Attitudes to rape

Absane:

I do not agree with the full sentiment of the Moslem cleric. I do, however, recognize that women who wear sexy clothes and are, for lack of a better term, cock tease, are playing a dangerous game.

And again: Why would a promiscious woman really give a damn about being raped non-violently?

Bells:

"There can never ever be a mitigating circumstance in a rape. A woman can never contribute to her rape. By clicking for any of the above, you absolve the rapist and basically blame the woman which in my opinion, makes you just as bad as the rapist. "

Why do you affirm such?

Let's have reason, not emotion, here.

Pete:

You chose to look at things from an interesting viewpoint. Excluding circumstances that were covered by others at the crux. This is likely then the chief reason why I kept the four choices rather than just the two, although we seemingly agree on most matters relating to this. I instead opted for an approach that specifically covered everything and which tried to discredit some arguments that basically redefine what rape is. For instance, having sex with any drunk girls is an act of rape to some people. Yet this is clearly an absurd position.

I would also say that your "marriage v. relationship" point was interesting. However, I did not consider such things by virtue of the fact that the idea of marriage implies a marriage that currently exists and which isn't dissolved all in formal legal sundering (divorced v. separation).

However, might you elaborate a bit why you affirmed this in response to the relationship thing?

"I agree that it could potentially mitigates, but with reservations. I don't think it would mitigate the severity of the crime in all situations. I definitely don't agree that it necessarily makes the action not rape at all."

I'm intrigued by the details of your viewpoint on this.

But some direct responses...

"The problem with this is that "begging for sexual attention" should not be judged by the person's attire or past. Unless they have a t-shirt that says "I'm begging for sexual attention", I guess."

Do you really think this is reasonable? Certain clothing, in the proper cultural setting, implies sexual desire. For instance: Women who wear their thongs hiked above their low-rider jeans whilst wearing an exposed midriff shirt? That is an obvious sexually-focused attire.

If nothing else, she should realize that this signal is being broadcasted and could make rape more likely.

"Flirtation is tricky... when I think "flirtation", I don't think "begging for sex", but it's a broad term. "

Well, if one is unsure if one should "tempt the beast", perhaps one oughn't? Flirting with someone that you have no intent to be serious with even remotely, specifically if the flirtation becomes overally sexual (as opposed to more innocent) is again, a sure fire way to increase your chances of being raped.

I should note, however, that none of these things force men to rape women, only that women ought to consider the general risks of certain behaviour, as it is more likely to provoke a sexual reaction out of men to do certain things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point is: he said if a woman doesn't fully cloth herself, then it's her fault if she get's raped. That's the whole story in a nut shell.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a fine line between what should be considered a rape and what should not. I have heard of both of the extremes. I do not agree with pedophilia or anything dealing with it, as it clearly is immoral, but mainly is bad for human species, as humans depend on psychology in their guidance, and an undeveloped human being psychology will be damaged when introduced to sex/raped or abused. I have seen women who treat men good and I have seen women who clearly abuse their powers. It is the world I live in, were everything must be taken into account. The world were women decided to be as powerfull as men, to have the same freedom as men, they are given that freedom, but they should not abuse it...but clearly some did.

 

Absane:

"The point is: he said if a woman doesn't fully cloth herself, then it's her fault if she get's raped. That's the whole story in a nut shell."

Which I disagree with.

 

Maybe I read into what you said improperly. Forgive me if I did.

 

Consider the purpose of women and men in this life:

The purpose of men is to find a female, mate with her, protect her and the offspring.

The purpose of female is to attract a male, mate with him, make sure the male stays with her to protect her and the offspring.

---

What ways does female employs to attract a male and mate with him?

The problem arises were...females dont want to choose any male...they want the best male there is...but they dont know who it is...so they go around and attract everyone there is...hoping that the best male is attracted.

 

Absane:

"Maybe I read into what you said improperly. Forgive me if I did."

Not a problem.

To clarify: I do not think it is right to rape a woman no matter what the nature of her clothing is, only that women ought to know better than to think that they can wear any clothing they desire and not raise the risk for rape. That is to say, women ought to dress and act with an intent to not be raped, specifically if the likelyhood is higher than normal, such as if she lives in a bad neighbourhood.

Basically, there are things women can do to lower their risk of rape by making themselves less appealing to those more likely to rape. Wearing provocative outfits or otherwise inticing can be a sure fire way to get oneself raped, even if the moral blame resides solely in the rapist.

 

Bells: what protection will men have than...from women making false allegations that she has been raped? or is this ok with you? or wait...your not going to reply to this, because you really dont want to answer this question as it makes some women evil. have you not seen evil women or all that surrounds you is angelic?

 

This I agree with. However, in no way does it imply that a women should dress in a way that contradicts how she wants to dress.

It's like the police tell us students on campus (downtown Atlanta): if you want to reduce the likelyhood that your car will be broken into, hide all valuables and all eye-candy. If I want to leave my laptop out and show off my fancy GPS or DVD player, there is no stopping me. However, I am more likely to be a victim.

 

Bells:

"Are you for real? So if she's not beaten around a bit it shouldn't count as rape because it somehow hasn't injured her physically and because she's had sex before? "

Would it count as rape? Yes. But I am at a loss for why she would give a damn, if she doesn't care about who she has sex with?

There would be no virginity issues, nor relationship ones...

"How can you affirm any differently? "

See my main post for my justifications. If you'd like to address them specifically, I'd be glad to reply.

