting pissed off that no one want to be as rational and contextless as you think you are.

Of all the positions you could take on the wide variety of issues out there you want women and men to admit that women could reduced the liklihood of getting raped.

Why would it make you feel good to hear that?

You can kneejerk attack this argument and pretend what I am saying about you is bullshit for all I care, but on your own, in private, where none of us will notice that you are doing it, take a look at your self.

Cause 1) it is adding to the BS in the world and 2) it is not doing you any good either.

White noise.

What are you doing?

Ummmm... I didn't start the thread, you imbecile - I just replied like you did....

However, I guess I wasn't aware of the rules.... Never again will I presume to discuss an emotional, inflammatory issue like rape logically again (or was it "rationally" SA? - I forget) ....

Yes suh, massuh, I sho have learned my lesson...

*let's see - Randwolf starts thread about some totally noncontroversial feelgood subject so everyone can avaoid objectivism..."

NOT!

However, I am bored with this topic - all rhetoric, no substance...

EmmZ

06-03-08, 02:14 PM

What about paedophiles then? They're committing a "sexual act" too, is there something the child "should have done" to prevent being abused? What if that child didn't have that pre-pubescent body or wear those ponytails? Sexual predators don't care about appearance. The fact that a small minority of men think the way women dress could or might provoke being raped show that those small minority of men obviously think rape is about sexual satisfaction. And that's scary.

Fact: Rape is a violent and serious crime. Rape is sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral, or anal) without consent. Rape is not about sexual attraction, but rather desire for power over another person. The victim is not at fault. Offenders use drugs, alcohol, physical violence or threats to force another person to have unwanted sexual intercourse. No one owes anyone sex. Rapists do not always hide in the dark alleys—they are neighbors, they are your relatives, they are people that you trust. Women ages 16 to 24 are 4 times more likely to raped and 85% of the victims know their attackers. Acquaintance rape is committed by a person that the victim knows.

Source: http://www.woar.org/rape_facts.asp

How to Reduce Your Risk

Although sexual violence can never be prevented, here are some suggestions to help you reduce your risk of being assaulted.

Trust your gut. If you do not feel comfortable in a situation, leave.

Be in charge of your own life. Do not put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on other people to take care of you. Also, when on a date, do not feel you owe that person anything.

Be cautious inviting someone into your home or going to some else’s home. Three out of five sexual assaults occur in the victim’s home or the home of an acquaintance.

Do not mix sexual decisions with drugs and alcohol. Your ability to make smart decisions is hampered when you are high or drunk.

When going out with someone new, do not feel you have to go alone. Go on a group date or meet in a public place.

Be aware of date rape drugs. Do not accept beverages from open containers and do not leave your drink unattended.

Walk near the curb. Avoid passing close shrubbery. Dark doorways or other places of concealment.

Avoid falling for lines such as “If you loved me…” if your partner loved you, he/she would respect your feeling and wait until you are ready.

Source: http://www.woar.org/campus_rape.asp

So, the organisation Women Against Rape state many precautions but interestingly enough none of them involve the way a woman dresses. Now since this organisation's sole function is to councel and help women survivors of rape, wouldn't their duty be to tell a woman not to dress a particular way if that was in fact a governing factor in her being raped? If they didn't state this they'd be doing these women a huge disservice. It's just not true. It's as stupid a concept as saying "all black men eat babies" or "all Muslims are terrorists". Ideas founded on massively ignorant misconceptions.

whitewolf

06-03-08, 02:20 PM

There exists a certain, extremely unstable and self destructive, female that (hypothetically, try not to freak out people - it is a gedanken boys and girls) LIKES, WANTS and DESIRES to be raped....

This is illogical. If she concedes to sex it's not rape. The described scenario can not exist.

I ask you, if that were the case, could she influence her fate? In other words, if the objective was the exact opposite of what has been discussed so far, is there anything (in terms of dressing a certain way) that this woman could do to further her ends? Obviously, if she could provoke this violent act if she wanted, than why, pray tell, could she not take some steps to lessen the probability that she is harassed? This in no way is an indication of her desire, merely a reflection of her prudence....

She does not "improve her chances" by dressing a certain way. Most men, in fact, would not rape a woman that's passing by. She could jeopardise her safety by contacting the local "rehabilitated" rapist.

Randwolf

06-03-08, 02:36 PM

Why does everyone keep trying to "blame the victim"? The point is not that someone "should have done" to prevent attack...

