NationStates Jolt Archive

Vhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests.

The Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people also found over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.

Amnesty says the "shocking" findings show government policies are failing.

And the director of public prosecutions told the BBC the report "highlights some areas of real concern".

Ken Macdonald QC, who is in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, spoke to BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

"The idea that a third of our people think that if a woman flirts she has only herself to blame if she is raped is, I think, quite shocking," he said.

"These are jury trials. The jury is the community in the courtroom and it is reasonable to suppose the jury brings into the courtroom a lot of the attitudes we have been reading about."

The Home Office says it has changed the law to try to improve conviction rates.

"We have made a number of changes to the legal system and to how the police and Crown Prosecution Service work, to put victims needs first and to make it easier for cases to get to trial and secure convictions," a spokesman said.


Rape is an appalling crime and has a devastating effect on victims and those close to them. Nobody asks to be raped
Joanna Perry
Victim Support

Readers' debate

"We are determined to close the gap between the increasing number of rape cases reported and the low number of convictions."

However, the Amnesty poll, carried out by ICM, found that most people in Britain had no idea how many women were raped every year in the UK or how few of the cases reported to police resulted in a conviction.

Almost all, 96%, said they either did not know the true extent of rape or thought it was far lower than the true figure. Just 4% thought the number of women raped exceeded 10,000.

The number of recorded rapes of women in 2004/5 was 12,867 - up 4% on the year before - although police estimate that just 15% of rapes come to their attention. Only 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction.

'Disturbing attitudes'

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen said the poll, part of its Stop Violence Against Women campaign, had uncovered "disturbing attitudes".

She said: "It is shocking that so many people will lay the blame for being raped at the feet of women themselves and the government must launch a new drive to counteract this sexist 'blame culture'."

The research exposed the scale of public ignorance over rape as well as the "dreadfully low" conviction rates, she added.

"The government has an international duty to prevent this gross human rights violation yet it's clear that the government's policies on tackling rape are failing and failing badly."

Joanna Perry, policy manager at Victim Support, said it was alarming to read that so many people appeared to believe that a woman was responsible for inviting a rape or sexual assault.

'Devastating effect'

"Rape is an appalling crime and has a devastating effect on victims and those close to them. In other words, nobody asks to be raped," she added.

And Ruth Hall, from the support group Women Against Rape, criticised "prejudices" in the court system.

"They still put the woman on trial, including her sexual history with other men, which is supposed to be banned and blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable," she said.

comments and opinions please.

thanks

You know, I first thought it was talking about Pakistan, or some other country with a questionable record...

They'd probably change their bigot opinion if it happened to their mother.

"They still put the woman on trial, including her sexual history with other men, which is supposed to be banned and blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable," she said.
Of course they do, it's called defending their client. If they didn't allow them to do what they do then it would erode a cornerstone of justice.

Anyhow, the headline is very sensationalist. It would lead you to believe that it is the view of the majority that women get blamed, when it's 'only' 25%.

comments and opinions please.

thanks

That's what's missing from your post. This isn't a news aggregator - next time, supply your own thoughts on the matter instead of just a copy&pasted article, so that we have something to discuss.

Rape is NEVER excusable. Rapists are at the top of my list of people I will beat into a coma if I ever meet them.
I do however want to say this. I think it is unfair for a drunk girl to cry rape because she was drunk, if the guy was also drunk. Note that I don't mean "passed out".

I mean the girl who gets drunks, has sex, and then sobers up and says it was rape because she was drunk. I think it hurts the cause of true rape victims.

But just to reinforce my position, I'll say it again.

Rape is NEVER excusable. Rapists are at the top of my list of people I will beat into a coma if I ever meet them.

To make it fair we should blame rapists for getting murdered.

That's disgusting, and quite sad. Women should not get any of the blame for rape. Why? Because no matter if she's drunk, or high or wearing revealing clothing, hell, even if she's naked, in the end, it comes down to a conscious choice on the part of the rapist to commit the crime. It's not an involuntary action, and nobody is forcing him to do it.

In a supposedly civilized culture, this is truly a tragedy.

If you're responding to the poster who said a drunk woman shouldn't cry rape because she was drunk, I don't think that's what the poster meant.

I took their post as meaning if the girl and guy have consensual sex while they're both drunk, to someone they wouldn't have if they were sober- the girl shouldn't be able to say it was rape simply because she sobered up... and was ok with it while she was drunk.

That does happen as well.

Now, no matter how drunk someone is, no is no- if someone doesn't want to have sex, no matter how far along it is, they should stop, and the person who wants to continue can finish themselves off, or take a cold shower.

As a woman though, I have to agree that if someone is so drunk, that they are willing to have sex with someone they'll regret having sex with in the morning, they shouldn't claim it was rape no matter how embarrassed they are about it.

However, I do think that most women who prosecute rape have been raped. They know they're whole sexual history will be dragged into the open (And let's face it, society is more ok with men having multiple partners, a woman with multiple partners is a whore/slut), they will be questioned and harassed as if they're the ones who are the criminals... and of course, if the man is found innocent, she will be labeled for life as someone who is a bitch, vindictive, pathetic, and a slut (since the sex was consensual of course.)

While I agree that people should be found innocent until proven guilty, the fact that the burden of proof lies on the victims in many countries, it makes it harder for actual victims to step forward.

Are you familiar with the concept of "bad forum etiquette"? Posting in a large font is not going to win you friends.

Are you familiar with the concept of "bad forum etiquette"? Posting in a large font is not going to win you friends.

Neither will using a non-standard font.

Better?

Honestly thought I had changed it back down, and for the font, as long as it's been a selection on the bb system, it has never been a problem anywhere I've posted. (And honestly, neither has font size as long as it wasn't huge.)

But no problem if it's an issue here, won't do it again- no need to be testy about it :o)

If you're responding to the poster who said a drunk woman shouldn't cry rape because she was drunk, I don't think that's what the poster meant.



I'm not responding to that poster. I'm responding to the OP

All right, I'm tired and I want sleep, but I'm just going to say this: walk around any major British city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you're guaranteed to see inebriated women staggering around with half their bodies on show for every (equally inebriated) man passing by's benefit. Now think: if you combine men (who, and I speak as a man myself, are basically here to fight, feed and f*ck, if you'll excuse the crude alliteration) with alcohol and then place a lot of attractive women (or come to think of it any woman once the beer goggles come on) in front of them, it's hardly likely to lead to anything good. Both men and women know this, but it is especially the fault of the woman. Why? She knows full well that most men will be aroused upon seeing her - after all, I can't think of any other reason for wearing a skirt three inches long in November - and she also knows that alcohol will swiftly remove what little inhibitions your average Joe Moron has. Yet still she continues not only to do her damnedest to "pull" any guy she can (and for all you people who whine about how it's not true, I challenge you to open your eyes next time you're in a nightclub) but does so while being so damn drunk that she barely knows what's going on. Under these circumstances, therefore, which can be summarised as:

1) Alcohol-induced loss of control and inhibition;
2) Human nature in the man;
3) Behaviour intended to attract and arouse men on behalf of the woman,

it is hardly surprising that women get raped when drunk, and for that matter hardly surprising that many people consider that they've brought it on themselves, an opinion I entirely share. If you're drunk, and you're begging for it, then don't expect drunkards who're also begging for it to restrain themselves.

That said, the removal of alcohol from either side of the equation changes things rather markedly. A sober woman being raped by a drunken man is, if you'll excuse me, screwed, unless she fights back very well; a sober man taking advantage of a drunken woman is utterly beneath contempt. The latter especially is a worrisome trend; I have always been taught that one should never take advantage of anyone, especially a girl/woman, who's drunk - it's simply not honourable, and I wouldn't dream of doing it, even when I'm pretty bladdered myself. However, the fact that plenty of men evidently are happy to do so is a concern that needs addressing, and in my opinion is primarily a fault of a poor upbringing stemming from the "I WANT THIS AND I WANT IT NOW!!!" attitude that's infesting our country. As for women being raped by drunken men, in those cases I support the woma to some degree; but it must always be borne in mind that if a woman is wearing revealing clothing and in the presence of drunken men, she must know that she is at risk. While I do not think that this makes these men's lack of any self-control any more excusable - I fully support compulsory castration in such cases - women must bear in mind that tempting any man without meaning it is perhaps unwise, and a drunken one especially so. Sadly, I can think of no other suggestion other than that, perhaps, women ought not to dress like harlots (which I think is not unfair when one sees how they dress around Manchester a fair bit of the time) if they don't want to get treated like them.

Not all women who get raped actually get justice, in fact, quite a signifigant number end up having those who raped them walk free of charge.

However, every man who has ever, in all US History, said that he was raped, has won his case O.O

Women are blamed for everything from original "sin" to miscarriages to bankruptcy to rape. Why not just slap us around some more, call us "bitch," and order us to make you a sandwhich?

However, every man who has ever, in all US History, said that he was raped, has won his case O.O
One would think that that would not be a very large number. :p

I refuse to get into this thread on the grounds that it will infuriate me and cause me to physically reach through my screen and throttle some of the posters who will show up in this thread and I swore only to use my powers for good.

But anyway, I don't care who a woman is and who a man is. The woman could be a crack whore, if she was raped, she was raped. She deserves justice, no matter what the hell the situation is. RAPE IS A CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIM.

But anyway, I don't care who a woman is and who a man is. The woman could be a crack whore, if she was raped, she was raped. She deserves justice, no matter what the hell the situation is. RAPE IS A CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIM.


Sometimes the only justice we are served is to just forget or try to forget it happened. But it is so hard to forget when you walk down the street to get a gallon of milk or oranges and some horny pig is whistling at you and staring at you.

Women are viewed more as sex items then humans.....is it no wonder we'd take the blame for rape? Afterall, you don't blame yourself when the batteries run out on your favorite vibrator.

Well, I think rape is one of those subjects no one can maintain a cool head about.

If I said, "a woman should take steps to prevent herself from being raped" or from "being in a situation where rape is more likely," I would (and probably will) get pasted with the infamous "YOU BLAME RAPE VICTIMS YOU EVIL FUCK!" label.

Yet if I said, "one should take steps to prevent your car from getting stolen" or from "being in a situation where getting beat up is more likely," a lot more people would nod and agree.

Why? Why is it other crimes are considered preventable in some instances and people should at least try to avoid them? But not rape?

Those are some disappointing statistics. I thought we were getting over that sort of thinking.

Why? Why is it other crimes are considered preventable in some instances and people should at least try to avoid them? But not rape?


Rape is not preventable. There is no telling it will happen when it happens, especially violent rapes. It's not like we can wire a security systems in our vaginas that alert the police everytime a penis enters.

Rape can happen to anyone of any sex, but sadly, mostly to women. Even the most cautious who do all in their power to prevent it are raped. There is no telling to who, when, or where the crime will happen.

And dressing provocatively does not matter in this case, because women who are dressed conservatively still are raped.

Also, I will repeat what I find myself saying now whenever someone comes up with a statistic we're all supposed to get worried and saddened and afraid about.

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

That poll was of 1,000 people. 25% would be 250. 250 people should not make you start bemoaning how little humanity has advanced no matter what they think.

Rape is not preventable. There is no telling it will happen when it happens, especially violent rapes. It's not like we can wire a security systems in our vaginas that alert the police everytime a penis enters.

I dunno, I'm sure some women must have prevented rape by gouging out their attacker's eyes.

Rape is not preventable.

I guess it's just the one and only crime that can not, under any circumstances, be prevented in any way?

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Statistics mostly are bullshit unless you know how to interpret them, and even then....they're still bullshit. I definately have to agree with you on that one.

I guess it's just the one and only crime that can not, under any circumstances, be prevented in any way?

We would like to believe so, but since there is no specifics on victims, there is no way to tell. We look back and think of things we "could have" done, but how were we ever going to know beforehand?

It more or less because a guilt trip of the "what if's" many of us do in times of trauma and loss.

I dunno, I'm sure some women must have prevented rape by gouging out their attacker's eyes.


True, there is always the exception, but the exception rarely influences the general population.....sometimes for the worse.

But what about violent rapes, where women are bond, beaten, or even drugged?

Of course they do, it's called defending their client. If they didn't allow them to do what they do then it would erode a cornerstone of justice.

Anyhow, the headline is very sensationalist. It would lead you to believe that it is the view of the majority that women get blamed, when it's 'only' 25%.
If it was only 1% of the population who thought it was the victim's fault, then it would still be abhorrant and disgusting.

A defense lawyer shoudln't be able to present a victim's past history, a woman only has to say no once for there to be a rape. What she did in the past with other men, or at other times with the same man does not matter and is completely irrelevant.

...

Right on.

If it was only 1% of the population who thought it was the victim's fault, then it would still be abhorrant and disgusting.

A defense lawyer shoudln't be able to present a victim's past history, a woman only has to say no once for there to be a rape. What she did in the past with other men, or at other times with the same man does not matter and is completely irrelevant.

No it isn't. If this woman has a past history of constantly sleeping around with different men and has a past of lying then it should be allowed in court because it brings into account 'reasonable doubt' of his guilt.

And btw, men can be raped too, by a man or a woman.

*foams at mouth* I do not have the energy to rant right now so this will have to do.

:cool: :mp5:

I dunno, I'm sure some women must have prevented rape by gouging out their attacker's eyes.
And some women freeze and don't know what to do.

I dunno, I'm sure some women must have prevented rape by gouging out their attacker's eyes.

What an asinine statement.. prevented rape is attempted rape. Rape is rape, it wasnt prevented, its not preventable once its happened, and its irrelevant in any case!

No it isn't. If this woman has a past history of constantly sleeping around with different men and has a past of lying then it should be allowed in court because it brings into account 'reasonable doubt' of his guilt.
Yes, it is irrelevant. It takes one time to say no. If a man does not listen that one time she says no, then all previous times she said yes are completely irrelvant. A history of lying is another matter entirely.

And btw, men can be raped too, by a man or a woman.
Yes, and their sexual histories shouldn't be used by the defense either.

The only person responsible for a rape is a rapist; the only one responsible for any crime is a criminal. That's just the way it works. Blaming a woman for being raped is the same as blaming jewelery for being stolen. Though taking things that aren't yours by force may be appealing, especially when you're intoxicated, doing it is a crime for which you should be held accountable.

True, there is always the exception, but the exception rarely influences the general population.....sometimes for the worse.

But what about violent rapes, where women are bond, beaten, or even drugged?

The PROBLEM is it IS an exception! In the case of violent rapes, what if the woman was trained with and carried a firearm? That might "prevent" the rape. And I know of women who have done exactly that.

We would like to believe so, but since there is no specifics on victims, there is no way to tell. We look back and think of things we "could have" done, but how were we ever going to know beforehand?

It more or less because a guilt trip of the "what if's" many of us do in times of trauma and loss.

But my point is not that dressing loosely leads to rape and women shouldn't do that. Rather, there ARE situations in which rape is more likely. It doesn't take knowledge of the future. It takes knowledge of the present and past. How many women are date raped? But they couldn't resist - partly because our society teaches that women are helpless and that rapists overpower their victims so fighting back is hopeless, don't bother doing it. Knowledge of the situation and one's own capabilities. And of course increasing one's capabilities doesn't hurt.

No crime is ever, truly, 100%, "preventable" statistically, yet if its prevented somehow by even one potential victim then that is what I call good.

Well, I think rape is one of those subjects no one can maintain a cool head about.

If I said, "a woman should take steps to prevent herself from being raped" or from "being in a situation where rape is more likely," I would (and probably will) get pasted with the infamous "YOU BLAME RAPE VICTIMS YOU EVIL FUCK!" label.

Yet if I said, "one should take steps to prevent your car from getting stolen" or from "being in a situation where getting beat up is more likely," a lot more people would nod and agree.

Why? Why is it other crimes are considered preventable in some instances and people should at least try to avoid them? But not rape?
Because short of staying indoors with a top of the line security system or only leaving the house with a body guard who is with you at all times, there's always a chance of gettign raped. Furthermore, why is is that women should feel they have to live in constant fear? Why is it that we shouldn't be able to go to a bar and drink it up like the boys and feel safe walking home? Why should we be prisoners while men are allowed to roam free because some men can't control their urges?

Because short of staying indoors with a top of the line security system or only leaving the house with a body guard who is with you at all times, there's always a chance of gettign raped. Furthermore, why is is that women should feel they have to live in constant fear? Why is it that we shouldn't be able to go to a bar and drink it up like the boys and feel safe walking home? Why should we be prisoners while men are allowed to roam free because some men can't control their urges?
And the safest place for your car is locked in your garage with an alarm on it and a security system on the house.

The only analogy I can make to rape is someone beat the crap out of me just because of my appearence, even if I was just walking down the street, or because I was drunk and therefore easy to beat the crap out of (with the precondition that the assaulter did not like the look of me). Would I be blamed for that? I'd be very surprised if I was.

And, though getting drunk might not be the best idea, people should be able to do it without having to fear being raped. I don't care if the woman in question is literally a drunken prostitute. It ultimately is always a choice on the part of the rapist. Nobody is forcing him to rape her, he chose to do it. The fact that he was sexually aroused is no excuse.

It's like how in Iran, the theocracy government claims that forcing women to wear the veil is for their own protection, and that somehow the sight of their hair will make men go sexually crazy.

The PROBLEM is it IS an exception! In the case of violent rapes, what if the woman was trained with and carried a firearm? That might "prevent" the rape. And I know of women who have done exactly that.
Oh yes, guns are always the solution. Let's be paranoid fucks who are armed to the teeth now in order to leave the house.

But they couldn't resist - partly because our society teaches that women are helpless and that rapists overpower their victims so fighting back is hopeless, don't bother doing it. Knowledge of the situation and one's own capabilities. And of course increasing one's capabilities doesn't hurt.
Yes, which is why self defense courses are a good idea. It's also why travelling in groups is a good idea, knowing to run to a well light public space or being aware of your surroundings. You don't need a gun to fight someone off and it is best to avoid situations where there could be a certain level of danger... but not every woman is attacked in such a situation, some are attacked in broad daylight, others in their own homes... women shouldn't have to live in constant fear and limit their lives because some assholes feel the need to dominate women.

It's like how in Iran, the theocracy government claims that forcing women to wear the veil is for their own protection, and that somehow the sight of their hair will make men go sexually crazy.
It may, it is a classic rule of eroticism. You deny people the view of something, it becomes erotic.

