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

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with paranoia: It will destroy ya

It addresses a significant number of rapes, as opposed to the whole fashion-police thing, which attends to and inflates a mere sliver by comparison. Indeed, the number of rapes that could be prevented by changing one's style is fractional compared to the number of rapes that could be prevented by separating female children from male family members. And while the nuclear family might, as some have argued in history, be an inefficient means of raising future citizens of the society, it's the one we have, and the fairly obvious precaution of sequestering female children simply isn't going to happen.

Hyperbole, indeed, but your attempt to distribute it so evenly around this argument seems problematic, considering the evolution of this discussion. While the attire and precaution advocates have largely dropped their de facto advocacy of rape, they have yet to make any substantial move toward middle ground. Changing the terminology does not automatically alter the context.

I'm of the opinion that once we transcend the stereotypes and caricatures and consider what these precautions are, we'll find our lives—even as males—diminished by such outcomes.

Hey, I like topless beaches. And I think the world is much better off if women aren't expected to be stoic in order to bolster an illusion of safety.

Dressing conservatively would have an infinitesimal effect at best.

Maybe, but the precaution advocates don't seem to be up for it. As I noted earlier in the discussion:

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.​

People respond harshly to the whole precaution argument because it approaches the question of rape by putting the responsibility onto the women. It certainly didn't help to see phrases like "asking for it". And look how things have gone. The advocates have gotten frustrated and angry, responding more about their personal pride than anything else. Furthermore, even when prodded to clarify in ways that might defuse people's disgust, they're providing only the most general of outlines. "There are heaps of clothing that ... aren't designed to get male attention." That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it?

And there are a couple of things about clothing "designed to get male attention". First, the purpose of accentuating or creating a sense of beauty is not always designed to get male attention. Some appeals to beauty are intended to be internalized. To the other, what if the rapist's focus is breast size? It is theoretically possible that if women measuring a C-cup or larger got surgical reductions to a B-cup, some rapes would be averted°.

Thus, the problem with the precaution argument at present is twofold: First, it transfers the responsibility of male behavior onto women. While we might find the temporary appearance of some degree of relief in this assignation, it is regressive, and we would only delay our reckoning of these conflicts. Additionally, as I have already noted, it is at present an open-ended proposition that runs all the way to paranoia.

One way to view the problem is to consider an awful question: If not you, then who? Thankfully, this is not a question most of us have to face, although when we step away from caricatures and stereotypes, we must realize it is a sacrifice many have made. What blame would we lay upon the young girl who keeps her silence and carries a burden of constant sexual abuse because she believes she is protecting someone else? As long as he has me, he won't hurt her. It is an unfortunate fallacy these victims endure.

Compared to the immeasurable whole of the rape phenomenon, this argument about a woman's attire is insignificant. What surprises me most about it is that it persists.

Then again, maybe I should not be surprised. I have long lamented the curse of Original Sin. So many people are so predisposed to the notion that we are born into corruption that they have—as with the attire argument—given over to the very darkness they fear.
____________________

Notes:

° some rapes would be averted — In another topic, our friend Sniffy asked a vital question: "Also, had these thing not happened to you personally; do you think the perpetrator would have gone on to abuse someone else?" While taking certain precautions might bring certain benefits, all one has accomplished is individual protection. This result cannot be dismissed as unimportant, but it does nothing about the general problem. And history suggests quite clearly that broad sexual repression within a culture doesn't do much about rape itself. If all women became stoics, the culture would adjust. An ankle? A knee? An exposed forearm? The definition of suggestive, provocative, slutty, ill-repute, &c., is not static.