My question is, can someone do anything (limited in this discussion to appearance) to mitigate their risk of violence?

No one, at least not me, disagrees in any way that rape is about violence and control - I have asserted this multiple times...

It just seems that to mention prudent measures invites others to accuse you of "condoning" this or that crime... Or else, the examples, analogies and counterpoints are poh-poohed, or worse yet, taken to represent some sort of repressed psychopathy.

Let me ask you - how can we validly discuss how someone can prevent / minimize the risk of violence, in this case rape? People mention self defense as an alternative - GREAT!!! Now we are getting somewhere...

How about a considered mixture of situational awareness, environmentally appropriate dress and behavior, a well thought out plan for "what if", self defense classes, etc....

Why is there such stigma attached to some of these preventative measures, but not others? Why is someone attacked for discussing, not advocating a possible countermeasure?

I would be the last person on this earth to restrict someone else's freedom of expression through speech, dress, or whatever... However, I would be the first to examine different points of view...

That being said, I have to admit, I have seen the error of my ways... It makes absolutely no difference if a women walks the inner-city in full battle dress or completely naked - her chances of getting raped are exactly the same!!!

Maybe I still have it wrong --- her chances of getting assaulted in a bikini are much less than if she was dressed in non-descript clothes, or again the bizarrely extreme - flak vest, etc...

We can all agree on this, certainly???

Randwolf

06-03-08, 02:56 PM

This is illogical. If she concedes to sex it's not rape. The described scenario can not exist.

Damn good point whitewolf... that was really illogical of me, and I am not being facetious...:):) However, in defense of my intended point, if you are interested, I would like to amend the semantics in this illustration...

Let's say she "wants or desires to be physically molested" (please allow me the slight liberty with the word "molested"?) I know you are aware that what I was asking is simply the converse of the "usual" argument - i.e. "Can a woman reduce her chances of encountering rape / violence by altering her appearance?" transforms to "Could a woman increase her chances of encountering problems?" My whole point is simply that whether we like it or not, whether it represents the majority or a small minority of sexual violence, it seems self evident that people have some control over their likelihood of encountering violence, including how they handle their appearance.[/QUOTE]

She does not "improve her chances" by dressing a certain way. Most men, in fact, would not rape a woman that's passing by. She could jeopardise her safety by contacting the local "rehabilitated" rapist.

Another excellent, if self evident, point. The only way I know to get at what seems to be sticking in my craw... is simply to ask it outright....

Given two similar women, acting in similar fashion, in similar neighborhoods, with similar numbers of "rehabilitaed" rapists hanging about, do you feel that they have equal probabilities of being harassed if one is dressed in a bikini and the other in an overcoat?

I believe that the women here are going to have the best insight into this, next to hardcore statistics and facts, which I do not posess. If y'all say it's true, I will certainly accept it for now, although it seems counterintuitive....

15ofthe19

06-03-08, 03:02 PM

Randwolf

I understand the argument you're making and I also don't have the statistics to show anything either way, but suppose that wearing a bikini did raise the probability of a sexual assault. Wouldn't you expect to see extraordinarily high rates in beach towns? Wouldn't Daytona and South Beach just be complete bedlam? The French Riviera? Seems to me that it's more of a crime of opportunity than one easily provoked by dress, or rather state of undress.

Randwolf

06-03-08, 03:19 PM

Makes sense...

However, I think it ignores the central question... Whether it be Harlem, southside Detroit or South Beach, given two similar situations in similar neighborhoods, etc...

Obviously, taken to the extreme, the "high rates in beach towns" rationale would lead one to believe that the highest incidence of violence would be in the home, due to freedom of "undress" there... Obviously, this does not seem sensible, probably because we are taking two factors out of context. If you hold the "dangerousness" of the environment constant, and vary only appearance, one could isolate the variables...

I am sure someone knows these statistics, again, I do not. When I googled for it, I got references that "only a small number of sexual assaults are influenced by appearance" with associated percentages of 2% - 11%. However, that is really not my point, I only question whether any significant decrease in risk can be achieved by altering one's dress, and if so, it is time that we admitted that to ourselves and everyone else. I think people (well maybe some people) are capable of distinguishing between "risky behavior" and "desiring / asking for it". What if it really did make a difference? Shouldn't we know this? Shouldn't women know it? It certainly (IMO) would not detract from their "right" (or my desire - lol) to dress however they want, but perhaps it might prevent some violence if people were aware?