You don't need a gun to fight someone off and it is best to avoid situations where there could be a certain level of danger...
You just said in you last post that why should you be locked up. You are making yourself a victim and villainizing anyone who disagrees with you, thus proving everyone's point nearly.

And the safest place for your car is locked in your garage with an alarm on it and a security system on the house.
Yes, but in order for the car to serve its purpose you're going to drive it somewhere.

Yes, but in order for the car to serve its purpose you're going to drive it somewhere.
I will not argue with you, not because I agree, but because you refuse to do anything but victimize yourself and villainize anyone who disagrees with you.

It seems to be mainly common sense that women try to prevent rape. Some dont struggle, but it isnt for lack of wanting to; and its not hard to imagine a rapist becoming more upset.

Are you saying that women who have a higher chance of being raped should dress like Arabics? Then you're labeling them again, and a rapist will know whats under the turban.

All im saying is, I am a man, and I can control my urges; even if a woman is wearing nothing at all, and im piss drunk. What makes a rapist unable to control themselves? A mental disease.

Its unnatural, and criminal.

Women who lie about it are terrible, but what does it have to do with rape itself? Perjury isnt rape.

I will not argue with you, not because I agree, but because you refuse to do anything but victimize yourself and villainize anyone who disagrees with you.
How am I victimizing myself or villainizing anyone else?

Oh yes, guns are always the solution. Let's be paranoid fucks who are armed to the teeth now in order to leave the house.

Or, let's cover our ears, sing doo-dah and pretend the world is a nice, safe, warm place in which there aren't violent and opportunistic criminals?


Yes, which is why self defense courses are a good idea. It's also why travelling in groups is a good idea, knowing to run to a well light public space or being aware of your surroundings.

Agreed.

You don't need a gun to fight someone off and it is best to avoid situations where there could be a certain level of danger... but not every woman is attacked in such a situation, some are attacked in broad daylight, others in their own homes... women shouldn't have to live in constant fear and limit their lives because some assholes feel the need to dominate women.

No one's talking about living in constant fear. Yes, there are those kinds of situations in which basically nothing you could have reasonably thought of and done would have changed anything. And finally yes, you don't need a gun to fight someone off - but its a right in this country and sometimes, one doesn't have the trained and suitable physique to use any other way. Something is better than nothing. No?

The PROBLEM is it IS an exception! In the case of violent rapes, what if the woman was trained with and carried a firearm? That might "prevent" the rape. And I know of women who have done exactly that.

And what if the man breaks your arm and turns the firearm on you? What if the man has his own firearm and happens to be faster? Moreover, firearms cannot be taken everywhere.....and even in some of the least likely places, rapes occur. Many times, when you least suspect it.



But my point is not that dressing loosely leads to rape and women shouldn't do that. Rather, there ARE situations in which rape is more likely. It doesn't take knowledge of the future. It takes knowledge of the present and past. How many women are date raped? But they couldn't resist - partly because our society teaches that women are helpless and that rapists overpower their victims so fighting back is hopeless, don't bother doing it. Knowledge of the situation and one's own capabilities. And of course increasing one's capabilities doesn't hurt.


You are forgetting trauma. Shock has a funny way of screwing with people's minds. Sometimes a woman is so startled by an attack that she freezes up and does not know how to respond. Her mind is flooded with information and the brain cannot discern what is happening and how to respond.

Unless a woman trains every day, like the military, to respond on a moment's notice to an attack.....there is little she can do if the event arises. And let us face it, there is not enough time in the day to prepare ourselves constantly for a possible future rape.

Personally speaking, doing my majors with my pre-med focus leaves me little room in my day to do anything outside of studying and these temporary relieves from studying.


No crime is ever, truly, 100%, "preventable" statistically, yet if its prevented somehow by even one potential victim then that is what I call good.

I thought we determined statistics were bullshit?

In my opinion nothing AT ALL excuses rape, but what I find to be annoying is that if a woman or man dresses/acts in a seductive/promiscuous way, they should realise that they are likely to be hit on unless it is obvious that they are taken.

You just said in you last post that why should you be locked up. You are making yourself a victim and villainizing anyone who disagrees with you, thus proving everyone's point nearly.
Yes, why should women have to avoid going to the bar? Why should we have to worry about this at all?
I don't understand how a rape victim ever gets blamed for an attack.

Or, let's cover our ears, sing doo-dah and pretend the world is a nice, safe, warm place in which there aren't violent and opportunistic criminals?
There are other, better things to use than a gun. For example, learning some form of hand to hand combat might be a better idea... seeing as if someone disarms you of your gun, you're more or less fucked.

And finally yes, you don't need a gun to fight someone off - but its a right in this country and sometimes, one doesn't have the trained and suitable physique to use any other way. Something is better than nothing. No?
I live in a different country than you.

Random Question:

What about prison rapes? No one has commented on them.

Are they preventable?

And what if the man breaks your arm and turns the firearm on you? What if the man has his own firearm and happens to be faster? Moreover, firearms cannot be taken everywhere.....and even in some of the least likely places, rapes occur. Many times, when you least suspect it.

Yeah, but thinking along those lines kinda leads to "oh well, there's nothing I can do, la la la." What if some drunk asshole slams into my car out of nowhere and kills me? Well, then I die. But that's not going to stop me from good defensive driving habits.


You are forgetting trauma. Shock has a funny way of screwing with people's minds. Sometimes a woman is so startled by an attack that she freezes up and does not know how to respond. Her mind is flooded with information and the brain cannot discern what is happening and how to respond.

I'm not forgetting that any of that. But I'm not buying into any notion that it must be inevitable to be shocked, startled, froze up and not possessing any knowledge of how to respond.


Unless a woman trains every day, like the military, to respond on a moment's notice to an attack.....there is little she can do if the event arises. And let us face it, there is not enough time in the day to prepare ourselves constantly for a possible future rape.

Cop out, IMO. Rapists aren't perfect, they make mistakes - sometimes they even hesitate. Sometimes one doesn't need military level training to overcome them.


I thought we determined statistics were bullshit?

They are. By saying something is "not 100%" that is just saying there is no certainty. What I'm getting from you is that that it is certain: if you're attacked by a rapist, you may as well curl up your toes and take it like a woman. I know thats not what you mean, so I think we actually agree, its just my fundamental stance is what some might call "paranoid" while what I'm seeing is something I'd call "irresponsibly laissez-faire."

Or, let's cover our ears, sing doo-dah and pretend the world is a nice, safe, warm place in which there aren't violent and opportunistic criminals?

I guess that when those violent and opportunistic criminals rape girls, they still arent to blame, because the girl is wearing a miniskirt.

In my opinion nothing AT ALL excuses rape, but what I find to be annoying is that if a woman or man dresses/acts in a seductive/promiscuous way, they should realise that they are likely to be hit on unless it is obvious that they are taken.

However, I think we can agree that flirtation, while potentially irritating if unwelcome, is very different from rape.

Random Question:

What about prison rapes? No one has commented on them.

Are they preventable?
I woudl imagine with perfect supervision they could be... I mean, it is a prison, they're not going anywhere.

In other news: "water is wet"

People will always blame women for rapes. The "That slut was asking for it" excuse has been around from the dawn of time and is still going strong.

I think sometimes, it is partly her fault. (Especially if she's drunk.) That doesn't mean the rapist shouldn't be severely punished, though.

What an asinine statement.. prevented rape is attempted rape. Rape is rape, it wasnt prevented, its not preventable once its happened, and its irrelevant in any case!

Whatever. If this is what I get for advocating self-defense I won't bother.

What I'm getting from you is that that it is certain: if you're attacked by a rapist, you may as well curl up your toes and take it like a woman. I know thats not what you mean, so I think we actually agree, its just my fundamental stance is what some might call "paranoid" while what I'm seeing is something I'd call "irresponsibly laissez-faire."

I am not disputing that some rapes are preventable. But some does not account for all, as you seem to be suggesting.

And if you have never been raped, I would hold my tongue on assumptions with me. You do not know me or my past, and I can tell you that you are starting to push the lines too far for my personal comfort on the issue.

I mean really, if I was 21, I could go to a bar and not have to worry about getting raped. Why? Because I'm male. I could also go around with no shirt on (though I wouldn't) and have nothing at all to fear. I think that it is a fault of our society that the same is not true for women.

Also, while I do get sexually aroused if an attractive woman is wearing something revealing, I've never raped, or even thought about raping, anyone.

Oh and about prison rape. Is it preventable? Only if you kill your cell-mate and everyone who takes a shower with you, or get yourself locked up in maximum security solitary confinement.

I woudl imagine with perfect supervision they could be... I mean, it is a prison, they're not going anywhere.


What if supervision does not care? So many times officers turn their heads in the opposite direction....in the event supervision fails, is it then preventable?

I guess that when those violent and opportunistic criminals rape girls, they still arent to blame, because the girl is wearing a miniskirt.

No but thanks for the strawman. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Including criminals. Including victims.

I am not disputing that some rapes are preventable. But some does not account for all, as you seem to be suggesting.

Well, I haven't suggested that.


And if you have never been raped, I would hold my tongue on assumptions with me. You do not know me or my past, and I can tell you that you are starting to push the lines too far for my personal comfort on the issue.

I'm not sure what it was I assumed about you other than a common point of agreement. I guess I was mistaken about that, and that you disagree with every single thing I've written and we can just end this since apparently, agreement pushes your personal comfort zone. :rolleyes:

Rape is an act of violent control. It has nearly nothing to with sexuality. Revealing clothing is NOT a factor nor is behaviour. Think of nuns and elderly women that get raped. Think of all the MEN that get raped (the bulk of which cases go unreported) Yes men do get raped sometimes by women but mostly by other men and it's a crime that NOT isolated to prisons either! Remember the guy that killed the famous clothing designer Versace? He was serial rapist of men.
Even chimpanzees and monkeys commit rape and they don't even wear clothing!
Do a google search on these things educate yourself and speak from facts not 1/2 informed opinions

What if supervision does not care? So many times officers turn their heads in the opposite direction....in the event supervision fails, is it then preventable?
I dunno.

They could set up video surveillance and make sure that it's reviewd by some outside party who is concerned with protecting the rights of teh incarcerated.

They could set up video surveillance and make sure that it's reviewd by some outside party who is concerned with protecting the rights of teh incarcerated.


Voilates privacy laws. Cameras are not allowed in bathrooms......see, even criminals have more rights then the average person.

I'm not sure what it was I assumed about you other than a common point of agreement. I guess I was mistaken about that, and that you disagree with every single thing I've written and we can just end this since apparently, agreement pushes your personal comfort zone. :rolleyes:


I hope you are not being sarcastic. I hate sarcasm when I'm being serious.

"What I'm getting from you is that that it is certain: if you're attacked by a rapist, you may as well curl up your toes and take it like a woman."

I took offense in this statement. It is not the way these situations happen, and it hurts that someone could possibly think that.

Rape is not preventable. There is no telling it will happen when it happens, especially violent rapes. It's not like we can wire a security systems in our vaginas that alert the police everytime a penis enters.Rape is mostly preventable.

I can think of two items that would help a woman greatly to keep from being raped.

1:
http://www.dirittoindustriale.com/images/mostra/tampone.jpg

2:
http://www.olegvolk.net/olegv/kelly/s_rapist.JPG

Rape is mostly preventable.

We have already had this debate. You may want to back track and read.

I dunno.


And do not worry, I am not trying to back you into a corner. I just wanted to bring the issue into light since some people forget that prison rape is still rape.

No but thanks for the strawman. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Including criminals. Including victims.
If a strawman is some sort of ebonics for 'good point chap,' thank you. How colorful.

You said women can be to blame, then go on to say that rape is commited by violent criminals, furthering an earlier point I made (thankee). I was merely trying to put your view into perspective.

Backing up that statement with straw of your own doesnt convince me. Everyone is responsible for their actions, but that means you still believe that the burden is on the woman.. that its preventable. Which its not.

:rolleyes:

I like the humane side to your posts.

Because short of staying indoors with a top of the line security system or only leaving the house with a body guard who is with you at all times, there's always a chance of gettign raped. Furthermore, why is is that women should feel they have to live in constant fear? Why is it that we shouldn't be able to go to a bar and drink it up like the boys and feel safe walking home? Why should we be prisoners while men are allowed to roam free because some men can't control their urges?Nobody is arguing that it should be that way.

There are other, better things to use than a gun. For example, learning some form of hand to hand combat might be a better idea... seeing as if someone disarms you of your gun, you're more or less fucked.Are all rapists willing to become murderers? Those who are could most likely kill you without a weapon if they're strong enough to forcfully disarm you.

Voilates privacy laws. Cameras are not allowed in bathrooms......see, even criminals have more rights then the average person.
How do criminals have more rights than the average person, exactly?

Rape is an act of violent control. It has nearly nothing to with sexuality.

Yeah, rape is really no different from any other violent crime















...where you ejaculate at the end.

Are all rapists willing to become murderers? Those who are could most likely kill you without a weapon if they're strong enough to forcfully disarm you.
They could also disarm you and throw the gun away or use their newly acquired gun to threaten you further into compliance. They don't have to murder a person to threaten them with a weapon. If you have some ability in hand to hand fighting, they'll have one hell of a time taking away your weapons (i.e. fists) or using them against you.

How do criminals have more rights than the average person, exactly?

Perhaps that was a bad analogy. But when prisoners are not taped secretly, I consider them having more rights. When they have the internet....and many others do not.....more rights. When they have a roof over their head and regular meals.....I think you get the hint.

It was a bad analogy and completely unrelated to the topic.....this is an issue entirely in itself.

"What I'm getting from you is that that it is certain: if you're attacked by a rapist, you may as well curl up your toes and take it like a woman."

I took offense in this statement. It is not the way these situations happen, and it hurts that someone could possibly think that.

Well, since you do not think that (it was rhetorical), you are essentially agreeing with me that there IS more that you can do, and thus, there ARE ways to prevent or combat rape directly or indirectly. I thought that was a point of agreement even if, there are still yet ways we disagree (such as probably, how much of a chance one has, and in how many situations its possible to combat or prevent).

It is certainly not my intent to offend. For the record, the kind of defeatist attitude many people have towards rape (and often I find, only towards rape) offends me too. (As does rape itself.)

If a strawman is some sort of ebonics for 'good point chap,' thank you. How colorful.

No, a strawman (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) is a logical fallacy in which you deliberately misrepresent the opponents argument (for example, saying that I said or meant "when those violent and opportunistic criminals rape girls, they still arent to blame, because the girl is wearing a miniskirt.")


You said women can be to blame,

No, I haven't. You're doing it again.

then go on to say that rape is commited by violent criminals, furthering an earlier point I made (thankee).

Umm, yes, rape is committed by violent criminals by definition, since rape is a violent act that's against the law.

Everyone is responsible for their actions, but that means you still believe that the burden is on the woman.. that its preventable. Which its not.

Okay, so you believe that rape is not, in any way, ever, under any circumstances, preventable by anyone. Please back up this argument.

Nobody is arguing that it should be that way.
Yet you posted two ways to prevent rape, one being some sort of contraption with spikes that would presumably be inserted (as though every woman should expect to get raped the second she exits her home) and a gun.

If anything, I think the best way to prevent rape overall is to find some sort of preventative therapy for young boys (and girls) who may be in a high risk group to commit such acts. If you can stop them before they even do it through making these people better people before they can even become monsters, then I would imagine that would be better than having every young girl train at how to fight off an attacker.

Well, since you do not think that (it was rhetorical), you are essentially agreeing with me that there IS more that you can do, and thus, there ARE ways to prevent or combat rape directly or indirectly.

If you are agreeing with me that not all rapes can be prevented. ;)

Yeah, rape is really no different from any other violent crime...where you ejaculate at the end.

Now thats just sick.

Is it fun pointing out the obvious and hoping that you've made a viable point?

Rape is far more devastating to a woman than mere assault. Its a man's responsibility to be sure that coitus is mutually agreed upon because they're larger and can force the situation, because in most cases, a woman can do without sex.. yet a man feels as if he cannot.

I repeat again, if a person cant control their urges towards members of the opposite sex, that person is an animal who should be caged.

What I think alot of people here and in society fail to realise is that rape isn't about sex - it is about one person exerting control and dominance over another person - male rape is seem as a way to demean an individual and make them feel helpless; the rape of a women by a man is used by an individual to exert dominance over another - and what alot of people also fail to realises here, rape DOES occur in marriage.

If a female says NO and you continue, that by definition is RAPE; she has decided that she does no want sex, but continuing after no, you are forcing her; heck; you can get your dick half way in her virgina and she has the right to say, "no" - that the law.

I think the question is "where is the rape line drawn." I believe we can all agree on the "she said no." What about the "she said yes, we screwed like (drunken?) rabbits, now she's embarrassed and says she didn't really mean yes."

More amusing, perhaps, is that two people under the age of consent having sex are "statuatorily raping" each other.

Do I believe the women can be to blame for getting raped? Sure, if the woman says yes then no. That's a far cry from the extremes of drugging, violence, etc, where it's obviously forced sex.

Thus, where does the light shade of gray turn into that darker grey that makes sex a rape and not something mutual?

Whoever wants to blame a woman for getting raped should be blamed if he gets violated by another man.

women who are raped are a lot of the time at least partially to blame. and a lot of times women claim it was rape after the incident because they either want attention or just realized it was a bad decision in the first place.

If you are agreeing with me that not all rapes can be prevented. ;)

Well, of course not all rapes can be prevented. Not all burglaries can be prevented either. Yet, many can ... and often through responsible, armed citizenry! If more people realized this (not necessarily through the gun method, for those who can learn melee combat skills or for those who live in countries where its illegal to own a firearm) it can only be a good thing IMO.

What I think alot of people here and in society fail to realise is that rape isn't about sex - it is about one person exerting control and dominance over another person - male rape is seem as a way to demean an individual and make them feel helpless; the rape of a women by a man is used by an individual to exert dominance over another - and what alot of people also fail to realises here, rape DOES occur in marriage.

If a female says NO and you continue, that by definition is RAPE; she has decided that she does no want sex, but continuing after no, you are forcing her; heck; you can get your dick half way in her virgina and she has the right to say, "no" - that the law.

I believe we all realize it is a control issue. This debate seems more on is it preventable then anything else.