Indeed, it is arguable that broad sexual repression might actually aggravate the situation. As so many of our anti-Islamic posters are willing to point out, Islam is sexually repressed; women still get raped, and then they are often killed for being raped. Some have acid thrown in their faces. And some are whipped in the public square. Blaming women for the actions of men—placing upon female members of society the burden of calculating and predicting the behavior of males—seems to complicate the situation even more. And it's not just Islam. In American history, there is the infamous Cotton Mather, whose father—Increase Mather—was said to perform a laying on of hands, literally. There appears to be, in American religious history, an undeniable tradition of preachers sexually molesting those for whom they pray. The Puritans even went so far as to strip down uppity women, put them in the back of a horse-drawn cart, and parade them through town in the middle of winter. I mean, come on. They're Puritans. Can you get any more sexually repressed in the American heritage? And what's with the magnificent Mormon magic underwear? Sexuality will always find a way to the surface. Suppressing it only forces it to twist and bend in order to find its way into the light:

Freud and an early medical colleague, Josef Breuer, introduced the pre-psychoanalytic "cathartic method." Its theoretical presupposition was based upon an analogy with the physical purging of blocked bowels for therapeutic purposes. They hypothesized that hysterics could be "purged" of the traumatic, usually sexual memories presumed to have caused their symptoms. In their model, what might be thought of as a metaphorical "psychological catharsis" occurred when a physician created the conditions in which a patient could talk about forgotten memories. This allowed psychic energies to be "discharged" and it was this presumed discharge that led to the disappearance of the patient's symptoms.

In their joint publication, Studies on Hysteria, Breuer and Freud, offered a novel linkage between the cause of an illness and the meaning of an illness in their claim that "hysterics suffer mainly from reminiscences" (1893, p. 7). As Freud went on to develop his later psychoanalytic model of treatment, he came to regard hysterical symptoms as physical complaints which resulted from unconscious conflicts, that is to say psychological struggles which were completely out of a patient's awareness. Freud would argue, for example, that a hysterical patient with a paralyzed hand might have an underlying, unconscious wish to sexually touch someone. This wish was at odds with the patient's moral prohibitions against sexuality, which were also out of consciousness. Unable to resolve the conflict in the conscious mind, "I want to touch but I should not," the psychological struggle is unconsciously transferred into the body, where it is enacted as a hysterical paralysis. Psychoanalytic treatment, through a process of free association and analytic interpretations, might allow the meaning of this unconscious conflict to enter consciousness. A conflict becomes conscious when the patient discovers the sexual wish as well as its prohibition. The need to resolve psychic conflict by moving it into the body disappears, and so should the symptom. In other words, the patient's hand should be able to move normally again. Here, the meaning of the symptom to the patient ("I am sexually conflicted") is regarded as the cause of the symptom ("I cannot move my hand because I am sexually conflicted"). The psychoanalytic search to make conscious a symptom's meaning is equivalent to the search for the symptom's cause. (Drescher)​

While the persuasiveness of Freud's theories seems to have waned in recent years, the new research that has supplanted his work is founded in a different social context. Indeed, Drescher's paper notes the strong decline of psychiatric interest in Freud in the last quarter of the twentieth century; in other words, after the Sexual Revolution that was in full swing by 1968. We should not be surprised that Freud's theories examined sexuality so intently; sexual repression was a hallmark of his era. Freud lived from 1856 to 1939, a period dominated by what is known as the Victorian era (1837-1901), the Edwardian period (1901-1910), and the Belle Époque (late 19th century to World War I). Before his life was over, Dadaism would reach its peak (1916-1920), and the United States would see the rise of jazz and the flapper era (approx. 1912-1929). Essentially, Western societies began emerging from sexual and other psychological and cultural repression toward liberation. This, of course, brought tremendous conflict both individually and collectively. We still live with this heritage today.

It would be irresponsible to presume that sexual repression reduces deviancy.

Works Cited:

Drescher, Jack. "Psychoanalysis and homosexuality at the postmodern millennium". Psychomedia. March, 2000. http://www.psychomedia.it/pm/lifecycle/gender/drescher2.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa, why don't you just tack all the posts you've made on sciforums together into a book, and sell it? To hell with the fiction schlock you're writing!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A book? It'd be at least a few volumes, with an additional one for notes and references.

 

And why do you think women are so obsessed about their clothes, and showing off their morphology, whilst men generally aren't? From an evolutionary point of view, it should be obvious. What constitutes a woman is largely the window dressing which has evolved around an egg factory, to sell the eggs.