Gustav

06-03-08, 03:52 PM

dunno
lets dress in red and venture into crip territory and find out, shall we?

Dress-Related Behavioral Problems and Violence in the Public School Setting: Prevention, Intervention, and Policy--A Holistic Approach (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2967344?seq=1) (pdf) (http://www.box.net/shared/usvsj1xuss)

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:16 PM

I wish I was "authorized" to read the whole article, but I am going to assume (uh-oh) that....

OMG - you are saying that if I am a female wearing "blood colors" and I wander into crip territory, that I am *gasp* more likely to be accosted? Oh no, the one dimensional purists on this thread will have your head!

That's not "really" rape - that's retaliation - that doesn't count!

What they mean is, no self-respecting "real" rapist would concern himself (/herself?) with the appearance of their victim... Amazing how narrow tunnel vision can get...

Or maybe, this article is about violence, which they say is influenced by dress, but rape is.... influenced by... ahhh, I don't know, but let's not talk about it ANYMORE!

Gustav

06-03-08, 04:30 PM

a link to the pdf is given in #237

i have uncovered the feminazi's insidious agenda
the dowdy old frumps over at now are insisting that they too have as good a chance as any in getting raped

/scoff

popular at last
popular at last
thank god almighty
we are popular at last

Randwolf

06-03-08, 04:45 PM

a link to the pdf is given in #237

I am truly apologetic Gustav, but I get: [the synopsis and]

"You are not currently authorized to access this article. Login to JSTOR

If you have recently purchased this article using the Publisher Sales Service, please enter your token or email address to access it. "

Am I doing something wrong?

Not that it matters, it looks like the local wildlife has scattered..... :D

Gustav

06-03-08, 04:55 PM

pdf (http://www.box.net/shared/usvsj1xuss)

codanblad

06-03-08, 10:02 PM

What you want is for everyone here to just take what you are doing at face value. Like you are simply interested in finding the truth about women's behavioral effect on the liklihood of rape. But what you are doing and how you want to be seen are two different things. The bizzare and really very angry male urge to have discussions about what a woman could have done to have reduced the liklihood of rape VASTLY overshadows their interest in looking at what makes it, for example, more likely for men to want to rape at all.

These men who want to have this 'intellectual' discussion think that the discussion is contextless and is objective on their side, which is not the case.

Why the hell do you want to focus on the issue in this way?

It is pretty obvious from the outside.

If everyone got down on their knees for you and decided that your statistical ideas and implied ideas are correct, your whole interest in rape as an issue would stop.

It is possible that the behavior of some slaves made it more likely for them to get whipped. And when they gathered together in their shacks a discussion about how not to get on the wrong side of they guy with the whip might have been useful.

But a bunch of non-slave owning white guys to sit around in Charlestown and try to get abolitionists to admit that the slaves who got whipped probably could have reduced the liklihood of it by this or that behavior

ARE UP TO SOMETHING.

It might be good for your own growth to figure out what you are really up to, rather than just getting pissed off that no one want to be as rational and contextless as you think you are.

Of all the positions you could take on the wide variety of issues out there you want women and men to admit that women could reduced the liklihood of getting raped.

Why would it make you feel good to hear that?

You can kneejerk attack this argument and pretend what I am saying about you is bullshit for all I care, but on your own, in private, where none of us will notice that you are doing it, take a look at your self.

Cause 1) it is adding to the BS in the world and 2) it is not doing you any good either.

White noise.

What are you doing?

so you're admitting you're incapable of intelligent discussion, because the plight of women and disgustingness of rape are too consuming and important?

NO FUCKING WONDER I COULDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SHIT.

codanblad

06-03-08, 10:18 PM

Don't make assumptions about my agenda or what I think; you'll only make an ass of yourself.

As for political correctness - hah I just love how folks like to throw this out when they're caught in the headlamps with no-where to run. Rape is a brutal, personal, CRIMINAL assualt on another person; uninvited and undeserved. Rape has been used across the centuries to try to control and subjugate.

Attempts to blame women (oh if only were they to behave differently they wouldn't get raped!) are the bleatings of cowards seeking to justify the violently criminal behaviour of other cowards - or perhaps they are hoping they might get away with it themselves one day if they help perpetuate the bullshit....

yep, the only way to prove one's innocence is to never discuss things from an EVIL PERSONS perspective. basically if i say rapist, and don't include 'rape is bad, womens rights are awesome, lets kill all the rapists' in the same sentence, i must be in league with the devil.

when did i say rape is a lovely thing that everyone should do? when did i say rapists should never be prosecuted depending on what women wear?

