Sponging off the Halloween Excuse: Sexy Women

Where I live there are a number of norms, some of them fairly provocative - if I go with what was the norm when I was younger. This means that for someone to follow the norms, young women, they will dress what I would consider intentionally sexy. If a young woman does this they may very well be seen by men who are not from the same group.

As an outside - me now bringing in our discussion in the other thread on joining religions - you are judging young women who follow the norms of their culture in terms of dress and fashion, as setting themselves up for rape to some degree. Of course if they do not dress within the norms of their culture, this is also provocative, now towards the members of their groups. So then they are complicit in their being bullied, even beaten up, it seems from your philosophy.

The same would hold true for interracial relationships. In general they are accepted where I grew up, but there are significant minorities who find this provocative. Is an interracial couple complicit in their being beaten up?

Is the gay man?

Or even more close to home - is the man or boy who does not act along the norms of maleness - complicit in their fag bashing? - one need not be gay to be called a faggot and treated as gays sometimes are.

I think saying that these people are complicit in the violence aimed at them is cruel.

I can see people taking risks in ways that show a lack of self-care and there is a degree where I get pissed off that them.

And I certainly see how people may be leaving their houses aware that they risk certain things, but this is different from being comlicit - at least how that terms hits me.

A woman who dresses sexy and complains about being hit on by men is very confused. She is certainly complicit in the the rituals of men and women flirting and seeking each other out as potential partners of some kind or other. But that men are such machines, machines incapable of simply getting angry hurt or sad when denied access to sex with specific women, that we view the women as complicit in the rape, rather than simply complicit in the interest...that seems confused to me.

Old ladies in frump clothes get raped also.

So does this mean we should not drive cars, wear nice watches, have a beautiful spouse, dress well? Are people who do this complicit in their victimhoods?

If I look at this will I now be complicit in whatever crimes perpetrated against me that might be prevented by these rules, whereas before, in my ignorance, I would not have been complicit?

I do think people can be stupid. But I do not think you can look at their clothes and tell this.

And I notice that this concept gets applied mainly to women when it comes to sex. It rarely gets applied to men, around sex or around expensive items. Or even items that are merely too expensive for those who might try to steal them. It also tends not to be applied to status 'objects'. If someone gets promoted to management -in a firm where it is well known a lot of people want to get off the factory floor - and that person gets beaten up out of envy, we rarely say they were complicit.

The people who love the woman putting herself at risk can before and after any rape, react to what that woman is doing by saying they are concerned about the risk being taken or really pissed off about it. I think this can be done as a practical concern about practical choices without making the person feel complicit in their rape, which is an insane reaction.

Further, I don't think, then, we have any chance to avoid being complicit in violence aimed at us. Conforming will put us at risk and not conforming will put us at risk. Every high school girl, for example, would be complicit in any violence they faced. The ones who dresses sexy - as they do these days - or the ones who went against the norms. They are both considered provocative by many - a small subset of these 'provoked' willing to get violent.

I notice you did not respond to most of my post about other ways we might be seen to be complicit but rarely are.

I also think SAM's post is on issue here.

I will not walk around viewing the fact that I inevitably provoke just by existing, because of whatever choices I make about what I wear, do, who I socialize with, etc - and therefore am complicit in whatever violence I come to face.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then of course there is the other side of the coin

(There are three prospective thieves, a white male youth, a black male youth and lastly a white female youth - watch the end to see how they deal with the female thief)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both sides are defending a PC and I would guess that yours and gedanken's position has more backing in the world. Many rapists will vocalize this political correctness and so will other commentators...she was asking for it, given what she was wearing. This is a form of political correctness and one that I think the victim is correct to complain about
and of course also about the extreme way it is, on occasion, enforced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenna Marbles in defense of “Sluts on Halloween.”

 

This is not a correct interpretation of my position.

I am not in the "she was asking for it" camp.

Read the article I linked to.

 

When people do something (dress, speak, etc. in a particular way) with the specific intention to provoke others, then they are complicit in the case that a crime has been committed against them.

Read the article I linked to.

If they do those things with the intention to provoke others, then they are complicit.

Not in your ignorance: but in your innocence.

I think this is too superficial.

For there to be a criminal act, there needs to be a criminal intent.

Criminal intent is, of course, difficult to prove by others, and thus difficult or impossible to prosecute.
But personally, we do know when we have it, or at least we have the potential to know it.


E.g. If you buy a fancy car with the explicit intention to show off with it - and then this car gets keyed or stolen - you're complicit, and you probably know it.

Targets of crime are essentially of two kinds: those that are just hurt; and those that are hurt and feel guilty too.

 

what a load of crap, the ONLY thing you are accurate about is that just like the rape victim is never at fault, neither should someone be held at fault because they didn't lock there car\house (which some insurance companies will do)

 

Because people should be allowed to be stupid and negligent and there should be no negative consequences from their stupidity and negligence!!!!!!

 

no, because you should be free to act as you like without being taken advantage of by a criminal.

 

Why should that be so?

Can you provide a reasoning for that "should"?