Whether a woman is impregnated conscensually or not, natures goal has been met. And as I've stated many times before, nature doesn't care. All this commotion is only the result of the Western mind, which arrogantly believes its desires somehow trump nature's more primitive and simpler goals.

I'm trying to figure out what's so funny about the social chaos caused by women's rights. :shrug:

Here's an example which is closer to home: if I smoke 40 cigarettes a day, am I asking to get cancer?

Most will respond that whether I get cancer or not, smoking is a foolish thing to do. Not just because of the health effects, but it's anti-social ones too. Fifty odd years ago, however, there was no known link between smoking and cancer, and the answer would merely have been no.

Why can't we apply the same logic to the scenario of rape?

I don't think it's too far fetched to compare the actions of cancer cells to a rapist, both are driven by forces which, ultimately, they are unable to control. In both cases, also, the 'victims' have the opportunity of prevention rather than cure.

It's only a matter of time before people are made to see the connection; a question of opening doors in the consciousness, rather than lab work.

I attempted to do this, since the real male victims of rape are not those who are physically raped themselves, but whose lives are made a misery by women's rights, which, inevitably, lead to more rapes, especially the stranger variety.

In other cultures men are not so timid and emasculated:

'Rape a suitable punishment for mini-skirts'

Bus conductors in Swaziland have vowed to assault and rape female passengers who wear mini-skirts,
sparking outrage among women's groups in the conservative African kingdom.

A bus conductor calling himself only Licandza said: "Women who
wear miniskirts want to be raped, and we will give them what they want."
Link
​

You can see how upset this man is that traditional values, which have guaranteed a safe and stable society in Swaziland for many centuries, are now being replaced by corrupt Western ones, which are obviously transmitted via the media.

There is genuine hurt and outrage being expressed here, and not a display of male chauvinism.

A woman with a bed sheet over her is not going to arouse any man in the street. There's no bumps or protuberances to even begin firing the imagination.

 

the nuanced take is that the latter would attract attention in far more greater numbers than the former. any one who actually lived would know this, it is the hot girl that gets a crowd around her not the frump. go out to any night club and see for yourself. if the dowd has 2 guys flocking around her, the hot one has 10. she has to contend with 8 more potential rapists.

i would venture that the dowd is statistically safer in her person than the other one

/snicker

 

Gosh deepthunk you are beginning to sound A LOT like wandererer. Have you been reading old posts and plagiarising or have you cooked this lot up all by yourself?

May I express my genuine hurt and outrage at these displays of chauvinism.

 

sniffy

spuriousforums has obviously dumbed you down, little girl. you are like a bull in a china shop. rants and knee jerk reactions.

the context is quite specific. my response was constrained by the boundaries imposed by bells question.

now run along

 

oh hoo hoo hee he hee/snicker/pant /rant/kneejerk

I was always dumb.
Now I'm just sick.
To death.
Of the same old same old.
Where once I might have elucidated.
Now I can't be arsed.
Time worn and care given.
Constant referral to red herrings.
Blaming victims.
Controlling elements.

The message is always the same.
Woman!
Do not as you do. Be not as you are. Say not what you will.
Be forever a little girl to belittle little be.

ha ha ha he he he
funny innit

I wonder what would happen to gustav if he came out?

 

Believe it or not, mummy occasionally allows me into the kitchen to do a bit of cooking. So yes, this is all my own creation.

I hope to add side dishes in the future. :shy:

You may.

And while your at it, help yourself to some rotting cheese.

 

Blue cheese? I love it!

 

heh. are you seriously proposing that you have no idea? have you never thought..."wow, that is too daring!" "wow, that is too revealing". ever been a trifle bit self conscious about what you were wearing and wishing you had not?

if so, you are on the right track. extrapolate and use your imagination. remember it is your life.

stay safe, bells
i notice a cognitive dissonance and that worries me
perhaps i am mistaken?