Well, of course not all rapes can be prevented. Not all burglaries can be prevented either. Yet, many can ... and often through responsible, armed citizenry! If more people realized this (not necessarily through the gun method, for those who can learn melee combat skills or for those who live in countries where its illegal to own a firearm) it can only be a good thing IMO.

I more or less believe you can take preventative measures, but preventative measures no way ensures your safety and security in the event of a rape or attempted rape.....just increases your chances of not becoming a victim.

women who are raped are a lot of the time at least partially to blame. and a lot of times women claim it was rape after the incident because they either want attention or just realized it was a bad decision in the first place.

Disagree. Some times, perhaps....."a lot" of the time....no.

I don't care if two people have been having sex for half an hour, if the woman says stop, and guy continues, it's rape. If you can't control your urges, you don't belong in society. I think people should be able to have the reasonable assumption that other adults will be able to exhibit the most basic self-control.

Okay, so you believe that rape is not, in any way, ever, under any circumstances, preventable by anyone. Please back up this argument.

Rape isnt rape if it is prevented. What you say has nothing to do with the point ive been addressing, that women can be to blame for rape.

What I am saying is that men are to blame completely, not that the act cant be stopped.

But tell me, with all your experience with rape victims and rapists, since you seem to know so very much; exactly what works to always prevent rape?

I didnt know that there was a magical formula.. I didnt know that if a woman carried a gun, it lessens the chance that she'll be raped because rapists tend to carry little more than a knife.. how could I have possibly inferred that statement? Can you afford to buy every woman in this country a gun? Can you say that its possible to not only arm, but train women across the nation in the use of firearms? Do solutions like this present risks to children?

This arguement is rediculous, there is no formula to prevent rape; and true rape CAN NOT be blamed on a woman.

Yet you posted two ways to prevent rape, one being some sort of contraption with spikes that would presumably be inserted (as though every woman should expect to get raped the second she exits her home) and a gun. I sure did. Does that mean I think it is fine and dandy that some people commit rape? No.

If anything, I think the best way to prevent rape overall is to find some sort of preventative therapy for young boys (and girls) who may be in a high risk group to commit such acts. If you can stop them before they even do it through making these people better people before they can even become monsters, then I would imagine that would be better than having every young girl train at how to fight off an attacker.Preventative therapy for young boys? Who are you to decide how other people's children should be raised? You're thinking like a government. As such, your solution to this problem will do nothing to actually solve the problem.

As such, your solution to this problem will do nothing to actually solve the problem.


Then how about castration? ;)

I believe we all realize it is a control issue. This debate seems more on is it preventable then anything else.

No, it isn't preventable; the only way to prevent it would be for females to go to an exclusively gay night club, and thus avoid the possibility of it happening.

Too bad so many guys are pigs; thinking that its their god given right, as beings with the juggling bits on the outside, to somehow claim a monopoly over the right to demand sex because he so happens to purchase a young lady a drink. Its pathetic and sad - but merely a biproduct of a society that goes around telling guys that 'if they don't fuck as many chicks as they can, they're obviously a poofter".

This disgusts me. It just promotes a society where it's okay for men to do bad things because they can't control themselves. So it's okay to cheat, for example, if a hot babe comes on to you and wants consensual sex? You can't control yourself enough to maintain your commitment to your partner?

Repeat after me: Women are not sex objects.

It is not a woman's fault if she gets raped. Period.

Preventative therapy for young boys? Who are you to decide how other people's children should be raised? You're thinking like a government. As such, your solution to this problem will do nothing to actually solve the problem.
Not all young boys, perhaps if we could identify some characteristics that rapists have as children and we find some children who are following the same pattern, we can prevent them from becoming rapists.

And really, if it's possible to help raise children so that they don't become rapists, society as a whole benefits.

Aside from that, I was just throwing an idea out there.

What I think alot of people here and in society fail to realise is that rape isn't about sex - it is about one person exerting control and dominance over another person - male rape is seem as a way to demean an individual and make them feel helpless; the rape of a women by a man is used by an individual to exert dominance over another - and what alot of people also fail to realises here, rape DOES occur in marriage.Saying that rape is not about sex is so much bullshit. My understanding is that the majority of rapes committed are actually "date rapes". In the date rape situation, the man's motive for having sex does not change the moment the woman says 'no'. When the offender and victim don't know each other, saying that "it's not about sex" is still nonsense. You could say the rapist "gets off" on exerting dominance. But getting off is a sexual thing. Otherwise, the rapist would not be aroused enough to actually commit rape.

All right, I'm tired and I want sleep, but I'm just going to say this: walk around any major British city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you're guaranteed to see inebriated women staggering around with half their bodies on show for every (equally inebriated) man passing by's benefit.
So what, walk round most Western cities on a Friday and Saturday evening and I'd be surprised if you didnt see at least one drunk man with his penis out, (usually pissing in a corner) for every drunk sodomiser to see. Is that a good reason why such men should be bent over to have large objects shoved up their rectum till they squel like piggies and bleed like there's no tomorrow? I wouldnt think so, but judging by your post should I assume you'd think it was fine so long as the sodimiser was also drunk?

Now think: if you combine men (who, and I speak as a man myself, are basically here to fight, feed and f*ck, if you'll excuse the crude alliteration)
No men are not here to basically act like violent retarded sperm fountains without the self restraint of a lower level primate. Speak for yourself if you are happy describing yourself as being a scum unworthy of crawling in a gutter, but I see no reason why every man on the face of this earth ought to be maligned by you just because you have appear to have no sense of decorum, no self control, and an obviously very low self opinion along with a very low opinion of everyone else on the planet with a penis.

with alcohol and then place a lot of attractive women (or come to think of it any woman once the beer goggles come on) in front of them, it's hardly likely to lead to anything good.
It shouldnt lead to anything. Place a drunk compulsive over-eater in front of a bakery window featuring the world's yummiest desserts, and I'd still expect them to not break the law by 'breaking and entering' into the premises, yet doing so would be less hurtful and less abhorrent than raping a person. I doubt many people would accept that a drunk homeless person who has not eaten for a few days was not at fault if they broke into a bakery that was flagrantly displaying it's tempting wares for any drunken food eater to see, and yet most people would agree that food is more necessary to people and a more compelling temptation (after not having eaten for a few days) than is sex. Being tempted is not an excuse for breaking the law, being drunk and tempted is not an excuse for breaking the law.

Clearly you feel that women owe something to men and men are entitled where women are concerned, otherwise you wouldnt excuse attacking and abusing women due to temptation occuring when people are drunk a women happens to look mighty fine (either because she is or because intoxication leads some male to think she is).

Is that good looking stereo/hi fi system in the shop window not tempting? Of course it is tempting. Any excuse to steal it if you happen to see it when drunk? Of course not, because people have a right to with-hold their tempting material possessions from drunk people no matter how much they display them, or how enticing they make them look. People dont owe their enticing material possessions to others; apparently in your very twisted opinion the body of a women is less hers to do with as she pleases than is a hi-fi stereo or a cake in some bakery window.

Both men and women know this, but it is especially the fault of the woman.
No it's the fault of people who have a point of view like you and who probably wouldnt accept drunk and 'enticed' in regards to a property crime but somehow think women are not as entitled to be drunk as other people, shouldnt dress how they like, and are responsible for the refusal of some gutter trash to control their urges.

I'm responsible for my behaviour no matter how tempting something may be to me, and no matter how drugged out on booze I have allowed myself to become. Is there some reason you are not equally competent? Some reason why you cannot control yourself? If that's the case you ought not be let out in the big wide world. If you really have such an inability to control yourself and be responsible for your behaviour I respectfully request you check yourself into a secure facility where the rest of us will be safe from your depravity.

Why? She knows full well that most men will be aroused upon seeing her - after all, I can't think of any other reason for wearing a skirt three inches long in November - and she also knows that alcohol will swiftly remove what little inhibitions your average Joe Moron has.
No, average Joe Moron has enough inhibition left to not smash the window in the local stero store and make off with the cool rig he's been dying to get his hands on since he read about it in Average Joe Moron's Hi-Fi stereo mag, average Joe has enough inhibition to not go around and murder the ex-best friend that stole his girlfriend. It's only Sick Joe Anti-social who lacks the inhibition to control his or her behaviour and then blames their actions on the person they have attacked.

Yet still she continues not only to do her damnedest to "pull" any guy she can (and for all you people who whine about how it's not true, I challenge you to open your eyes next time you're in a nightclub) but does so while being so damn drunk that she barely knows what's going on. Under these circumstances, therefore, which can be summarised as:

1) Alcohol-induced loss of control and inhibition;
2) Human nature in the man;
3) Behaviour intended to attract and arouse men on behalf of the woman,
Human nature in men is not to visciously attack and assault their gender counterparts. Wanting to appear attractive is social nature in most if not all societies. Expecting to be safe from fellow community members is social nature in most if not all societies. Trying to excuse viscious attacks on other people is your nature, not the nature of every man alive.

it is hardly surprising that women get raped when drunk, and for that matter hardly surprising that many people consider that they've brought it on themselves, an opinion I entirely share.
Right, and do you feel the same way about broke drunk people giving into the temptation to mug the person who has so enticingly just visited the automatic teller machine? I expect not, somehow broke drunk people are not entitled to loose all inhibition and take whatever they want, just to loose inhibition in regards to female human beings and visciously attack and assault them.

If you're drunk, and you're begging for it, then don't expect drunkards who're also begging for it to restrain themselves.
Being drunk and dressed how you wish to be dressed is not begging for anything, any more than displaying high priced stereos in a shop window is begging to have it stolen.

Expecting that people will obey the law is not unreasonable, and dressing a certain way, acting lawfully a certain way and being drunk is not begging someone else to act criminally.

That said, the removal of alcohol from either side of the equation changes things rather markedly. A sober woman being raped by a drunken man is, if you'll excuse me, screwed, unless she fights back very well; a sober man taking advantage of a drunken woman is utterly beneath contempt. The latter especially is a worrisome trend; I have always been taught that one should never take advantage of anyone, especially a girl/woman, who's drunk - it's simply not honourable,
Given your views on the right of people to assault and abuse someone (sorry make that some female someone) just because both victim and perpetrator happen to be drunk, I'm surprised the word honourable is in your vocabulary. I assure you, it's not applicable to your expressed views in any way shape or form.

and I wouldn't dream of doing it, even when I'm pretty bladdered myself. However, the fact that plenty of men evidently are happy to do so is a concern that needs addressing, and in my opinion is primarily a fault of a poor upbringing stemming from the "I WANT THIS AND I WANT IT NOW!!!"
Well tell us about your upbringing and we'll know what needs to be avoided, because any upbringing that results in a person with the views you are expressing, is not the kind of upbringing I want any member of my society to be subjected to. Further the result of your upbringing (ie the view that women who dress a certain way when drunk are begging other people to break the law and visciously assault them) is not only perverse, sick, and anti-social whilst being degrading to both men and women, it's also frigging scary!

attitude that's infesting our country. As for women being raped by drunken men, in those cases I support the woma to some degree; but it must always be borne in mind that if a woman is wearing revealing clothing and in the presence of drunken men, she must know that she is at risk.
I'm fairly sure women know they are at risk when dressed in an abba in the presence of men who have never touched acohol in their entire lives. What exactly is your point? That because some people are sick and twisted, actually enjoy hurting other people and refuse to be responsible for their own behaviour, women ought to be responsible in their place despite the fact that no amount of caution will ensure they dont end up as some sicko's prey?

Parents know their children are at risk every time they leave the house, but thankfully most dont cause their children to effectively 'not live a life' just to avoid the real and present danger living a life exerts. Women ought not to hide under their friggin beds just to avoid the unacceptable acts of others. Rather others ought to be stopped and every step that can be taken to remove anti social sickos from our society ought to be taken. It's not up to law abiding women to give up their freedom and by doing so to effectively endorse the kind of world-view that holds them responsible for preventing the unlawful acts of other people.

While I do not think that this makes these men's lack of any self-control any more excusable - I fully support compulsory castration in such cases - women must bear in mind that tempting any man without meaning it is perhaps unwise, and a drunken one especially so.
Oh I see the logic, men who are drunk are expected to be less in control of themselves because they are drunk, but women can reasonably be expected to have more control of themselves when drunk....is this strange and mystic ability of women to be more in control when drunk another facet of this 'human nature' you keep referrring to? Such logical genius your theory displays!

Sadly, I can think of no other suggestion other than that, perhaps, women ought not to dress like harlots
Dress like harlots?! Well you really are perfectly expressing the view point of a sexist mysogynistic trash minded individual!

I like to see women dressed up and looking fine. Why should they be denied the pleasure of dressing as they will, and adults with self control denied the pleasure of seeing them dressed fine just because some perverts think clothing somehow causes and excuses violent assault? It makes more sense to simply lock up the perverted sickos whose lack of self control renders them unable to function properly in society with the rest of us who do feel that we and we alone are responsible for our behaviour.

(which I think is not unfair when one sees how they dress around Manchester a fair bit of the time) if they don't want to get treated like them.
If by harlots you mean prostitutes, they have every right to refuse to 'service' a person (even, gasp shock, a drunk person), I can only guess by your comments that you think raping and assaulting sex workers is ok too, although probably only the female sex workers right?

No, it isn't preventable; the only way to prevent it would be for females to go to an exclusively gay night club, and thus avoid the possibility of it happening.

Too bad so many guys are pigs; thinking that its their god given right, as beings with the juggling bits on the outside, to somehow claim a monopoly over the right to demand sex because he so happens to purchase a young lady a drink. Its pathetic and sad - but merely a biproduct of a society that goes around telling guys that 'if they don't fuck as many chicks as they can, they're obviously a poofter".You must either be a woman or are yourself a 'poofter'. I want to have sex with women. This has NOTHING to do with what 'society' thinks or says. It's hormones.

Not all young boys, perhaps if we could identify some characteristics that rapists have as children and we find some children who are following the same pattern, we can prevent them from becoming rapists.And when we're done with that, we can figure out what to do with all these damn collectivists who insist that all problems are society's problems and that 'society' must solve them, because individuals apparently cannot.

You must either be a woman or are yourself a 'poofter'. I want to have sex with women. This has NOTHING to do with what 'society' thinks or says. It's hormones.

Yes, I am a poofter, but even those straight guys I know, realises that if they don't get 'laid' that night, it isn't the end of the world.

As for hormones; learn some self control, then we might not have such a damn over population problem on earth, with every guy running around the nation thinking that it is his primeval urge to spread his DNA to the most number of fertile females are possible within the shortest space of time.

NOTHING pisses me off more than people who blame their hormones for their actions rather than being an adult and saying, 'I made the choice to do [action]".

As for society says, who can honestly say that they never hear guys boast about how many 'chicks' they nailed on the weekend?

I think one issue that might be missing here (from what I've read so far) is that rape is generally NOT about seduction, attraction, etc. It's about power, and exercising that power over others. As far as I'm concerned, one of the biggest problems in our society is the way we screw up men by defining "masculinity" around power and authority, and then further screw up their ability to relate to women by tying that power/authority into sex/sexuality.

As for all the debate about drunk women, women in provocative clothing, etc.-- If as a man or woman you have self-control issues, it probably isn't the smartest idea to get that ridiculously drunk anway. Regardless, women have the right to explore and enjoy their sexuality through clothing and whatnot WITHOUT having to fear that men will assault them. There is no excuse for rape, period. And telling women that they are responsible for the ethics (sexual or otherwise) of men--including men they do not know--is really messed up.

And when we're done with that, we can figure out what to do with all these damn collectivists who insist that all problems are society's problems and that 'society' must solve them, because individuals apparently cannot.
Oh, I see, you're a libertarian....

Yeah, I really don't see any further discussion being productive here.

I feel that anyone who says that a woman brings rape on herself or is even partly to blame for the violence is either ignoring the human capacity for violence or simply ignorant. As horrible as it sounds, an infant can be raped by the same depraved rapist as a woman, no matter how she is dressed. Don't tell me it would be the baby's fault because she was wearing those hot pink little diapers.

If this shocks anyone, it is only meant to convey the reality of this brutal, invasive crime. It can happen to anyone for one reason only. Power. A rapist has no care if a woman is drunk, sober, wearing a mini skirt, a fucking ankle-length dress, walking in the middle of the night or the middle of the day. It can happen to your grandmother or your daughter.

I do acknowledge that there are male victims of rape. I could not be biased, knowing a male who was raped by his stepfather as a child. I would no more say a male victim of rape is partially to blame because he was wearing no shirt or any other reason.

Women who fake "rapes" are vile to me. Not only because of the damage done to innocent men, but also because of the damage done to sincere women who have truly been victimized. They make it easier for sexual predators to get away with their crimes.

Anyone who says that an actual rape is justified in any way may just as easily excuse murder because the victim was "in the wrong neighborhood". I'm done, I have to go breathe now.

I remeber a Report that went around high schools asking the kids what to do if they dont get sex and over half said rape was ok if you knew the person for over 6 months i find it quite disgusting really what kind of sick people would do that and 9 times out of 10 the rapist dont even fill sorry for there crimes.

No woman who does not implicitly consent to having sex deserves to have it forced upon her, and whether she is drunk or not when it happens has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. It, in no way, justifies the act.

That being said. If you dress like you are sexually available, how can you reasonably expect to be treated with respect by the women or men you meet?

It goes without saying that this rule applies to the guys as well.

If I said, "a woman should take steps to prevent herself from being raped" or from "being in a situation where rape is more likely," I would (and probably will) get pasted with the infamous "YOU BLAME RAPE VICTIMS YOU EVIL FUCK!" label.

Yet if I said, "one should take steps to prevent your car from getting stolen" or from "being in a situation where getting beat up is more likely," a lot more people would nod and agree.

Why? Why is it other crimes are considered preventable in some instances and people should at least try to avoid them? But not rape?

because nobody ever says "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client doesn't bear full responsibility here. that guy parked his nice car in a shitty area. clearly he was asking for it to be stolen."

because nobody ever walks from a burglary charge when their defense shows that the victim has had a history of not always locking their door.

until the same can be said for rape, any apparent excusing of rapists or blame shifting will be treated with utter contempt by people like me.

This issue that I have with the concept of rape is that the girl can decide she's been raped at any time during or after the actual sex. Yeah... after. ie: What happens one week later she decides she regrets her actions? She's been raped.

I think if she goes out looking for sex, and she gets it... it's not rape. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's pretty simple to me. If you consent to sex... then it's consentual! OMG! That was hard to comprehend...