"So when you go to the beach, do you rape women? After all, women dressed in bikinis are scantily dressed. Do you rape them? What if you had a daughter and she was wearing what the male considered to be somehow "sexually-focused" but you thought was fine, and the man raped her, would you blame your daughter for dressing in a way that was sexually attractive to that particular male? "

I am speaking of "sexually-focused" in a general cultural context. If she was wearing a non-revealing sweater and a normal pair of jeans, for instance, she could hardly be said to be provoking anyone in particular.

"Some guys have a foot fetish for example, does that mean all women should cover their feet lest they come across one such person who might rape them? Not all men think that wearing a g-string with low cut jeans as being sexually appealing, but thinks a woman in a business suit (as another example) as being someone who's implying a "sexual desire" to him in particular, should women dress differently because they might be raped by that man?"

See my above comment.

"How about men who can't control themselves when they see a woman in her underwear and goes around peaking into windows until he spots what he wants and goes in and rapes her.. should women start covering up at home as well just in case someone may be peeping in the window? "

One can reasonably expect privacy and safety in one's home enough to walk around in one's underwear, nude, or otherwise. One could not be blamed for doing so and someone looking in, unless one was purposefully parading around a ground-level window with an intent to "show off".

"Instead of blaming the man for being too weak to control himself, you actually blame the woman for tempting the man into raping her by wearing clothes that he (as the individual) may find to be sexually appealing. Lets get this straight here.. Not all men find the same thing to be sexually appealing.. So instead of dealing with the men who would rape a woman because he can't control his urges, you blame the woman for dressing in a particular way that may attract a particular man and his perverted ideals? "

You will note that I have mentioned that the moral blame belongs solely to the rapist. I am only claiming that women can and ought to lower the possibility of rape.

"I know. Why don't we lock women up in their houses so that no men can be tempted. Why don't we force women to cover themselves from head to toe and never be allowed to speak to any male human species. She should also never leave the house unless attended by another. She should never be alone with a man.. just in case he decides to rape her as her being alone with him and possibly smiling at him could be construed as being "flirtateous" by the man and somehow "sexual" by the man and he would then have an excuse to rape her. "

Wow, you sure love Strawmen Arguments, don't you?

"What you fail to realise numbnuts"

And ad hominem...

"is that what one considers to be sexual flirtations may not be construed as being the same by the other party. "

Hardly likely...

"When a couple gets married, the man does not somehow own the woman and therefore the woman has no right to refuse sex. "

I never claimed that the man owns the woman. I claimed that both ought to be sexually available to eachother. This implies a mutual thing. It is laso implied in the very notion of marriage and its historic and continuing cultural purpose.

 

Absane:

"This I agree with. However, in no way does it imply that a women should dress in a way that contradicts how she wants to dress."

Yes, but well, one reaps what one sows. If one dresses or acts in such a way that more likely will provoke a reaction fromsone, then one must live with that consequence of such provocation even if one is not morally to blame for.

"It's like the police tell us students on campus (downtown Atlanta): if you want to reduce the likelyhood that your car will be broken into, hide all valuables and all eye-candy. If I want to leave my laptop out and show off my fancy GPS or DVD player, there is no stopping me. However, I am more likely to be a victim. "

Exactly.

 

None of the above. There are no 'mitigating circumstances in rape'. The option which has the woman failing to clearly say 'no' could provide a 'mitigating circumstance' in sex which subsequently leads to a rape charge. But the thread question isn't quite framed that way, is it? If a woman fails to clearly say no, then consent becomes an issue. It could still be rape - if, say, the woman is too paralysed with fear to refuse, or even to speak - but consent could be implied where there is no clear refusal. However, since the simplistic thread question makes it clear that an act of rape has occurred, we don't need to consider this one cloudy issue.

Strangely enough, neither does he. He issued a public apology.

 

If a woman is promiscuous does that mean that she doesn't care who she has sex with? Even the most promiscuous women are a bit more discriminating than that.

The problem with this is that it doesn't set very clear parameters about what is provocative and what isn't. Is a skirt 2 inches above the knee provocative? What about 4? Or 6? Or one that looks like a belt? Complicating matters is the fact that different men have very different ideas about what's provocative and what isn't. Personally, I find nuns sexy. And nurses. Are they asking to be raped?

 

Redarmy11:

Actually, assuming that by "not saying no" she never did anything else to imply a lack of consent (such as fighting against it and other such things) then would not this be no rape by default? That is, I am not so sure the poll implies a rape -has- occurred, only that "is it rape under these circumstances"?

 

REdarmy11:

"If a woman is promiscuous does that mean that she doesn't care who she has sex with? Even the most promiscuous women are a bit more discriminating than that."

One would expect a woman to not be that emotionally scarred if she was nitpicking over not finding him handsome enough or something of the like. If she litterally just screws around otherwise...

 

Would it be 'no rape' if, as I said, she was too paralysed with fear to refuse or to fight? There's no way of knowing what kind of consent is implied or not implied here without knowing the circumstances. This option is a grey area.

Not sure what you mean by this. Do 'emotionally scarred' women have sex indiscriminately? I'd say not. I'd say that any woman who is completely undiscriminating in her 'choice' of sexual partners is mentally unstable. Is she asking to be raped?

 

Redarmy11:

Was it done with physical coercion on his part? Like did she never fight back or say "no" because he held a knife to her throat?

 

It's impossible to say. More information is needed on why she didn't say no before any informed response can be given.