 

gustav have you seen the other thread where bells shares her very unpleasant experience of being sexually assaulted by a family friend? Are you trying to suggest that if she had dressed differently the assault wouldn't have happened? From what I can tell she was dressed rather conservatively.......or is that your point? If she'd been wearing a mini skirt perhaps she be dead now, eh?

 

if you cannot muster up some depth and sophistication to your thought processes, a semblance of profundity, i rather you not bother me.
sorry

can you not get it into your thick skull that familial abuse has just one requirement and that, is to be simply born!
ja
daddy has seen you with disheveled hair, morning breath, tattered tshirts and still want to do ya

 

duh ok

 

Men wear tight clothes too, it's just that we don't lambaste them for being over-sexual the way we do ('we' meaning society, I don't) when it's a woman.

I will admit to being a little aesthetically obsessed, but that's for me, not to get sexual attention. Hell, I went to a nightclub in ragged black combat pants and a loose fitting skull T-shirt a while ago. I looked more than a little androgynous. You can't tell me that was to attract male attention. Oh, wait, I'm the only one in the world who dresses for herself, and all other women just dress to get laid, yeah? (sarcasm)

And men actually do like to show their male morphology. Come to the gym where I live and look at some of the oversteroidal mutant dudes in tight vests and tell me they don't like showing their morphology. According to you it's ok for me to shoot such men down with a narcotic dart so I can rape them?

(Note to everyone else...I was just making a point!!!! I would never do anything like that!!!!)

I like close fitting clothes sometimes because they don't fall around all over the place. Let me guess, I'm asking to be raped?

Maybe I should hack off my hair to avoid being grabbed by a rapist, according to you?

You're telling me you actually think that's OK????!!!! You're actually saying you think it's ok to rape women???!!!!

I fucking hate you.

 

No need to tell me about the requirements of familial abuse. I am very well aquainted with the effects. And the causes.

Whether you like to hear it; choose to accept it; or not; your style of posting (as gustav anyway) renders it almost incomprehensible. But I guess you are being profound and sophisticated and I'm just too thick skulled to appreciate the poetry. Silly me.

Perhaps we could start a new thread.

The Philosophy of Rape Prevention.

Women, girls, sluts, hussies, tom boys, cunts, twats, bitches, nuns and tarts hear this:

- don't be frail, don't be tough, don't try to defend yourself, don't be a victim, don't be a survivor, don't forget your gun, don't go out alone and don't go out at night, don't look too attractive, don't make him feel bad, don't go for a loser, don't walk about, don't get into a taxi, don't become a prostitute, don't get drunk, don't rock the boat, don't blame me, don't aspire, don't try to be like a man, don't ask, don't contradict me, don't feel bad, don't feel good, don't admit your a woman on an internet forum, don't rant, don't cry, don't talk, don't laugh, don't be attractive, don't be ugly, don't shout, don't scream, don't have children, don't be selfish, don't think, don't be stupid, don't say that, don't be clever, don't look at me like that, don't try, don't give up, don't do that, don't do this, don't tell anyone

A knee jerk reaction and a rant, as every good girl knows, may be all that stands between a rapist and his next victim. Depth and profundity however......

/snickers

 

Btw you have obviously either misread my posts or not bothered to read them at all. If you read......

skull thick ja

 

No one should dress just for themselves, it's incredibly narcissistic. You should always bear in mind how others will perceive you in public, and what type of reactions your likely to provoke.

Look little girl, I hate to break the news to you but your not physically able to rape a man, unless your planning on using some instrument in which case it would be something along the lines of a sexual assault, not rape.

Oh ... sugar and spice and all things nice?

Quite possibly.

But you can't lay the blame at my feet for what happens to you.

Hair is definately one of the things that turn men on. Generally, short haired women are considered less sexually desirable.

Of course you do.

Do you understand that it doesn't matter whether I think it's O.K. or not?

Suffering is inevitable, the same way earthquakes and rain are, to avoid them one lives away from areas affected by earthquakes, or buys an umbrella.

You can reduce your chances of being rapped by a stranger to zero, by wearing one of these:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!