If you don't want sex, just say no. Where something attractive, yet conservative. If you dress like someone who sells yourself, don't be suprised when people offer money!

I don't mean to sound flamey, but I think a lot of the time it is _partially_ the woman's fault. That is to say, the guy is to blame, too... But unless he's holding her against her will, it's not rape. If she decides in the throws of climax that she really didn't want to have this sort of relationship... well, I'm sorry but it's not rape.

If the guy clubs her over the head and drags her off... That's rape.

If a guy does anything sexual to someone who's asleep... That's rape.

If a guy knowing full well what he's doing takes advantage of her while she's under the influence... That's rape.

If two people are inebriated at the same time and (ignorantly) decide to go at it... that's not rape.

Hers, of course, are easily replaced with hims. Lots of guys AND girls get raped around the world each year. People say it's a girl problem, but I've got several friends who are guys who went through this...

I feel sorry for them, I honestly do, but they put themselves into the position and they know it, and they now regret it. If I did something like that and put myself in the position, I would feel horrible because of what I DID TO MYSELF. Yeah, it's someone else's fault too because it takes two to be in a sexual situation, but if I put myself in a situation like that, I'd want to kill myself because it really is partially my fault.

I'm sorry to those who disagree, but that's just how I see it. If the act is nonconsentual it's rape... If it was consentual at any time, it's not rape. I guess there's always exceptions and someone is going to pull "what if's" on me, but in general, that's how I see it...

Well, it is true that if you take an unnecessary risk then you are at least partially to blame for murphy's law taking hold. Not that we shouldn't be castrating rapists and enslaving them into forced labour camps or anything, I'm just saying.

Well, this is going to sound bad, but I will go with the thought anyway and see where it goes:

It's a common enough scenario where some guy gets really drunk and starts talking trash to some other guy that had no interest in interacting with him at all. So the trash-talking drunk guy keeps it up and eventually the target of his trash talking is pushed beyond the bounds for rational thought and beats the snot out of him. These are called "fighting words" and not necessarily considered constitutionally protected speech.

Now, take the same scenario where a woman is brazenly flirting with a guy in an attempt to drive him wild and succeeds much more than she was counting on. I suppose in this case you could say she was using "f*cking words", although admittedly, flirtation is more than the spoken language.

Much in the same way that nobody feels much sympathy for the trash-talking drunk guy that gets the snot beat out of him, how is a trash-talking woman that gets raped any different?

This issue that I have with the concept of rape is that the girl can decide she's been raped at any time during or after the actual sex. Yeah... after. ie: What happens one week later she decides she regrets her actions? She's been raped..
Aha, nice strawman, because obviously that is exactly what the concept of rape is about...

Give me a break with all this crap about 'women who cry rape when it wasnt'
The fact is I know personally of plenty of cases of rape that were never reported to law enforcement agencies, and yet despite it coming up many times in any discussion of rape, I've yet to personally encounter a women crying rape after consenting and regretting her consent. I'm sure it happens, just like I'm sure some people burn their own property down to collect the arson insurance. I also know that it is both possible and probable to get through a conversation about arson without someone saying 'the problem I have with the concept of arson is that someone can burn down their own property and claim insurance,' yet I personally know of more cases of insurance fraud than falsified rape crimes. Why the obsession with this apparently barely existent concern giving the much greater comonality of actual violent forcable rape (even without taking cases of drugging, coercion without actual use of violence etc into account)?

I find it bloody strange that so many people are so determined to prove that rape is usually a crime by the victim against the perpetrator and all about 'I changed my mind' rather than 'that sicko scum took away my autonomy and brutalised me just so he could feel a particular sensation around his nether-region, or just because the sick little pervert likes to hurt and dominate other people'.

Frankly I think this kind of red herring-straw man 'she consented then cried rape' post says more about the poster than it does about rape, and the victims of that hideous lowly crime.

This issue that I have with the concept of rape is that the girl can decide she's been raped at any time during or after the actual sex. Yeah... after. ie: What happens one week later she decides she regrets her actions? She's been raped.

I find it hard to believe that instead of saying to themselves "Damn, I was so stupid to let myself do that" those women will say "Damn, he raped me!"
What kind of person in these circumstances is so unable to accept responsibility for their own actions that they blame someone else? In this hypothetical situation, the sex was consensual; therefore the participants should have no person to blame but themselves for their delayed post-coital feelings of regret.

Well, this is going to sound bad, but I will go with the thought anyway and see where it goes:
You're right it does sound bad, but apparently not for the reason you seem to think...

It's a common enough scenario where some guy gets really drunk and starts talking trash to some other guy that had no interest in interacting with him at all. So the trash-talking drunk guy keeps it up and eventually the target of his trash talking is pushed beyond the bounds for rational thought and beats the snot out of him. These are called "fighting words" and not necessarily considered constitutionally protected speech.
If the 'fighting words' represent a criminal act, then call the police, if not (a criminal act) then they sure as heck do not justify breaking the law oneself. Some idiot making noises with their voicebox doesnt justify physically attacking said idiot. Other people do not drive a person beyond the bounds for rational thought; a person is solely responsible for their own behaviour no matter what words someone else utters.

What a load of crap; talk about a disengenious way to attempt to legitimise an unacceptable and criminal lapse of self-control. Pathetic!

Now, take the same scenario where a woman is brazenly flirting with a guy in an attempt to drive him wild and succeeds much more than she was counting on. I suppose in this case you could say she was using "f*cking words", although admittedly, flirtation is more than the spoken language.
What a load of crap! Is the woman breaking the law, if so call the police, if not dont blame criminal acts on someone who is not breaking the law....what next, abused children who's parents beat them into a coma deserved it because they were 'getting smart' or didnt tidy their room prompty enough?

What kind of sick brutal world are you trying to create and justify here? It's not one I want to live in. Judging from the law, it's not one most people want to live in. I dont recall 'they got smart' or 'they got trash talked' or 'they were flirting' being legitimate defences to any criminal act.

Much in the same way that nobody feels much sympathy for the trash-talking drunk guy that gets the snot beat out of him, how is a trash-talking woman that gets raped any different?
I feel sympathetic towards someone who is the victim of an unlawful act. I dont know what the hell goes on in the head of someone who thinks brutal acts of unacceptable violence are fine and dandy responses to speach utterances, I can only describe whatever is going on in such a head as 'very bad shit', and be utterly thankful my own head isnt that screwed up.

No wonder society is heading down the gutter at full speed.

Where the hell do people get these ideas that violence is an acceptable response, and that criminality is fine if someone mouths of at you?

Dont you think if reasonable people really believed that criminal acts of violence were an acceptable or appropriate response to someone mouthing off that 'they mouthed off' would be a defensive against criminal assault charges? It's not a defence for a very good reason....that reason is because such a response is not appropriate, acceptable or ok.

I didn't read the whole thread, just a few pages. But I find it highly interesting that people assume automatically that most cases of rape happen to women who are attacked when drunk and wearing revealing clothing on a night out.
If I remember correctly, most cases of rape actually happen within the security of the women's own homes, by friends or even husbands. Yet these are obviously just too unspectacular to even think about...

Women are blamed for everything from original "sin" to miscarriages to bankruptcy to rape. Why not just slap us around some more, call us "bitch," and order us to make you a sandwhich?
*slap* bitch, go make me a sandwich!
j/k

I didn't read the whole thread, just a few pages. But I find it highly interesting that people assume automatically that most cases of rape happen to women who are attacked when drunk and wearing revealing clothing on a night out.
If I remember correctly, most cases of rape actually happen within the security of the women's own homes, by friends or even husbands. Yet these are obviously just too unspectacular to even think about...

The reason most of the debate has been about drunk women in provocative clothing is because that's what rape apologists always bring up, as if that somehow makes the disgusting act more 'okay'.

But yes, you're probably correct.

Then how about castration? ;)I suppose that would work. I am forced to switch to my total distaste for all forms of prior restraint.

So has anyone used the revealing clothes argument?

So has anyone used the revealing clothes argument?

Yes. And to be honest, to me that sounds a lot like Insurance-Company-Logic : "If you didn't lock your door, you won't get compensation for theft", "If your car is not in the garage, you will not recieve the full payment"
Yet, when it comes to theft or vandalism on your car, the police and judical system are obliged to punish the thief or vandal, regardless of what you actually were doing with your property at that time.

So, unless you have an insurance against being raped, the "revealing colthes" argument should stay out of the court room.

Yes. And to be honest, to me that sounds a lot like Insurance-Company-Logic : "If you didn't lock your door, you won't get compensation for theft", "If your car is not in the garage, you will not recieve the full payment"
Yet, when it comes to theft or vandalism on your car, the police and judical system are obliged to punish the thief or vandal, regardless of what you actually were doing with your property at that time.

So, unless you have an insurance against being raped, the "revealing colthes" argument should stay out of the court room.
What about the one where the women couldnt possibly have been raped because she was wearing Jeans and it is almost impossible to get them off?:p

I hate insurance companies.

What about the one where the women couldnt possibly have been raped because she was wearing Jeans and it is almost impossible to get them off?:p

I hate insurance companies.

You do realise that a rapist might force a woman to undress herself by threatening her? Unless she's wearing a chastity belt, that arguement won't hold water.

Of course they do, it's called defending their client. If they didn't allow them to do what they do then it would erode a cornerstone of justice.

Anyhow, the headline is very sensationalist. It would lead you to believe that it is the view of the majority that women get blamed, when it's 'only' 25%.

1. Prior sexual history of the victim should almost never be admissible.

2. 1 out of every 4 people is a hell of a lot of ignorant misogynists!

It's 250 people. And don't call them misogynists. They're just misguided/idiots

On a side note, has anyone stopped to consider that a *gasp* woman could be a rapist aswell? I mean, everyone knows that all males are stupid pigs and all, but maybe a woman could commit rape?

I feel that anyone who says that a woman brings rape on herself or is even partly to blame for the violence is either ignoring the human capacity for violence or simply ignorant. As horrible as it sounds, an infant can be raped by the same depraved rapist as a woman, no matter how she is dressed. Don't tell me it would be the baby's fault because she was wearing those hot pink little diapers.

If this shocks anyone, it is only meant to convey the reality of this brutal, invasive crime. It can happen to anyone for one reason only. Power. A rapist has no care if a woman is drunk, sober, wearing a mini skirt, a fucking ankle-length dress, walking in the middle of the night or the middle of the day. It can happen to your grandmother or your daughter.

I do acknowledge that there are male victims of rape. I could not be biased, knowing a male who was raped by his stepfather as a child. I would no more say a male victim of rape is partially to blame because he was wearing no shirt or any other reason.

Women who fake "rapes" are vile to me. Not only because of the damage done to innocent men, but also because of the damage done to sincere women who have truly been victimized. They make it easier for sexual predators to get away with their crimes.

Anyone who says that an actual rape is justified in any way may just as easily excuse murder because the victim was "in the wrong neighborhood". I'm done, I have to go breathe now.

Well said.

I would note that faking rape is extremely, extremely rare.

Now, I want to preface this with the staement that this is a highly rhetorical and hypothetical situation and unlikely to ever be the case. However, I'm going to use it to prove the point that there are situations were someone should be blamed to some extent for being raped.

Say you have a man and a women. This man and woman are on a date and have a few drinks. The topic of sex comes up, and they both become aroused, especially considering that they are very atracted to one another. They go back to his (or her) place and start to kiss, and stroke each others bodies. They get undressed and the woman starts to perform oral sex on the man. After several minutes the woman notices that the man is showing signs of nearing orgasm, and immidiately stops giving him oral. She sits up and says, "That was fun, but I'm done." The man incredulously replies, "What the hell, aren't you going to finish me off?" "No. I said I'm done. If you idn't get off too bad." At this point, under the influence of alchohal, having been brought nearly to the point of orgasm but not allowed to climax, and (though I don't think this part makes any difference) rightfully pissed off at being left hanging (pun not intended), the man forces himself on the woman.

Now, in such a situation, however unlikely, can you honestly tell me that the woman didn't put herself in a situation were she was very likely to get raped? Can you honestly tell me that her actions didn't help provoke the crime? Can you say that to no extent should she be held accountable for putting herself in such an obviously bad situation? Hell, can you even tell me for sure it was rape? Can you be sure that she doesn't enjoy the power these actions give her over men? That she doesn't like to make them feel so out of control that they can't stop themselves from taking her, because it turns her on?

No one's trying to say that a woman who has been violently raped by someone she hasn't made any sort of advances toward should in any way be held responsible for the situation. However, if you put yourself in a questionable situation and then do things to make it worse, I'm not going to feel bad for you. If I go into a bad nieghborhood were there are a lot of robberies, at night, alone, with no weapon, and a lot of jewelry on, and cut through poorly lit back alleys, would you feel bad for me if I get robbed? Would you hold me blameless? And seriously there are woman out there who say no just to get you to come at them harder. Ever here of playing hard to get? You think that only happens outside the bedroom? There are also women who like to be dominated during sex. Maybe she's saying no to you so you'll be ruffer and make her do it? You don't know until you try. If at that point she's still telling you to stop then you need to stop. But if you stop at the first little half-assed, coy "No" you could be robbing the both of you of a fufilling sexual experience. What about woman who just regret it the morning after. They say they didn't want to, and now everybodies telling them that means its rape. Now, how is she supposed to back herself out of calling it rape? If she doesn't then other women will attack her for letting a 'rapist' get away with it.

In summary here's what makes it rape... If you say 'no' and I continue, that's called being insistant. Just say the word 'rape'. If I'm involved in a sexual situation, and you so much as mention that word, I now know exactly what your feelings on the subject are. If at that point I continue it's rape. See how there can be no reasonable arguement on that last point. See how that marks a line we can all agree on. That should be the law. If you say 'rape' during the course of events, it's rape. If you don't, it's not. Simple.

1. Prior sexual history of the victim should almost never be admissible.
I was referring to where it said the defence try to "blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable".

2. 1 out of every 4 people is a hell of a lot of ignorant misogynists!
Yup, but 3 out of 4 is alot who aren't retards.

Well, they might be.

But you know what I mean.

It's 250 people. And don't call them misogynists. They're just misguided/idiots

On a side note, has anyone stopped to consider that a *gasp* woman could be a rapist aswell? I mean, everyone knows that all males are stupid pigs and all, but maybe a woman could commit rape?

It is a survey with a sample size of 1000 people. Unless there is something wrong with the sample or the study, that 25% should accurately protrary the view of 25% of the population.

As for your *gasp*, you haven't read the thread or you'd know that it had already been brought up. Statistically, however, male rape is very rare compared to female rape. And people's attitudes about male rape are even more screwed up.

You do realise that a rapist might force a woman to undress herself by threatening her? Unless she's wearing a chastity belt, that arguement won't hold water.
Actually there was no forced undressing and when it went to court the Judge or Jury decided it wasnt possible to be raped if you wore jeans.

Also Black People dont represent Italian Beauty.

Now, I want to preface this with the staement that this is a highly rhetorical and hypothetical situation and unlikely to ever be the case. However, I'm going to use it to prove the point that there are situations were someone should be blamed to some extent for being raped.

Say you have a man and a women. This man and woman are on a date and have a few drinks. The topic of sex comes up, and they both become aroused, especially considering that they are very atracted to one another. They go back to his (or her) place and start to kiss, and stroke each others bodies. They get undressed and the woman starts to perform oral sex on the man. After several minutes the woman notices that the man is showing signs of nearing orgasm, and immidiately stops giving him oral. She sits up and says, "That was fun, but I'm done." The man incredulously replies, "What the hell, aren't you going to finish me off?" "No. I said I'm done. If you idn't get off too bad." At this point, under the influence of alchohal, having been brought nearly to the point of orgasm but not allowed to climax, and (though I don't think this part makes any difference) rightfully pissed off at being left hanging (pun not intended), the man forces himself on the woman.

Now, in such a situation, however unlikely, can you honestly tell me that the woman didn't put herself in a situation were she was very likely to get raped? Can you honestly tell me that her actions didn't help provoke the crime? Can you say that to no extent should she be held accountable for putting herself in such an obviously bad situation? Hell, can you even tell me for sure it was rape? Can you be sure that she doesn't enjoy the power these actions give her over men? That she doesn't like to make them feel so out of control that they can't stop themselves from taking her, because it turns her on?

No one's trying to say that a woman who has been violently raped by someone she hasn't made any sort of advances toward should in any way be held responsible for the situation. However, if you put yourself in a questionable situation and then do things to make it worse, I'm not going to feel bad for you. If I go into a bad nieghborhood were there are a lot of robberies, at night, alone, with no weapon, and a lot of jewelry on, and cut through poorly lit back alleys, would you feel bad for me if I get robbed? Would you hold me blameless? And seriously there are woman out there who say no just to get you to come at them harder. Ever here of playing hard to get? You think that only happens outside the bedroom? There are also women who like to be dominated during sex. Maybe she's saying no to you so you'll be ruffer and make her do it? You don't know until you try. If at that point she's still telling you to stop then you need to stop. But if you stop at the first little half-assed, coy "No" you could be robbing the both of you of a fufilling sexual experience. What about woman who just regret it the morning after. They say they didn't want to, and now everybodies telling them that means its rape. Now, how is she supposed to back herself out of calling it rape? If she doesn't then other women will attack her for letting a 'rapist' get away with it.

In summary here's what makes it rape... If you say 'no' and I continue, that's called being insistant. Just say the word 'rape'. If I'm involved in a sexual situation, and you so much as mention that word, I now know exactly what your feelings on the subject are. If at that point I continue it's rape. See how there can be no reasonable arguement on that last point. See how that marks a line we can all agree on. That should be the law. If you say 'rape' during the course of events, it's rape. If you don't, it's not. Simple.

You have a sick mind to even come up with this scenario.

Regardless, it is rape you are describing once one participant says "no." Simple.

No I have read the whole thread. I'm just a bit surprised that everyone keeps acting as if only men can rape people. And maybe the sample was from just one really shitty neighbourhood? Maybe they picked the neighbourhood with the highest number of rapes a year and surveyed them?

No I have read the whole thread. I'm just a bit surprised that everyone keeps acting as if only men can rape people. And maybe the sample was from just one really shitty neighbourhood? Maybe they picked the neighbourhood with the highest number of rapes a year and surveyed them?
Yes divert attention by spinning the truth.
Good on you.
*Hands out Cookie*

No I have read the whole thread. I'm just a bit surprised that everyone keeps acting as if only men can rape people. And maybe the sample was from just one really shitty neighbourhood? Maybe they picked the neighbourhood with the highest number of rapes a year and surveyed them?