 

can you provide any reasoning for why you should lock yourself in a concrete bunker to protect yourself from what people MIGHT do to you and your belongings?

 

Could you provide a reasoning for why you prefer logical fallacies over critical thinking ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that's the only way to ensure your safe (if even that), you think your house is safe? of course its not, if nothing else an intruder could lift the tiles on the roof to get in and that's only if you happen to have paid thousands for window shutters which themselves are a danger because they trap you if your house is on fire. Cars are even easier to break into because you only have glass and possibly only a canvas roof if its a soft top.

So how much expense and energy should you go to before you aren't to blame FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS?

 

This is how you are depressed: You keep things superficial, you avoid pertinent topics, and you commit logical fallacies.
Your negative view of yourself and the world thus persists, and your depression seems justified.

 

actually the opposite, reason I don't lock my house is I don't believe anyone is likely to actually break in (and if they do my dog isn't as friendly as she looks)

Oh and I think a fire is much more likely and you know, I would like to live

 

Because our basic rights here in the US are called out in our Constitution, and one of those rights is the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

 

Criminals don't care about your rights.

You, probably, should care about criminals, though.

 

Fuck it; what's-is hasn't posted yet so my turn.

Why has this entire thread been scorched into a boring rant about rape?

Answer: because "deconstructing" rape is easy and chock full of talking points you all read in magazines and chic lit; it also favors that gut impulse you all have to defend women or minorities and requires little thinking.

It's easy going around regurgitating food someone else chewed for you, like fat babies swollen with breast-milk.

We have this guy
Pineal:

...who's being shticky and obviously skimming through posts.

Now, we understand you're engorged on chapter 2 of How To Argue Against Rape and need rolling, but Signal's clearly defined behavior in the article she posted, regardless of what said behavior is wearing.

This entire thread has precious little to do with clothing-- if clothing were tantamount to rape, then Will Ferrel in a thong would be "asking for it".

Think, godamnit.

Her contribution clearly delineates the significance of behavior in determining experience: insecurity attracts dominance, dominance attracts fear, regardless of what either is wearing.

This is why a man--outside of being that inferior species not above rolling in shit--would rape a 90 year old's wrinkled twat bundled in "frump clothing".

In other words:

BINGO.
See?

Then there's this girl:

....who can also magically collapse the turrets of "critical thinking" down to a yapping point but that's because she's foaming and wanting to hit something.
Poor, little Gendanken......

Not only does my platform transcend clothing or what girls fucking wear, but my focus is entirely on societal forces "behind the arras" shaping that accumulation of human behavior we call "market".

Because, isn't it interesting how modern feminine "beauty" completely shatters historical standards?
Because, isn't interesting how that pattern no longer holds?
Because, isn't interesting that the Gibson girl, the Mona Lisa, Botticelli's Venus, Lady Capello and Marylin Monroe would be considered "unhealthy" and too plump for Cosmo?
Because, isn't it interesting that female behavior distorts itself to mirror that farce?
Because, isn't it interesting that the 70's gave us Twiggy and "heroine chic"?
Because, isn't it interesting that Twiggy debuted the same decade the last arm of feminism did?

Patriarchy didn't give us Twiggy and Kate Moss; women did.

But you'd rather sit here and flap your gums on Rape and She's Asking For It.

Or children:

No, being above breeding and that need to glamorize kids, I recognize children as vile and would be the first to trade in a sniveling, treacherous, cantankerous human brat for gum without blinking.

My mother's bred; Clinton's bred; so does vermin.

To wit, "self-indulgence" is the purview of mothers like you. A mother with children has nothing on Narcisuss.

*shrug*

There are little to no women in here-- though you maintain they're all in here stroking my cock-- and I can only count 2 people here agreeing with me.
Everyone else is busy disparaging little Gendanken with "Porcelain Princess", "Chud", "Bitch", "Hag" and, ahem, "cheerleader bitch".

Sound 'popular' to you?

No, Wanderer called me a Queen precisely because he'd kill to squat his middle aged rump on the pristine crush of my "private chambers".

I don't knob with has-beens vying for my ego.

James:

Correct.
Some institutions already do.

No, I'm saying they shouldn't receive paid maternity leave or on the job child care.
This affects the pricing of product as well quality of service.

Hellenologophabia:

That chick's funny, but off.

One: Women are not only "allowed" slutting their wares, but are encouraged to do it.

Two: The point of my thread wasn't cattiness-- the fascinating thing is how pious these women are of other women and the self-loathing accenting that interest.
This behavior is entirely new, hence the comment on the Brontes knowing nothing like it.

She also makes the mistake of denigrating a woman who'd write a thread such as mine as being a Jealous Old Hag that Can't Wear that Anymore.
I don't think so, toots:

Explain me.

Chimpy:

What?

 

Enmos:

Oh, that tingle of wordplay running its tounge down my spine....

High fructose corn syrup, 3 thousand channels, and Facebook.

Not to mention the digital divide between your foot and ...........

 

Heh.. Oops.
I'm afraid that's just a typo.