You don't think women have rights then?

I think your sympathies lie with rapists, and not the victims, if that makes my position any clearer for you?

Many people here have used quotes around the word to denote they are quoting the title. You however had said;

You think that women dress like 'sluts'. You think there is a class of women who it's OK to label 'sluts', you denigrate women with every post you make and dig yourself in deeper.

If it's true or false, it is just your opinion. Once it's true, it's a fact, but so far no support has been given for the argument, so it remains your twisted opinion.

Using the word sluttily is sexist.

I don't understand those, but then, you are closer to the psychology of one than I am.

There you go using the 'slut' word again. GROW THE FUCK UP.

We can discuss the topic without you denigrating women. Your use of such words without quotation is very telling. You disgust me.

you both caught me. i am a rapist. and i rape women who dress sluttily (most attractively in my opinion). hookers are too expensive, and girlfriends are too much work. i have proved my argument. seems the only way to do it.

can you prove there aren't other rapists just like me? that rape people purely out of sexual urges, and are therefore influenced by the clothing of the women?

being a slut isn't gender specific. see how your caught up in womens rights? by the way, you're only assuming i'm sexist cos of the connotations of my posts, not because of what i've actually said. its like saying 'terrorists had reasons', doesn't mean i support terrorism.

if you can't deal with a word i use, that's your problem. i don't care about your needs. don't enter a thread with slut in the title, then tell me i can't use the word slut.

Tiassa

06-04-08, 01:52 AM

A Personal Note for Phlog and Codanblad

There you go using the 'slut' word again. GROW THE FUCK UP.

On the one hand, as Codanblad noted (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1883245&postcount=217), the word appears in the title.

To the other, I would suggest a few points of consideration:

• The use of slut in the title refers in part to the argument put forth by others that the topic starter wished to explore.

• Most of us, by now, get the hint and have even grown tired of seeing the word over and over and over again. It is explicitly part of the proposition, and the only reason to keep hammering it into the discussion is because someone chooses to. A question arises as to why.

• The descriptions of a slut we've encountered so far range from stereotype to caricature.

• Largely absent from the discussion is the concept of provocative. At some point, it starts to seem that a pair of jeans that complements a woman's ass qualifies as slutty, and that would be just silly.

• What, according to whom, qualifies as slutty?

I went to see Iron Maiden last night. It was a good show. And there was a broad range of what we used to call "metal sluts" or "metal chicks". Or I might recall Geezerfest last year, when a bunch of pre-grunge Seattle bands hauled themselves out and played sets, some for the first time in twenty years. There was this woman who dropped my jaw. She looked like a proper metal chick straight out of 1985. Bad makeup, a ton of Aqua Net, fishnets, high-heeled boots, leather skirt, and the classic short-sleeved blouse unbuttoned to show hints of a lacy black bra. And, yeah, she caught me staring. What could I possibly say? "That is awesome," I told her, and gave her devil horns.

It was a costume. Pure and simple. She wanted to dress up like a metal slut for a special occasion. And she said so. Even used the words "metal slut". And that's the thing: she appreciated being received in the proper context. Somehow I just don't think she would have taken it the same way if I'd said, "Damn, what do I have to do to hit that?"

And certainly there is a kind of eros about such appearances, but the proposed solution, that women should not dress provocatively, accomplishes nothing in terms of reducing rape in general. Statistically speaking, it does very little for any given individual in terms of preventing rape. There are certainly more dangerous behaviors, and if the reality is that a woman should not consume intoxicants in the presence of men, or be alone with a male, or even go out on dates—because these behaviors all present opportunities for a determined rapist—that suggests a deeper societal problem. The failure of the attire advocates to address this aspect suggests much about their priorities. The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument.

Thus:

• Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now.

There are plenty of precautions for people to take, but there comes a point when people say, "Fuck that!" Because none of those precautions do a damn thing about whatever threat people are attempting to protect themselves against.

I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify.

Anyone should be able to feel sexy without inviting anyone and everyone to hop on. It was absolutely wonderful to see hundreds of metal chicks. Certainly the Iron Maiden concert, and seemingly life itself, would be diminished greatly if the prescribed solution was that kind of self-suppression.

The only self-suppressing answer acceptable is impossible: that the rapists should learn to control themselves.

Life goes on. Do we cower in fear or seek effective means of reducing the threat?