Yeah, that is how most scientific studies are conducted :rolleyes:

Ever heard of experimentor bias? Congratulations.

You know, I first thought it was talking about Pakistan, or some other country with a questionable record...

I thought it was the US, with all those right wing nutters & "Christians"...
Oh well

Women are blamed for everything from original "sin" to miscarriages to bankruptcy to rape. Why not just slap us around some more, call us "bitch," and order us to make you a sandwhich?

So you bankrupted me?! *Grrr* :D :fluffle:

I read the first sentence and stopped there. It is never a womans fault when she is rapped. Who the fuck do these people think they are?

BTW: This is not a flame towards you "Roguelyness".

True, there is always the exception, but the exception rarely influences the general population.....sometimes for the worse.

But what about violent rapes, where women are bond, beaten, or even drugged?

Kill the rapist, or atleast castrate them, that's what i say. Rape is the lowest form of crime there is, it's even worse then murder. The only thing worse are pedophiles

No it isn't. If this woman has a past history of constantly sleeping around with different men and has a past of lying then it should be allowed in court because it brings into account 'reasonable doubt' of his guilt.

And btw, men can be raped too, by a man or a woman.

Can someone please tell me how a woman can rape a guy? I can't picture that

Can someone please tell me how a woman can rape a guy? I can't picture that
I heard of one case where a woman inserted something into a guy's urethra... there's the use of foreign objects as well.

Also arousal doesn't constitute consent.

The castration of rapists and pedophiles will cause them to become imho so frustrated (when they are already frustrated and hightempered people) that they will probably resort to killing and even sicker acts.

Imagine being someone who will not hesitate to rape, than having your "power" stripped from you... I think that would create even bigger monsters.

Rape is inexcusable, it is not the fault of women in any way. Yet I do agree with earlier posted comments on both being drunk and waking up in the morning with regret. To cry rape in that case is harmful and demeaning to other women who've experienced real rape and abuse.

Btw. In rape cases, there are the few instances where it's a man raped by a woman. Often though it involves boys and older women.

You have a sick mind to even come up with this scenario.

Regardless, it is rape you are describing once one participant says "no." Simple.


Yes, I do have a sick mind, but it's not because of this scenario. And as I pointed out, 'No' doesn't always mean 'No'. As a guy who flirts very often and very dirty, I'm always one step away from a sexual harrasment case. Therefore, I have to be able to quickly distinguish between when a woman is offended and when she isn't. I'm well aware of the fact that women often act like they don't like things that they really enjoy. They don't want to appear slutty so they say something like, "Stop, don't say that," and then giggle and give you a look that you know means they actually like what you just said. All I'm saying is this happens in the bedroom too. Most communication in a sexual situation is non-verbal, it's body language. Like I said, if you say 'rape', I know damn sure you're not playing hard to get. Accusing me of a criminal act is way past hard to get. Just like once, and only once, a woman said to me the words, 'sexual harrassment'. Never again did I flirt with that woman, because she had made clear to me in no uncertain terms that she wasn't playing. Sex should be all about testing new boundries to find ways to make it more pleasurable for all involved. The 'No' boundry is not hard and fast, at least not to everyone. There can be no question that the 'rape' boundry is.

'No' doesn't always mean 'No'.
You're wrong.

No means no. Even when it doesn't, or when you think it doesn't. It still means no.

Better to be safe than sorry?

<snip>

Of course it is rape. From the moment the woman said "no".
Forcing himself on her is inexcusable und ANY circumstances. Any at all.
Yes, it is a shitty situation, and yes, it may be regarded as provocation by the guy. And yet, a provocation never justified an act of violence. Ever.
Sure, she shouldn't have done that, sure it's unfair and sure, he's not going to feel very positive towards that. But it's still no excuse.

I think there is a distorted image of rape here. Many people think that all rape is is when a woman is on a dark path and a man jumps out of the trees, pins her to the ground and rapes her. Except thats not always the case. In many cases, crimes clasified as rape are merly where a girlfriend and a boyfriend have slept together but the boyfriend coersed her slightly and later the girlfriend rethinkgs the coercion into meaning her being forced into bed and so it comes under rape.

I think there is a distorted image of rape here. Many people think that all rape is is when a woman is on a dark path and a man jumps out of the trees, pins her to the ground and rapes her. Except thats not always the case. In many cases, crimes clasified as rape are merly where a girlfriend and a boyfriend have slept together but the boyfriend coersed her slightly and later the girlfriend rethinkgs the coercion into meaning her being forced into bed and so it comes under rape.
Will you people please stop this "men are the victims when a guy rapes a girl, those bitches make it up" shit?

Of course it is rape. From the moment the woman said "no".

but sometimes it is too late to say no...
maybe she was to frightend to say no..

but sometimes it is too late to say no...
maybe she was to frightend to say no..

That would make things difficult, then. Especially with people like Painelandia around, who try to read from body language and might seriously misunderstand the signs...

Of course it is rape. From the moment the woman said "no".
Forcing himself on her is inexcusable und ANY circumstances. Any at all.
Yes, it is a shitty situation, and yes, it may be regarded as provocation by the guy. And yet, a provocation never justified an act of violence. Ever.
Sure, she shouldn't have done that, sure it's unfair and sure, he's not going to feel very positive towards that. But it's still no excuse.


I didn't say it wasn't rape. I said that she put herself in a bad situation. A situation that any reasonable person would know could turn out very badly. I didn't say the guy was justified either, or that he shouldn't be prosecuted. All I'm saying is, it was partially her fault. If you choose to put yourself in a bad situation and it turns ugly, I'm not going to feel sorry for you. All the poll asked is if it was possible that a woman could put herself into a position where she was in any way at fault for getting herself raped. As my hypothetical proves... Yes, there is. If I leave my car running with the door open and someone takes it was it partially my fault? Yes. Should the person who took it still be prosecuted? Yes. No one is trying to excuse rape. I'm just saying that a rape victim can be partially to blame. Don't assume that means I'm suggesting the assailant should go free.

Can someone please tell me how a woman can rape a guy? I can't picture that
By having sex with him when he hasn't consented. Exactly the same way a man rapes a woman.

Or statutory rape.

I think it's silly to say that rape victims share the blame for whatever reasons people might use. However, there are a lot of grey area cases where it's difficult to determine if a rape truely occured. For instance, if a woman gets a hotel room with a man ostensibly for pleasure (as opposed to business), an allegation from her of rape by the man holds little water. Also, there are often cases where the woman truely believes she's been raped while the man believes the opposite. The reality is that the woman offered no resistance and perhaps little hint at all that the sex was unwelcome. This behavior is a sign that the woman was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Sadly, a great deal of people, especially women, were sexually abused as children. I think young women need to learn to be assertive, aggressive, and violent when the situation demands it. Although, that's getting them to learn that is much easier said than done.

And for those who say it's still rape even if after consensual penetration has already happend, you gotta give the guy at least a few seconds to coast to a complete stop.

Can someone please tell me how a woman can rape a guy? I can't picture thatYou need a picture? How about a motion picture? Check out the movie Thursday (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124901/).

Before anyone asks, it is not porn.

You're wrong.

No means no. Even when it doesn't, or when you think it doesn't. It still means no.

Better to be safe than sorry?


'Better safe than sorry' never got anything great accomplished. And once more 'No' does not always mean 'No'. The fact that years after the courts made that decision there's still a need to debate it, just proves the fact. Because everyone knows that at one time or another they told someone not to do something hoping that the person, in fact, would. That's why the standard should be saying 'rape' means it's rape. Will anyone even try to debate me on the point that a woman in any context saying the word 'rape' during a sexual situation should definitely tell a man that he should stop. I highly doubt it. But clearly we don't all agree that 'no' means 'no'. So we need a standard we can all agree on. I know this is an emotional topic, but you'll never reach a reasonable conclusion if you don't try and seperate your emotional reaction from your thought process.

I didn't say it wasn't rape. I said that she put herself in a bad situation. A situation that any reasonable person would know could turn out very badly. I didn't say the guy was justified either, or that he shouldn't be prosecuted. All I'm saying is, it was partially her fault. If you choose to put yourself in a bad situation and it turns ugly, I'm not going to feel sorry for you. All the poll asked is if it was possible that a woman could put herself into a position where she was in any way at fault for getting herself raped. As my hypothetical proves... Yes, there is. If I leave my car running with the door open and someone takes it was it partially my fault? Yes. Should the person who took it still be prosecuted? Yes. No one is trying to excuse rape. I'm just saying that a rape victim can be partially to blame. Don't assume that means I'm suggesting the assailant should go free.

No, it was not partially your fault.
As I said before, careless behaviour like that can cost you an insurance claim, but you will not be held accountable from a stricly legal point of view. Nor from a moral or ethical point of view... at least in my book.

'Better safe than sorry' never got anything great accomplished. And once more 'No' does not always mean 'No'. The fact that years after the courts made that decision there's still a need to debate it, just proves the fact. Because everyone knows that at one time or another they told someone not to do something hoping that the person, in fact, would. That's why the standard should be saying 'rape' means it's rape. Will anyone even try to debate me on the point that a woman in any context saying the word 'rape' during a sexual situation should definitely tell a man that he should stop. I highly doubt it. But clearly we don't all agree that 'no' means 'no'. So we need a standard we can all agree on. I know this is an emotional topic, but you'll never reach a reasonable conclusion if you don't try and seperate your emotional reaction from your thought process.

Let me get this straight... we all should change our communicational behaviour because you don't get the meaning of the word "no"???

'Better safe than sorry' never got anything great accomplished.
No, but it will help if you don't want to end up on a rape charge.

And once more 'No' does not always mean 'No'.
Yes, yes it does.

Have you had sex with a woman who has said "no"?

Let me tell you; if a woman says "no" instead of "rape" and you carry on because you can't understand the meaning of "no", then you are a rapist, and it is entirely you're fault.

If a man is wearing nice clothes and he speaks to another man, would he be asking to be shafted up the bum? Do Westerners living in Iraq deserve to have their heads cut off? How about some responsibility from the perpetrator of the attack. The argument that men have no control over themselves and it's all somebody else's fault is bullshit and you know it. You may find drunk women unattractive, but suggesting that they deserve to be raped because they are wearing, OH MY GOD....A SKIRT...is something only an idiot would say in public. I bet your Mum's so proud of you.All right, I'm tired and I want sleep, but I'm just going to say this: walk around any major British city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you're guaranteed to see inebriated women staggering around with half their bodies on show for every (equally inebriated) man passing by's benefit. Now think: if you combine men (who, and I speak as a man myself, are basically here to fight, feed and f*ck, if you'll excuse the crude alliteration) with alcohol and then place a lot of attractive women (or come to think of it any woman once the beer goggles come on) in front of them, it's hardly likely to lead to anything good. Both men and women know this, but it is especially the fault of the woman. Why? She knows full well that most men will be aroused upon seeing her - after all, I can't think of any other reason for wearing a skirt three inches long in November - and she also knows that alcohol will swiftly remove what little inhibitions your average Joe Moron has. Yet still she continues not only to do her damnedest to "pull" any guy she can (and for all you people who whine about how it's not true, I challenge you to open your eyes next time you're in a nightclub) but does so while being so damn drunk that she barely knows what's going on. Under these circumstances, therefore, which can be summarised as:

1) Alcohol-induced loss of control and inhibition;
2) Human nature in the man;
3) Behaviour intended to attract and arouse men on behalf of the woman,

it is hardly surprising that women get raped when drunk, and for that matter hardly surprising that many people consider that they've brought it on themselves, an opinion I entirely share. If you're drunk, and you're begging for it, then don't expect drunkards who're also begging for it to restrain themselves.

That said, the removal of alcohol from either side of the equation changes things rather markedly. A sober woman being raped by a drunken man is, if you'll excuse me, screwed, unless she fights back very well; a sober man taking advantage of a drunken woman is utterly beneath contempt. The latter especially is a worrisome trend; I have always been taught that one should never take advantage of anyone, especially a girl/woman, who's drunk - it's simply not honourable, and I wouldn't dream of doing it, even when I'm pretty bladdered myself. However, the fact that plenty of men evidently are happy to do so is a concern that needs addressing, and in my opinion is primarily a fault of a poor upbringing stemming from the "I WANT THIS AND I WANT IT NOW!!!" attitude that's infesting our country. As for women being raped by drunken men, in those cases I support the woma to some degree; but it must always be borne in mind that if a woman is wearing revealing clothing and in the presence of drunken men, she must know that she is at risk. While I do not think that this makes these men's lack of any self-control any more excusable - I fully support compulsory castration in such cases - women must bear in mind that tempting any man without meaning it is perhaps unwise, and a drunken one especially so. Sadly, I can think of no other suggestion other than that, perhaps, women ought not to dress like harlots (which I think is not unfair when one sees how they dress around Manchester a fair bit of the time) if they don't want to get treated like them.

It very much depends on how you read the report. And what people mean by blame. If you walk through a 'bad' area with a laptop in your hand, a mobile phone to your ear and expensive cloths on, you are not responsible for being mugged but you did little to recognise the realities of the world. You did nothing to cut your chances of being a victim of crime.

Rape is a terrible crime and there is never an excuse. But take a recent case in the UK. A woman was violently raped as she walked home alone through a city park at 2 am after a night out on the drink. It was not her fault, but she did fail to recognise and address the realities of the world. We should all be able to walk where we want in saftey, but that is not the world we live in.

If the respondants to the question were reflecting this I'm not suprised.

Let me get this straight... we all should change our communicational behaviour because you don't get the meaning of the word "no"???


Are you not reading my full posts? Are you not reading the rest of this thread? Are you not aware that there are plenty of people that do not agree with the idea that 'no' means 'no'. So, I propose a simple change to the law so that there can be no disagreement. Just because you personally don't have the ability to comprehend that people sometimes say 'no' when they in fact mean 'yes', doesn't mean people should go to jail over it. People often say one thing when they actually mean the exact oppisite, it's called sarcasm. I can only assume that you are not familiar with the concept.

And now that I think about it... The person who I am currently involved with will on occasion, when I have done something to annoy her, yell out 'rape' while I am holding her in a public area. She seems to think this is funny. I do not. Then she complains that no one pays any attention. Why? Because when people have just seen me walk 20 yards with my arms wrapped around you, and kiss you... they can tell that even though you have just said 'rape', you obviously don't mean it. So look at that... 'rape' doesn't always mean 'rape', how the hell can you try to tell me 'no' always means 'no'?

And yes that is 100% truth. She really does that. I really, really hate it.

And now that I think about it... The person who I am currently involved with will on occasion, when I have done something to annoy her, yell out 'rape' while I am holding her in a public area. She seems to think this is funny. I do not. Then she complains that no one pays any attention. Why? Because when people have just seen me walk 20 yards with my arms wrapped around you, and kiss you... they can tell that even though you have just said 'rape', you obviously don't mean it. So look at that... 'rape' doesn't always mean 'rape', how the hell can you try to tell me 'no' always means 'no'?.
You cannot possibly compare that with somebody out and out saying "no" when somebody is trying to have sex with them and expect anybody to take anything you say seriously.

Have you had sex with a woman who has said "no"?

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay.

Me: "Let's have sex"

Girlfriend: "OK"

I've had sex ones who said 'no' before I got them turned on. It's amazing how a little kissing and touching changes 'no' into 'yes'. I've never forced myself on a woman, and I never would. It wouldn't even be worth the fight.

Let me tell you; if a woman says "no" instead of "rape" and you carry on because you can't understand the meaning of "no", then you are a rapist, and it is entirely you're fault.


So if a woman says 'no', and don't believe it and I continue. And after I'm done she doesn't say anything about me being wrong. In fact this girl continues to be in a relationship, and have sex with me. I'm from that day forward a rapist, because she said 'no' and I continued? Is that your opion? Have you honestly never in your life never told someone 'no' and then done what they asked anyway? I find that hard to believe. Just because it's sex doesn't make the rules different from other situations, it just makes the consequences worst. That's why we need a standard that cannot be questioned, i.e.; 'rape' means rape.

So what, walk round most Western cities on a Friday and Saturday evening and I'd be surprised if you didnt see at least one drunk man with his penis out, (usually pissing in a corner) for every drunk sodomiser to see. Is that a good reason why such men should be bent over to have large objects shoved up their rectum till they squel like piggies and bleed like there's no tomorrow? I wouldnt think so, but judging by your post should I assume you'd think it was fine so long as the sodimiser was also drunk?

Au contraire. It's not a good reason at all, but it's hardly a good idea to stand around in such a position if you know or even suspect there's a drunken sodomiser around. Look after yourself.

No men are not here to basically act like violent retarded sperm fountains without the self restraint of a lower level primate. Speak for yourself if you are happy describing yourself as being a scum unworthy of crawling in a gutter, but I see no reason why every man on the face of this earth ought to be maligned by you just because you have appear to have no sense of decorum, no self control, and an obviously very low self opinion along with a very low opinion of everyone else on the planet with a penis.

Impressive ad hominem; knowing nothing about me at all, I'm happy to see you're cheerfully flinging around imprecations upon my character based upon my view of humanity. News for you: I've enough self-control, decorum and humanity to restrain myself. Nevertheless, do I have any faith that the vast majority of men have those qualities? No, I do not. Hence what I say. I know, furthermore, what the original role of the male in most species is. The fact that we are shaven monkeys capable of arguing on an internet forum alters not the fact that we are shaven monkeys and still have a fair number of basic instincts and traits.

It shouldnt lead to anything. Place a drunk compulsive over-eater in front of a bakery window featuring the world's yummiest desserts, and I'd still expect them to not break the law by 'breaking and entering' into the premises, yet doing so would be less hurtful and less abhorrent than raping a person.

Absolutely; it should lead to nothing more than a very frustrated fat man in front of a very appealing Victoria sponge. However, in that grim place called reality, I fully expect that a particularly hungry (or perhaps just particularly compulsive) over-eating individual would at the least strongly consider smashing the window and grabbing the cake. Doesn't make it any more acceptable that he does so, of course, especially since the shop-owner can hardly assume that there's a small army of obese compulsive feeders moving in his/her direction. If, however, said shop-owner was living in the middle of a known colony of compulsive eaters, I would suggest that that shop-owner would be well-advised to place their products behind a steel shutter for their own protection.

I doubt many people would accept that a drunk homeless person who has not eaten for a few days was not at fault if they broke into a bakery that was flagrantly displaying it's tempting wares for any drunken food eater to see, and yet most people would agree that food is more necessary to people and a more compelling temptation (after not having eaten for a few days) than is sex. Being tempted is not an excuse for breaking the law, being drunk and tempted is not an excuse for breaking the law.

Absolutely; the law must be upheld. However, if I were to place a gigantic roast dinner in my front window in the middle of a region hit by famine, quite honestly, I'd be bringing it on myself if all that food were gone by the time I returned. It's called planning ahead. If you know that you're entering a rough area, ye lock your doors and keep your eyes wide open. If you're going to go on a long journey, you make sure your fuel tank's filled. If you're going to go into a city and mingle with vast numbers of drunken men whose essential purpose in existence is to screw something and pass on their genes, you ought to at least try and avoid leading them on, in the same way as a man ought to do his damnedest to maintain his self-control. Now whilst I don't condone the man losing his self-control, one must recognise when the victim brings the crime upon themselves, to whatever degree that is the case.

Clearly you feel that women owe something to men and men are entitled where women are concerned, otherwise you wouldnt excuse attacking and abusing women due to temptation occuring when people are drunk a women happens to look mighty fine (either because she is or because intoxication leads some male to think she is).

Kindly cease the invective; it's tiresome and pointless. Women don't owe anything to men, but they owe it to themselves to bear in mind that, at heart, men are base, selfish, primitive animals, whose sole purpose in existence is to perpetuate their genetic traits.

Is that good looking stereo/hi fi system in the shop window not tempting? Of course it is tempting. Any excuse to steal it if you happen to see it when drunk? Of course not, because people have a right to with-hold their tempting material possessions from drunk people no matter how much they display them, or how enticing they make them look. People dont owe their enticing material possessions to others; apparently in your very twisted opinion the body of a women is less hers to do with as she pleases than is a hi-fi stereo or a cake in some bakery window.

A hi-fi is not tempting to a man in the same way as an attractive woman (unless this is some new kind of fetish with which I am thankfully unfamiliar). In fact, I can think of no material possession as tempting as a woman, for the simple reason that I can't screw an inanimate object. No, a woman's body is entirely her own, and she may do as she wishes with it. However, if in doing what she wishes with it she leads on some poor dumbfuck of a bloke who proceeds to screw her brains out while so drunk on lust and alcohol that he barely knows what he's doing, she's brought it on herself. The man could and should have shown more self-control, of course; for lacking that self-control, he should be punished. However, if the woman does her damnedest to lead him on, then backs off at the last moment, that punishment should be mitigated for the simple reason that the man is obeying a very deeply-ingrained biological imperative that no more knows the voice of reason than I know the collected works of Andrew Marvell by heart. To use a crude and imprecise analogy, it's like pushing a huge wheel to the top of a steep hill, then just as it comes over the crest demanding that the damn thing be stopped. Too little, too late.

No it's the fault of people who have a point of view like you and who probably wouldnt accept drunk and 'enticed' in regards to a property crime but somehow think women are not as entitled to be drunk as other people, shouldnt dress how they like, and are responsible for the refusal of some gutter trash to control their urges.

I enjoy ad hominem very much. Now, where was I? Oh yes. As I keep on saying: by leading a man on, you're initiating a chain of events you probably can't control. Men, I maintain (and I say this with no disrespect towards my sex at all) are machines designed to hunt, kill and propagate genes. The sole purpose of any organism's continued existence is the propagation of its genes to the next generation. With the possible exception of eunuchs.

I'm responsible for my behaviour no matter how tempting something may be to me, and no matter how drugged out on booze I have allowed myself to become.

Admirable indeed; it is only to be regretted that more men cannot exercise such restraint.

Is there some reason you are not equally competent? Some reason why you cannot control yourself? If that's the case you ought not be let out in the big wide world. If you really have such an inability to control yourself and be responsible for your behaviour I respectfully request you check yourself into a secure facility where the rest of us will be safe from your depravity.

Allow me to make a brief enquiry: are you in the habit of taking an expressed viewpoint concerning a large group referred to (perhaps implicitly) in the third person and thereafter applying that point to its proponent? If so, it's a habit I suggest that you divest yourself of. I've been blind drunk, on more than one occasion, and managed to exercise self-control to a sufficient degree to avoid becoming a (statutory) rapist. However, I do not believe that a great many men have this ability (so I'm cynical - sue me) and furthermore I do not believe that most men have the will or wit to recognise (especially when under the influence of alcohol) when there is a misunderstanding between themselves and a woman. Nor do I believe that your average Joe is going to stop when if a woman spends half the night seducing him through his alcoholic semi-stupor before taking him back to her room - and then, as he's lying on top of her about to get going, decides that she doesn't feel like it after all.

No, average Joe Moron has enough inhibition left to not smash the window in the local stero store and make off with the cool rig he's been dying to get his hands on since he read about it in Average Joe Moron's Hi-Fi stereo mag, average Joe has enough inhibition to not go around and murder the ex-best friend that stole his girlfriend. It's only Sick Joe Anti-social who lacks the inhibition to control his or her behaviour and then blames their actions on the person they have attacked.

Well, aside from the fact that I've yet to meet anyone who experiences erotic thoughts for sound reproduction systems, I think you'll find that very often the only reason Joe Moron doesn't go around and cleave Jack Moron's head in with a roughly-hewn spade is that he's not actually angry enough to overcome his fear of getting caught and punished. However, I doubt that this applies to men when it comes to sexual behaviour. As I keep saying to you, the sole reason men exist is to spread sperm liberally to any available partners. It's not a particularly pleasant realisation, but there we are. Now, as for "Sick Joe Anti-Social", I would suggest that if you're going to go around doing what you want to, where you want to, and against all sensible advice warning you that Bad Things™ will happen, you have to some extent got what's coming to you. If I fail to follow the advice posted by the railway companies that "Passengers Must Not Pass This Point", go past said point and am hit by a train, then it's my own bloody fault for ignoring sound advice.

Human nature in men is not to visciously attack and assault their gender counterparts.

Human nature is to reproduce. If you offer a man the chance to reproduce and then retract it just when he thinks it's about to happen, don't be surprised if he doesn't stop.

Wanting to appear attractive is social nature in most if not all societies.

True enough. However, dressing and acting provocatively is asking for trouble, especially where alcohol enters the equation. Use your common sense: if you know you're in danger of being surrounded by gaggles of drunken, leering blokes with one thing on their minds, don't wear a skirt three inches long and wave your chest at them.

Expecting to be safe from fellow community members is social nature in most if not all societies.

Yes, it is, but you still can't accept simple fact, can you? If I walk through the middle of Moss Side with a T-shirt reading "Niggers Out!" I can reasonably expect to be assaulted, if not run through with a sabre. Use your common sense and realise that ideals and reality don't match, and that in reality, you have to be careful.

Trying to excuse viscious attacks on other people is your nature, not the nature of every man alive.

If you can't get a better argument than that, cease wasting my time with pointless speculations about my personality.

Right, and do you feel the same way about broke drunk people giving into the temptation to mug the person who has so enticingly just visited the automatic teller machine? I expect not, somehow broke drunk people are not entitled to loose all inhibition and take whatever they want, just to loose inhibition in regards to female human beings and visciously attack and assault them.

Au contraire. If I walk in front of said broke drunkard waving a fifty then yes, yes I am asking for trouble, and no, I should not be in the slightest surprised if he decides to punch my lights out and nick it, which is why after using an ATM I pocket the cash and walk off smartly, keeping my eyes and ears open. Simple precautions save trouble.

Being drunk and dressed how you wish to be dressed is not begging for anything, any more than displaying high priced stereos in a shop window is begging to have it stolen.

If this is the case, then why, pray, do electronics stores use steel shutters over their windows? :)

Expecting that people will obey the law is not unreasonable, and dressing a certain way, acting lawfully a certain way and being drunk is not begging someone else to act criminally.

Of course it's not unreasonable to expect people to obey the law. Heck, if it were, the laws wouldn't be there - or so I hope. What the laws assume, however, is that the victim has done nothing at all to provoke the "attack" (I use the inverted commas simply because I consider that a fair bit of statutory rape is probably not violent, or even rape). If the victim has done something to provoke the attack, the law becomes questionable. If I call an Asian Muslim a worthless Mohammedan wog (my apologies to any Muslims, Arabs etc. reading, incidentally), then I've earned it if he replies by giving me some free dental treatment with his fist. Now yes, admittedly, in an ideal world, he should have shown self-restraint and "turned the other cheek". However, this is a grim and brutal place known as "reality", where that often fails to happen, because people are human, and fallible, and flawed. Women are fallible in that they can misunderstand the man (I know women who've had this happen to them) with fairly unpleasant results, in the same way as the man can totally misunderstand the woman. To pretend that the woman is, in such cases, entirely blameless strikes me as inaccurate; to pretend that a women who goes out "on the pull" and proceeds to "pull" a man as far as her bed before deciding she doesn't feel like it after all is blameless is folly. Ideally, yes, the man and the woman should make sure of one another, and should exercise self-restraint. However, this is, as I say, reality, and in reality it doesn't always work like that. What is being proposed here is that, no matter what, the man is always the guilty party. This is a nonsensical and damaging assumption in cases where men have been lead on by women, only to be turned down by them at a point where they simply cannot control themselves. Violent rape (or what one might term "proper" rape) is, I agree, an entirely one-sided crime: the rapist in these cases is guilty entirely, and should ideally be punished brutally and painfully, and if possible fatally. However, there are shades of grey between the "black" of your idea of rape and the "white" of pure and chaste love.

Given your views on the right of people to assault and abuse someone (sorry make that some female someone) just because both victim and perpetrator happen to be drunk, I'm surprised the word honourable is in your vocabulary. I assure you, it's not applicable to your expressed views in any way shape or form.

Ad hominem attacks again. Improve the way you argue a little. It's no more their "right" than it's my "right to track you down and hack off your head with a sharp aluminium comb, but if you keep insulting me baselessly then I might just do it anyway. Reality =/= ideal world.

Well tell us about your upbringing and we'll know what needs to be avoided, because any upbringing that results in a person with the views you are expressing, is not the kind of upbringing I want any member of my society to be subjected to. Further the result of your upbringing (ie the view that women who dress a certain way when drunk are begging other people to break the law and visciously assault them) is not only perverse, sick, and anti-social whilst being degrading to both men and women, it's also frigging scary!

I'm not in the business of descending to quite that level of pettiness this early in the day, thankyou. And while you may find the notion that people ought to take responsibility for themselves and that the law is not applicable in simple blocks of black and white "scary", I've always been given to understand that taking responsibility for oneself - and looking after oneself too - is a major constituent characteristic of maturity.[/quote]

I'm fairly sure women know they are at risk when dressed in an abba in the presence of men who have never touched acohol in their entire lives.

That's as may be. Bring alcohol into the mix and the risk becomes much, much greater. Alcohol is well-known for causing loss of self-control; as a matter of fact, that's one of the primary reasons people drink the stuff so much.

What exactly is your point? That because some people are sick and twisted, actually enjoy hurting other people and refuse to be responsible for their own behaviour, women ought to be responsible in their place despite the fact that no amount of caution will ensure they dont end up as some sicko's prey?

My point, which I should have thought was fairly easy to grasp, is that by taking precautions one can reduce risk. I agree, there are sick, twisted men out there, power-hungry men who see a woman, any woman, and want to rape her there and then. No precaution short of a weapon (of any variety) and the skill to use it is sufficient to stop that. However, there are many, many instances of "rape" which are actually not violent, forced sex at the behest of a perverse individual who gets off on power over his victim, but misunderstanding, poor planning and outright irresponsible stupidity.

Parents know their children are at risk every time they leave the house, but thankfully most dont cause their children to effectively 'not live a life' just to avoid the real and present danger living a life exerts.

Of course they don't, and all the better for it. But they do make sure their kids don't accept rides or sweets from strangers. They do make sure that their kids know to be worried if strange people watch them. They take precautions.

Women ought not to hide under their friggin beds just to avoid the unacceptable acts of others. Rather others ought to be stopped and every step that can be taken to remove anti social sickos from our society ought to be taken.

I agree entirely. Violent rapists who, as I say, get off on the power over their helpless victim ought to be punished painfully, brutally and above all else permanently. I personally favour compulsory castration.

It's not up to law abiding women to give up their freedom and by doing so to effectively endorse the kind of world-view that holds them responsible for preventing the unlawful acts of other people.

Is not leading an ordinary, not very bright average male on "giving up their freedom"? Is suggesting that women ought to watch their step with men, especially where intoxicating substances are concerned, making them "give up their freedom"? Well, yes, it is. But guess what? Freedom works both ways. Sure, women have the freedom to dress and act provocatively, but they also have the freedom to find themselves in a situation they didn't actually want to be in - because they didn't do anything to stop it happening until it was too late. Now me, I'm perfectly free to, as I say, walk along a railway line in the middle of the night. It's the driver's fault for failing to stop his train if it hits me, but if his train is a 550-tonne train of mineral wagons doing fifty MPH and he only sees me 50 yards ahead of him, stopping it before it hits me ain't going to happen. Apply that, if you can, to a man's sex drive.

Oh I see the logic, men who are drunk are expected to be less in control of themselves because they are drunk, but women can reasonably be expected to have more control of themselves when drunk....is this strange and mystic ability of women to be more in control when drunk another facet of this 'human nature' you keep referrring to? Such logical genius your theory displays!

Have you done any biology in your life? Males of this species, like of most species, are there simply to replicate and pass on their genes. That is our sole motive for existing. Is it therefore any surprise that, when alcohol strips away the thin veneer of civilisation upon the surface of the moronic masses (who, let's face it, aren't too far off the monkeys we came from) men's base nature asserts itself all the more strongly? Alcohol results in impaired judgement, impaired sensory performance and and loss of self-control, both mental and physical. Combine that with the overriding imperative of the human male, which is to screw anything going, and you get problems. Women don't have that same imperative, and therefore don't act in the same fashion.

Dress like harlots?! Well you really are perfectly expressing the view point of a sexist mysogynistic trash minded individual!

And you're perfectly expressing the (if I may say so) rather touching inability of the world's many idealists to see reality. Now, shall we trade more insults, or shall we go straight to pistols?

I like to see women dressed up and looking fine. Why should they be denied the pleasure of dressing as they will, and adults with self control denied the pleasure of seeing them dressed fine just because some perverts think clothing somehow causes and excuses violent assault?

You're assuming that the adults can maintain their self-control. In my opinion, it is much, much safer for a woman to assume that they can't. Real world = nasty place, bad things happen here. Get used to it.

It makes more sense to simply lock up the perverted sickos whose lack of self control renders them unable to function properly in society with the rest of us who do feel that we and we alone are responsible for our behaviour.

Yes. By all means, lock away violent rapists. Preferably castrate them, or perhaps devise some variety of sodomising machine for their "benefit". However, your second point is misworded. You appear to believe that everyone has the right to do as they wish, but not to take the consequences - unless of course that individual happens to do something that you personally dislike.. Aside from violent, unprovoked rape, this notion (which is, in various guises, one of the lynchpins of liberal/libertarian thinking in Europe, it seems) is entirely untenable. If I exercise my right to walk down the middle of the M60 and get run over by a lorry in consequence, it's not the lorry driver's fault that I was in his way (though it is, I suppose, his fault that he lacked the optical capacity to spot me and stop). If a woman chooses to act and dress in as provocative a manner as she can - which is, in case you've not noticed, a fairly big part of going out "on the pull" - then quite frankly she brings it upon herself if the man she focuses her attentions upon believes her advances and tries to screw her, only to be told at the very last minute, when pure instinct has completely taken over and reason has nothing to do with the affair, that she's not up for it after all. Yes, the man should exercise self-control, of course he should. But you see, the man's not telepathic, nor is he clairvoyant; he can no more tell that the woman just wants to come within an inch if sex than he can tell whether it'll be raining in Leicester on December 18th, 2067 between the hours of 10AM and 6PM. Yes, the man should be admonished and punished for having lacked the self-control necessary prior to his complete loss of control; nonetheless, the woman, for having had a major role in provoking and probably accelerating that loss of control, should either be punished (the age-old remedy of the pillory springs to mind) or at the least be forced to watch her "attacker" be given a mitigated sentence.

If by harlots you mean prostitutes, they have every right to refuse to 'service' a person (even, gasp shock, a drunk person), I can only guess by your comments that you think raping and assaulting sex workers is ok too, although probably only the female sex workers right?

Well, actually, I've no respect for "sex workers" (nice polite PC term I note) whatsoever. Of course, I've also no respect for George Galloway, but I wouldn't just allow someone to violently rape him and get away with it. However, if a prostitute allows a paying client to get within an inch of screwing her, tells him she wants the night off and gets screwed anyway? Again, she's brought it on herself.

The fact is, buddy, that the world's a grim, nasty place, and a place filled with stupid, dangerous, primitive animals, many of whom frequent our cities night in, night out. Violent rape is never, ever excusable; you can chuck any excuse you like for it, from childhood abuse to a broken marriage, but as far as I'm concerned violent rape merits a castration (assuming, falsely, that the justice system is infallible, which of course it's not). However, there are many shades of grey: cases of "statutory rape", in which the woman, having led the man on all night, then proceeds to change her mind at the last second and is apparently surprised when the man simply cannot stop (and believe it or not, there does seem to be a point at which that is the case); cases in which the man and woman fail to understand one another's signals, and the man is later accused of rape over a simple (and mutual) error; cases where the man is seduced by the woman, who afterwards claims that she was raped, in spite of having let him get on with it at the time; I'm sure that, if you look around, there are more. Violent rape, yes, is inexcusable. But there are many other varieties of rape apart from the heavily-publicised violent rapes one learns of in the news, and in many of these cases, responsibility for the events which ensue is far more ambivalent and evenly-distributed than you seem to realise. In only hope that, before you bawl on in future about how someone is a misogynistic, perverted little swine who treats women like dirt, you will at least A) take the time to actually learnsomething about them and B) make the effort to think hard about what's being discussed.

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay.

Me: "Let's have sex"

Girlfriend: "OK"
Consentual.

I've had sex ones who said 'no' before I got them turned on. It's amazing how a little kissing and touching changes 'no' into 'yes'. I've never forced myself on a woman, and I never would. It wouldn't even be worth the fight.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear; if she repeatedly says no, and you keep forcing it, then it's rape.




So if a woman says 'no', and don't believe it and I continue. And after I'm done she doesn't say anything about me being wrong. In fact this girl continues to be in a relationship, and have sex with me. I'm from that day forward a rapist, because she said 'no' and I continued?

Yup. Doesn't matter that she stayed in a relationship with you. She said no, you didn't believe her and carried on. You're trying to use a defence similar to that used by people who say that a man can't rape his wife.

Is that your opion? Have you honestly never in your life never told someone 'no' and then done what they asked anyway? I find that hard to believe. Just because it's sex doesn't make the rules different from other situations,
Yes it does, because a man forces himself onto the woman. Your example (saying "no" but doing it anyway) might apply to oral, where the woman has to actually do something, but not in penetrative sex, where she doesn't have to do anything, and you can carry on and force yourself.

That's why we need a standard that cannot be questioned, i.e.; 'rape' means rape.
And "no" means "no".

And, according to you, "rape" doesn't always mean "rape". So, do we need another standard you can understand? How about, simply, "no".

Opinions:

1) Zagat makes very good points and pretty much tears apart the whole inebriated therefore excused agrument, i suggest reading his posts.

2) Just because a person condones taking measures that reduce the chances of being raped, does not mean they codnone the action of rape.

3) Just because a person is an idiot does not mean you should take advantage of them.

4) Roleplay and no not meaning no is all well and good when it's pre-established with safety words and is known to be consentual. Trying to judge by body language and not stopping once the first 'no' is uttered and communicating with the person to make sure just cause it might ruin your sexual experience is plain and simply fucking retarded. I mean your comparing one sexual outing to potentially traumatizing a person for life.

5) The whole cry wolf thing is unfortunate. It does happen though and I find it hearbreaking if an innocent guy with a family went to jail for a good ten years for a crime he didnt commit, just because a manipulative and disturbed person was sided with on nothing but hearsay. This is why cahracter witnesses and characterization to begin with is necessary. Innocent until proven guilty.

6) We may be animals, but we are animals capable of higher thought. Just because we may want something cause it looks pretty does not mean take it. If your sick enough to get off on taking sexual advantage of someone when they don't want it, does it really fucking matter if it was for sex or control, in all likely hoods its a little bit of both in all cases, its the action that should be addressed.

7) Society and the individual are both to be blamed, after all society is made up of individuals. Whats wrong with trying to work out a peaceful coexistance with both?

Thats about it.

You cannot possibly compare that with somebody out and out saying "no" when somebody is trying to have sex with them and expect anybody to take anything you say seriously.


The point isn't that someone who makes it clear that they mean 'no' when they say 'no' hasn't done their due diligence. The point is that not everyone makes it clear. However, if you say 'rape', how could anyone reasonably think you weren't making yourself absolutely clear? No one could. So we wouldn't have to have a debate about it. Because there would be no question, no grey area of 'did she really mean it or not'.

I wish you people would stop and think for a second before you rattled off your replies. Do a large percentage of the population think 'no' does not always mean 'no'? The answer is yes. If the standard was 'rape' means rape, would the percentage of the population who thinks there could be confusion drop to near neglegible? Once again, the answer is yes. Wouldn't it be better if the standard were something that 99% of people see as hard and fast instead of (to throw out a figure) 80%. Wouldn't you then not have to worry about that other 19% getting on a jury and letting a rapist go because they were convinced that the women's 'no' didn't mean 'no'.

Please think about it before you reply. Thank You.

Are you not reading my full posts? Are you not reading the rest of this thread? Are you not aware that there are plenty of people that do not agree with the idea that 'no' means 'no'. So, I propose a simple change to the law so that there can be no disagreement. Just because you personally don't have the ability to comprehend that people sometimes say 'no' when they in fact mean 'yes', doesn't mean people should go to jail over it. People often say one thing when they actually mean the exact oppisite, it's called sarcasm. I can only assume that you are not familiar with the concept.

And now that I think about it... The person who I am currently involved with will on occasion, when I have done something to annoy her, yell out 'rape' while I am holding her in a public area. She seems to think this is funny. I do not. Then she complains that no one pays any attention. Why? Because when people have just seen me walk 20 yards with my arms wrapped around you, and kiss you... they can tell that even though you have just said 'rape', you obviously don't mean it. So look at that... 'rape' doesn't always mean 'rape', how the hell can you try to tell me 'no' always means 'no'?

And yes that is 100% truth. She really does that. I really, really hate it.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself in that post? You are asking for a change in the law (although I'm not quite sure what law you are referring to), with the intention of invalidating the meaning of "no" in sexual situations and replacing it with the word "rape" to the effect that a man has to stop all sexual activities once the woman utters the word "rape"? And in the same post you point out that a friend of yours keeps doing that as a joke?

As far as I'm aware, very few people indeed have been convicted of rape so far on the ground of the woman uttering the word "no" once. Most scenarios tend to be a bit more drastic...

All right, I'm tired and I want sleep, but I'm just going to say this: walk around any major British city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you're guaranteed to see inebriated women staggering around with half their bodies on show for every (equally inebriated) man passing by's benefit. Now think: if you combine men (who, and I speak as a man myself, are basically here to fight, feed and f*ck, if you'll excuse the crude alliteration) with alcohol and then place a lot of attractive women (or come to think of it any woman once the beer goggles come on) in front of them, it's hardly likely to lead to anything good. .....I was going to blast you about your comment...but

as I usually do...I decided to double check...(lucky for me I checked...as I was dead wrong)

I called/messaged a few friends in London(some of them females)...and I could not believe the answers...amazing...

apparently British Fridays and Saturday nights are indeed full of young drunk half-naked women...

I think I am going to visit...I mean I have to see this by myself...

I think I am going to visit...I mean I have to see this by myself...

Don't forget to bring your restraints....

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself in that post? You are asking for a change in the law (although I'm not quite sure what law you are referring to), with the intention of invalidating the meaning of "no" in sexual situations and replacing it with the word "rape" to the effect that a man has to stop all sexual activities once the woman utters the word "rape"? And in the same post you point out that a friend of yours keeps doing that as a joke?

As far as I'm aware, very few people indeed have been convicted of rape so far on the ground of the woman uttering the word "no" once. Most scenarios tend to be a bit more drastic...


Yeah, yeah, I said i thought of that in the middle of the post. Anyway that's a completely different situation because we're in a public place were it's obvious I am not, in fact, trying to rape her. The point being made is 'word' does not always mean said word. Other factors such as context, and body language have to be taken acount before the true meaning of a persons words can be deciphered. In the context of a private sexual ecounter using the word 'rape' is pretty much garanteed to mean 'I think this is rape'. In fact it's so likely that I challenge anyone to explain to me how it could mean otherwise in any but the most unlikely of scenarios.

The point isn't that someone who makes it clear that they mean 'no' when they say 'no' hasn't done their due diligence. The point is that not everyone makes it clear. However, if you say 'rape', how could anyone reasonably think you weren't making yourself absolutely clear? No one could. So we wouldn't have to have a debate about it. Because there would be no question, no grey area of 'did she really mean it or not'.

Let me tell you, if you tried to have sex with me and I said "no", but you carried on anyway, I would be down the Police station first thing next day.

I wish you people would stop and think for a second before you rattled off your replies.
I don't need to stop and think. I'm intelligent enough to type and think at the same time.

Do a large percentage of the population think 'no' does not always mean 'no'?
I wouldn't imagine so.

The answer is yes.
Conducted a survey into that, or are you just spouting rubbish?

If the standard was 'rape' means rape, would the percentage of the population who thinks there could be confusion drop to near neglegible? Once again, the answer is yes.
More silly conjecture?

Wouldn't it be better if the standard were something that 99% of people see as hard and fast instead of (to throw out a figure) 80%. Wouldn't you then not have to worry about that other 19% getting on a jury and letting a rapist go because they were convinced that the women's 'no' didn't mean 'no'.
Not being able to understand the meaning of the word "no" is entirely their own problem.

Don't forget to bring your restraints....Ill bring some mexican tequila... and maybe a "cup"

Rape is NEVER excusable. Rapists are at the top of my list of people I will beat into a coma if I ever meet them.
Wow! We actually agree on something! [ faints! ] *THUD* :D

Lemmie know if you ever need help wid dat. I may be a tad old, but ah kin be mean as hell when pissed off! :D

Yup. Doesn't matter that she stayed in a relationship with you. She said no, you didn't believe her and carried on. You're trying to use a defence similar to that used by people who say that a man can't rape his wife.

So let me rephrase to get this exactly down.

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay.

Me: "Let's have sex"

Girlfriend: "OK"

We have sex it's okay. However...

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay. However, this is my girlfriend so I am aware of what indicates that she is ready to have sex. Therefore, I don't ask again to confirm that she is now willing to have sex. After I'm done she doesn't say anything about me being wrong. In fact this girl continues to be in a relationship, and have sex with me. I'm from that day forward a rapist, because she said 'no' and I continued without her at some point actually saying the word 'yes' or 'OK'?

And, according to you, "rape" doesn't always mean "rape". So, do we need another standard you can understand? How about, simply, "no".

Answered in post #170

So let me rephrase to get this exactly down.

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay.

Me: "Let's have sex"

Girlfriend: "OK"

We have sex it's okay. However...

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay. However, this is my girlfriend so I am aware of what indicates that she is ready to have sex. Therefore, I don't ask again to confirm that she is now willing to have sex. After I'm done she doesn't say anything about me being wrong. In fact this girl continues to be in a relationship, and have sex with me.
I'm from that day forward a rapist, because she said 'no' and I continued without her at some point actually saying the word 'yes' or 'OK'?
According to your dialogue, she gave you consent, so no, that wouldn't be rape.

But if she hadn't said "OK" then she would have every basis to call rape after it.

Can someone please tell me how a woman can rape a guy? I can't picture that

Its good to know that there are folks out there innocent enough not to know this. :(

It can happen.

Thank whatever diety you know that you 'can't picture that.....' sigh.

While I am shocked at this article and appalled by rape, I wonder if the people surveyed are responding because they are focusing on instances where a person consents to activity, and then cries "Rape" after the fact. Drinking too much and consenting under the influence doesn't mean you were raped, it meant you were stupid and irresponsible.

On the other side of the coin, I think rape is a horrible crime. I do not think the punishment is severe enough, but then you get into the whole debate about wether sentences are meant to be punative or rehabilitative. Not to get too off topic, but I think if the intent is to be rehabilitative, then the sentence shouldn't be for a set number of years after which you get set free regardless of your condition. If it is meant to be punative, then we need harsher sentencing. I just read about a leader in the catholic church in Arizona being charged with molestation of at least 6 children. The most he could get in prison is under 4 years! That is absurd as a punative sentence. It might also be absurd as a rehabilitative sentence, but I am not qualified to make that judgement. I think countries like Saudi Arabia have it right with some of their sentencing. Caught stealing once, cut off a hand, caught twice, cut off the other, third time = your head.

Let me tell you, if you tried to have sex with me and I said "no", but you carried on anyway, I would be down the Police station first thing next day.

So clearly you would never say 'no' just to play hard to get. Are you telling me that every woman does the same thing? Are you telling me you've never seen a man and woman flirting where the man says something and the woman says, "Stop," but through body language it's clear that she wants him to continue?


I don't need to stop and think. I'm intelligent enough to type and think at the same time.

But are you intelligent enough to try and remove your emotional response from your logical response. I won't offer my opinion on that, but I'll say that what I've said is perfectly logical and reasonable.

I wouldn't imagine so.


Conducted a survey into that, or are you just spouting rubbish?


More silly conjecture?

If you would like to setup a poll to find out feel free. I don't need one to know that I've heard (not had, in other words someone besides me was saying what I'm saying) debates on this topic before several times. I can therefore reason that a large enough percentage of people don't always think 'no' means 'no' that it's not a reliable standard.


Not being able to understand the meaning of the word "no" is entirely their own problem.

Tell that to someone who got 'raped' because she said 'no' in a manner that wasn't convincing enough. Maybe if she had said 'rape' instead the man would have realized she meant it and stopped. Do you think that at least one of the thousands of rapes that occur every year could be prevented by the substitution of that one word. Perhaps one of those mentioned earlier where the man didn't even realized the woman felt she was being raped. Wouldn't the prevention of even one rape be worth telling women they should say 'rape' instead of 'no'.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself in that post? You are asking for a change in the law (although I'm not quite sure what law you are referring to), with the intention of invalidating the meaning of "no" in sexual situations and replacing it with the word "rape" to the effect that a man has to stop all sexual activities once the woman utters the word "rape"? And in the same post you point out that a friend of yours keeps doing that as a joke?

As far as I'm aware, very few people indeed have been convicted of rape so far on the ground of the woman uttering the word "no" once. Most scenarios tend to be a bit more drastic...

And you don't seem to realize that the less drastic cases, by and large, are what we are arguing about, here. Noone disputes that if a drunk (or sober for that matter) man hauls a woman into an alley way, shackles her with some handcuffs, and then proceeds to rape her over her violent, muffled shrieks of protestation, that is, indeed, rape. However, what about the scenario of a guy and a girl at a party, the guy, thinking that the girl is just being flirty with him, because last night she'd slept with his best friend just for fun, decides that she really wants him anyway and is just protesting because she's trying to be coy goes off with her and screws her, but without the same hideously loud and shrill cries of distress from the girl that characterized the earlier scenario. In many cases men simply can't understand women. NOT THAT I"M USING THIS AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR RAPE, just to say that a lot of the time, things aren't clear cut.

I doubt anyone will read this, but still...

You have to accept that there are some really nasty pieces of work out there, that will do anything to get what they want. They aren't civilised, and they aren't able to be negotiated with.

The blame falls on women, when they walk around in public, half-naked, knowing full well that there are some (a few, small in number) of people out there that could like what they're seeing, and take advantage of it.

Certainly, rapists should be locked away, shot, whatever... but it still doesn't mean that women should walk around deliberately attacting attention from the sad, perverted psychoes.

It's a matter of common sense.

Tell that to someone who got 'raped' because she said 'no' in a manner that wasn't convincing enough. Maybe if she had said 'rape' instead the man would have realized she meant it and stopped. Do you think that at least one of the thousands of rapes that occur every year could be prevented by the substitution of that one word. Perhaps one of those mentioned earlier where the man didn't even realized the woman felt she was being raped. Wouldn't the prevention of even one rape be worth telling women they should say 'rape' instead of 'no'.
I think that for anyone in the early stages of a relationship (who shouldn't be having sex anyway, but that's another thread) "No" should be "No." My wife and I play a lot, and sometimes we can get rough. What we have is a "safe word." If things get out of hand and you really want to stop and aren't playing, you say this word that you would never say in a normal sexual encounter. Something like "Snickerdoodle", just as an example. This way, we can still get rough, play hard to get or whatever, but we have a system for indicating if we really want to stop.

ok i posted this already but i think number four deserves a re-post.

4) Roleplay and no not meaning no is all well and good when it's pre-established with safety words and is known to be consentual. Trying to judge by body language and not stopping once the first 'no' is uttered and communicating with the person to make sure just cause it might ruin your sexual experience is plain and simply fucking retarded. I mean your comparing one sexual outing to potentially traumatizing a person for life.


I mean holy shit, we're talking about people here, not stereos, not cake, or any other random metaphorical object, people where this actually happens.

also holy shit, 1 in 4 is still fucking alot of people unless your talking about only 4 people. Its not the majority but fuck, imagine if 1 in 4 people thought it was ok to rape period. We would have a serious problem. Lets not belittle the circumstance because it came from a poll.

The whole issue of people saying "no" isn't what the report is about, I thought I'd just point out.

I doubt anyone will read this, but still...

You have to accept that there are some really nasty pieces of work out there, that will do anything to get what they want. They aren't civilised, and they aren't able to be negotiated with.

The blame falls on women, when they walk around in public, half-naked, knowing full well that there are some (a few, small in number) of people out there that could like what they're seeing, and take advantage of it.

Certainly, rapists should be locked away, shot, whatever... but it still doesn't mean that women should walk around deliberately attacting attention from the sad, perverted psychoes.

It's a matter of common sense.

So, rather, women should cover themselves from head to toe and not leave the house unless it is really unavoidable?

Trust me, no woman actually ever got dressed up with the intention of attrackting attention from a rapist.

So, rather, women should cover themselves from head to toe and not leave the house unless it is really unavoidable?

Trust me, no woman actually ever got dressed up with the intention of attrackting attention from a rapist.

I'd certainly encourage it. I wouldn't walk around with my wallet hanging from my back-pocket, for instance, inviting thieves to come and nick it.

If women took reasonable precautions, such as avoiding walking around at night, alone, dressed prevocatively... you know, it would kind of help. And maybe rapists would give up, when they realise that women are getting a bit too savvy for them.

And no, I don't endorse theft, either. :Eyeroll:

I doubt anyone will read this, but still...

You have to accept that there are some really nasty pieces of work out there, that will do anything to get what they want. They aren't civilised, and they aren't able to be negotiated with.

The blame falls on women, when they walk around in public, half-naked, knowing full well that there are some (a few, small in number) of people out there that could like what they're seeing, and take advantage of it.

Certainly, rapists should be locked away, shot, whatever... but it still doesn't mean that women should walk around deliberately attacting attention from the sad, perverted psychoes.

It's a matter of common sense.

similarly, the blame for getting murdered by serial killers falls on those that fit the profile of a serial killer's victims. if you didn't want to be killed, you shouldn't have had blonde hair. it's just common sense.

btw, do you have any evidence linking how people dress to how likely they are to be raped?

similarly, the blame for getting murdered by serial killers falls on those that fit the profile of a serial killer's victims. if you didn't want to be killed, you shouldn't have had blonde hair. it's just common sense.

btw, do you have any evidence linking how people dress to how likely they are to be raped?

Obviously, if the woman isn't dressed provocatively, it isn't an issue. It's a no-brainer. But having seen women dressed like that in real life, walking around, you do wonder how they manage to -not- get raped.

So, rather, women should cover themselves from head to toe and not leave the house unless it is really unavoidable? no, but you need to be aware of your surroundings.

Trust me, no woman actually ever got dressed up with the intention of attrackting attention from a rapist.
you have to wonder though, what kind of attention are you hoping to attract anyway?

I have seen too many teen girls with thier thongs peeking out of the tops of thier jeans, to be naive enough to think that they "just like the way it looks"

They are trying to attract sexual attention period.

Does that mean that they deserve whatever they get?

absolutely not.

Should you be responsible for the way you present yourself?

absolutely.

I'd certainly encourage it. I wouldn't walk around with my wallet hanging from my back-pocket, for instance, inviting thieves to come and nick it.

And no, I don't endorse theft, either. :Eyeroll:

It's not comparable. Wearing a tanktop could be because it's hot out, not to attract attention. Wallets have nor purpose and if your walking with it sticking out, it's just going to fall out anyways.

Men don't get raped when the dress poorly, and I've seen many a man who does. Why should a lack of civilness among some people prohibit law abiding citizens from dressing as they wish? When it comes down to it, the decision to commit rape was the rapist; the rape victim has no say or power to it.

Besides, do you really think rape is about sex? Nope. It's about power. Most rapists don't get sexual pleasure from raping, but they sure get a high from forcing someone to submit.

So, rather, women should cover themselves from head to toe and not leave the house unless it is really unavoidable?

Trust me, no woman actually ever got dressed up with the intention of attrackting attention from a rapist.
Sounds almost like Islam to me. Heh!

What a woman wears or how she acts has little if anything to do with her becoming a rape victim. It's not a crime of passion, it's a crime of violence, yes???

Besides, do you really think rape is about sex? Nope. It's about power. Most rapists don't get sexual pleasure from raping, but they sure get a high from forcing someone to submit.

Then men do get attacked in much the same way. Getting assaulted in a park late at night, is just a show of power... to get someone else to submit.

We also have a little thing in England, which doesn't seem to be present in the all-suing nation called the USA. It's called taking reponsibility for your actions, if they are in any way 'stupid'.

This doesn't mean that the blame is completely on the woman, heck no. It's mostly on the depraved individuals that perform such acts. Women, do, however in my opinion have a small part to play in avoiding getting raped in the first place.

Even if they are dressing for sexual attention, doesn't necessarily mean they want sexual attention from YOU.

Simple right to choose who you fuck.

Stop making excuses for people who choose to take what they want.

We also have a little thing in England, which doesn't seem to be present in the all-suing nation called the USA. It's called taking reponsibility for your actions, if they are in any way 'stupid'.

Are you suggesting that rape should not be prosecuted and rapists not held accountable if it's committed under certain circumstances?

Rapists would never be punished. Oh what a wonderful world that would be.

Obviously, if the woman isn't dressed provocatively, it isn't an issue. It's a no-brainer. But having seen women dressed like that in real life, walking around, you do wonder how they manage to -not- get raped.

As a matter of fact, far more women get raped at home by friends or members of their family. The idea of the scantly dressed, tipsy woman being brutally raped in a dark park is very little more than a sick fantasy.
Women get raped at home, at work, in broad daylight. They get raped while trying to get to their car, or while walking home on a brightly lit street. A friend of mine got raped on a summer afternoon while walking home from the pool, there were dozens of cars driving by.

I find it appaling that the idea that clothes, or rather the absence of clothes, is supposed to be regarded as an invitation to violence according to so many people on this forum...

People should pull their heads out. If you leave the hosue wearing nothing but a thong and a an apple in your mouth, don't be surprised if you get raped. It's not right, but it's a fact. It's a rough world, wear a cup and stop whining.

A little responsible action, and a ready firearm, can prevent most rapes.

Even if they are dressing for sexual attention, doesn't necessarily mean they want sexual attention from YOU.

Simple right to choose who you fuck.

Stop making excuses for people who choose to take what they want.

I'm not making any excuses for them. I have enough control over myself that I can resist such things, as can a huge majority of people in the world. The people that don't, are in serious need of either mental help, or punishment.

Obviously, if the woman isn't dressed provocatively, it isn't an issue. It's a no-brainer.

why don't you just 'brainer' it up for me? i disbelieve that the way a woman is dressed has much to do with whether they get raped or not. present evidence to convince me otherwise.

Sounds almost like Islam to me. Heh!

What a woman wears or how she acts has little if anything to do with her becoming a rape victim. It's not a crime of passion, it's a crime of violence, yes???

I absolutely agree.

As has been said, rape is a lot more to do with power than rape. A lot of domestic abuse for example is a lot closer to rape than say, types of minor sexual assault.

The motivation isn't usuallyout-of control lust, so skimpy clothing shouldn't have much to do with it. How come 50-something women in conservative clothes get raped?

no, but you need to be aware of your surroundings.
....

Like, be wary of strangers?

Are you suggesting that rape should not be prosecuted and rapists not held accountable if it's committed under certain circumstances?

Rapists would never be punished. Oh what a wonderful world that would be.

You don't seem to quite grasp this idea of 'responsibility' do you?

It applies to both sides... if you rape somebody, that is a massive invasion of said person. I've already stated my opinion of such people many times.

LMAO..... That's crazy.

The only way they are guilty is if they keep cycling up and down through woods where a supposed rapist supposedly hangs out. :rolleyes:

Oh and did I say with a big neon-sign: "FREE RAPE VICTIM! Won't press charges!"

People should pull their heads out. If you leave the hosue wearing nothing but a thong and a an apple in your mouth, don't be surprised if you get raped. It's not right, but it's a fact. It's a rough world, wear a cup and stop whining.

A little responsible action, and a ready firearm, can prevent most rapes.

I wish this was parody :(

The ending would suggest so, if I didn't know better

:headbang:

Obviously, if the woman isn't dressed provocatively, it isn't an issue. It's a no-brainer. But having seen women dressed like that in real life, walking around, you do wonder how they manage to -not- get raped.
It's a no-brainer no matter how they are dressed. rape is rape, you don't choose it.

I am all for women dressing appropriatly and taking responsibility for thier appearance, but it is NEVER a woman's fault if she gets raped, no matter what.

If she goes through half way and changes her mind NO means NO.

Could you then call her a tease? sure.

Does her being a tease give you the right to rape her?

never.

Like, be wary of strangers?
yeah, and be aware of people that just creep you out, even if they are friends or family.

why don't you just 'brainer' it up for me? i disbelieve that the way a woman is dressed has much to do with whether they get raped or not. present evidence to convince me otherwise.

Most of the people replying to that survey, would have been talking about rape outside of the house. It's the stereotypical view of rape, and how I would expect most of it happens (even though, yes, I know that my view is apparently wrong). (The survey was taken in the UK, by the way)

yeah, and be aware of people that just creep you out, even if they are friends or family.
Do you believe that it is the creepy people that rape? It is people you trust.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455361

Most of the people replying to that survey, would have been talking about rape outside of the house. It's the stereotypical view of rape, and how I would expect most of it happens (even though, yes, I know that my view is apparently wrong). (The survey was taken in the UK, by the way)

I've read in many sources that among first world nations the UK has a terrible prosecution rate of rape due to social stigmas. Thank you for enlightening me on how exactly that works.

I've read in many sources that among first world nations the UK has a terrible prosecution rate of rape due to social stigmas. Thank you for enlightening me on how exactly that works.

Maybe we should introduce the death penalty for rapists, eh?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


EDIT: *Controversial* And maybe a lot of women in this country -lie- about being raped? *Controversial*

Do you believe that it is the creepy people that rape? It is people you trust.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455361
I know, I was raped repeatedly by my father, raped 2 times by my cousin and date raped 2 times by different assholes.

I know full well that you can get raped by people you trust. They all creeped me out before hand too, that little feeling that something isn't right, people should listen to that feeling, in most cases not only is something not right, something is really really wrong.

I know, I was raped repeatedly by my father, raped 2 times by my cousin and date raped 2 times by different assholes.

I know full well that you can get raped by people you trust. They all creeped me out before hand too, that little feeling that something isn't right, people should listen to that feeling, in most cases not only is something not right, something is really really wrong.

Wow... that's a lot of raping... I hope you were willing to prosecute and bring to justice these people, even though some of them were really close members of family.

Check the poll on the other thread. As most studies bear out, the perpatrator is usually someone you know.

Check the poll on the other thread. As most studies bear out, the perpatrator is usually someone you know.

Usually? I thought it was just 7 out of about 80, rather than 6.

I'm just wondering why so many people don't understand the concept of... If you put yourself in a situation were someone is likely to hurt you, you bere some of the responsiblity. No one has said once yet in nearly 200 posts that rapists should not be prosecuted. Nor, have they said that the rapist is not responsible for their actions. All anyone said is if you do something stupid and something bad happens to you, you need to take some of the blame. Someone please explain to me how taking responsibilities for your own actions is admitting that no one else has any blame in the situation at all.

Make that over 200 posts.

Wow... that's a lot of raping... I hope you were willing to prosecute and bring to justice these people, even though some of them were really close members of family.
I wasn't able to prosecute any of them.

My family decided that I was either making it up or did something to deserve it.

That is why I have no patience for anyone who says rape is the woman's fault.

I didn't do anything to deserve any of that. I didn't dress slutty, I wasn't a tease, I screamed, scratched, punched, kicked, and bit, anything to try to get away, I was just too weak, there is no way that they didn't realize that I wanted to stop.

I wasn't able to prosecute any of them.

My family decided that I was either making it up or did something to deserve it.

That is why I have no patience for anyone who says rape is the woman's fault.

I didn't do anything to deserve any of that. I didn't dress slutty, I wasn't a tease, I screamed, scratched, punched, kicked, and bit, anything to try to get away, I was just too weak, there is no way that they didn't realize that I wanted to stop.

Er... your family wouldn't be the ones doing the persecuting?

Oh well, I expect they didn't ask about responsibilities on that survey, depending on situation. It was kind of a blanket one about all rapes. Anyone that's been raped for no reason, has no actions to be responsible for. (Except for not killing the bastards that did it ;) )

Usually? I thought it was just 7 out of about 80, rather than 6.:confused:
Explain

:confused:
Explain

Just had another look at it, and I apologise for getting the numbers mixed up. (It should also be stated somewhere that polls on this forum don't generally reflect the entire population ;). Just the people that happened to respond on the forums)

But anyway, sure, it may just be that the rapes that people hear about are often the more violent ones, that are performed by strangers. If that's the case, then can you blame people for having such biased views?

this "but she was dressed like a slut" thing is driving me crazy. women go out at night in order to be attractive. DUH. does anyone want women to STOP being attractive?

and more to the point is it possible for women to NOT be attractive to men? do you think that saudi women who cover themselves from head to toe arent attractive to saudi men?

when i was a teen women were "sluts" for showing their KNEES

when my mother was a teen it was her calves

when her mother was a teen it was her ankles

and you know what? women in islamic countries get raped. women in my grandmothers time got raped.

clothing has NOTHING to do with it.

millions of women around the world go out on any given saturday night. they try their best to be as attractive as they can be. hair, make-up, clothing, shoes. they go out and flirt up a storm. they have a great time. they get drunk and they dance with drunk men. they flirt with drunk men. then they go home.

the vast majority dont get raped. why? because they werent flirting with rapists. they were flirting with average men who wouldnt consider forcing himself on a woman no matter how attractive and flirty she was. because its not HER behavior that causes rapes, its the rapist's behavior. because its not being attractive that CAUSES rape, its the rapist who causes rape. a man prone to rape is only looking for opportunity, he isnt "driven to madness" by an extremely attractive women.

if that were the case, we couldnt have public beaches because men couldnt control themselves when in sight of women in swim suits. if that were the case then the prettiest woman in the bar would have spend all night fighting off men trying to rape her on the spot. if that were the case no woman would be safe leaving her home.

if that were the case, we couldnt have public beaches because men couldnt control themselves when in sight of women in swim suits. if that were the case then the prettiest woman in the bar would have spend all night fighting off men trying to rape her on the spot. if that were the case no woman would be safe leaving her home.

Sorry, but I've already pointed this out. In a round-about sort of way, and without giving examples. :)

Er... your family wouldn't be the ones doing the persecuting? when you are under 18 you really need your family to help you out, when the cops come by to investigate and your family says 'she is a compulsive liar, she makes this stuff up'
it is difficult to get anyone to believe you.

I had a family member who told me "you don't want to turn in your dad, it would make your mom so unhappy, besides you are almost old enough to move, maybe if you just stay away from home a lot it will work"

I ended up getting kicked out at 16 and because of emotional problems due to being treated like less than human, I ended up in some pretty bad relationships.

Oh well, I expect they didn't ask about responsibilities on that survey, depending on situation. It was kind of a blanket one about all rapes. Anyone that's been raped for no reason, has no actions to be responsible for. (Except for not killing the bastards that did it ;) )
nobody is ever responsible for getting raped, no matter what.

I'd love to continue this discussusion, but I'm on a public library computer and they limit you to one hours use. My time is up.

nobody is ever responsible for getting raped, no matter what.

It's dangerous to make such generalisations.

They're never completely or mostly responsible, no matter what. But there are certain situations when a woman would have to take some responsibility. As we've already said, when they go outside wearing a belt around their waist, and not a lot else.

It's dangerous to make such generalisations.
how so?

If someone forces themself on you, it isn't your fault.

how so?

If someone forces themself on you, it isn't your fault.

On a more humourous note... I'm sure Saddam Hussein would disagree. :rolleyes:

It's dangerous to make such generalisations.

What? Is a woman responsible because she isn't strong enough to fight off her attacker? "Sorry, love, your fault. You aren't strong enough"

They're never completely or mostly responsible, no matter what. But there are certain situations when a woman would have to take some responsibility. As we've already said, when they go outside wearing a belt around their waist, and not a lot else.
No. They are responsible for nothing. If they have made it clear they don't want sex then the only person responsible is the man who can't control himself. Or are you suggesting that men can't control their sexual urges, and transform into ravenous monsters at the smallest sight of female flesh?

It's dangerous to make such generalisations.

They're never completely or mostly responsible, no matter what. But there are certain situations when a woman would have to take some responsibility. As we've already said, when they go outside wearing a belt around their waist, and not a lot else.

No, not even then. Revealing clothes are no invitation to violence.

It's a bit like saying "Don't talk to people who are bigger then you are. They might view it as a provocation and beat you up"...

No. They are responsible for nothing. If they have made it clear they don't want sex then the only person responsible is the man who can't control himself.


In a perfect world, I'd agree with you.

People should pull their heads out. If you leave the hosue wearing nothing but a thong and a an apple in your mouth, don't be surprised if you get raped. It's not right, but it's a fact. It's a rough world, wear a cup and stop whining.

A little responsible action, and a ready firearm, can prevent most rapes.
so should i hold the gun in my hand at all times? maybe a cute little holster on my hip?

i really dont have room to put one in my purse, nor would i be able to get it out quickly enough to be of any use. so should it pull it out whenever i see a man approaching? maybe after a couple drinks at the bar i should have it in my hand as i dance with a fellow who has had a couple drinks too....

No, not even then. Revealing clothes are no invitation to violence.

It's a bit like saying "Don't talk to people who are bigger then you are. They might view it as a provocation and beat you up"...

It's exactly like it. Except rather than "talk" it should be "swear at".

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you.
So it's a womans fault if a man she has been talking to can't control himself?

Sorry, but I've already pointed this out. In a round-about sort of way, and without giving examples. :)
youre sorry that i agreed with you?

I'm just wondering why so many people don't understand the concept of... If you put yourself in a situation were someone is likely to hurt you, you bere some of the responsiblity. No one has said once yet in nearly 200 posts that rapists should not be prosecuted. Nor, have they said that the rapist is not responsible for their actions. All anyone said is if you do something stupid and something bad happens to you, you need to take some of the blame. Someone please explain to me how taking responsibilities for your own actions is admitting that no one else has any blame in the situation at all.
There is never, ever any circumstance which can justfiy rape. Ever!

That said, women ( and men, for that matter ) should exercise a degree of caution as to who they choose to be around, where they choose to go, and what they choose to wear. It's simply a matter of being careful, not a matter of bearing any responsbility for an assault of any sort. People should be able to wear what they want, any time they want, anywhere they want, with anyone they want. Reality, however, dictates prudence.

youre sorry that i agreed with you?

I thought you were trying to poke holes at my argument/opinion/point of view.

So it's a womans fault if a man she has been talking to can't control himself?
Never.

There is never, ever any circumstance which can justfiy rape. Ever!

That said, women ( and men, for that matter ) should exercise a degree of caution as to who they choose to be around, where they choose to go, and what they choose to wear. It's simply a matter of being careful, not a matter of bearing any responsbility for an assault of any sort. People should be able to wear what they want, any time they want, anywhere they want, with anyone they want. Reality, however, dictates prudence.
thank you again, that is what I was trying to say earlier but it didn't come out right.

you always seem to be able to reword things so that what I think makes more sense. ;)

There is never, ever any circumstance which can justfiy rape. Ever!

That said, women ( and men, for that matter ) should exercise a degree of caution as to who they choose to be around, where they choose to go, and what they choose to wear. It's simply a matter of being careful, not a matter of bearing any responsbility for an assault of any sort. People should be able to wear what they want, any time they want, anywhere they want, with anyone they want. Reality, however, dictates prudence.

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. In an ideal world, people shouldn't have to worry... even about leaving their homes unlocked whilst they go away on holiday. Being careful, is the same as taking responsibility. Taking responsibility for your own well being.

Or are you suggesting that men can't control their sexual urges, and transform into ravenous monsters at the smallest sight of female flesh?


This happens to me sometimes. Have you been stalking me?

It's dangerous to make such generalisations.

They're never completely or mostly responsible, no matter what. But there are certain situations when a woman would have to take some responsibility. As we've already said, when they go outside wearing a belt around their waist, and not a lot else.
no its not her fault

the vast majority of men can control themselves no matter what a woman is or is not wearing

those who cant control themselves dont need clothing to provoke them. they only need opportunity.

so should i hold the gun in my hand at all times? maybe a cute little holster on my hip?




This little scenario actually turned me on...

those who cant control themselves dont need clothing to provoke them. they only need opportunity.

How could you possibily know that, though? Did they survey all the rapists, ever, even the ones that have the potential but didn't, because their "target" wasn't dressed provocatively enough?

Never.
Good :)

I can understand, and to a certain extent agree with, your point of view Eut, but I certainly could never agree with Kspinaria that the woman would share the responsibility if she were raped.

Good :)

I can understand, and to a certain extent agree with, your point of view Eut, but I certainly could never agree with Kspinaria that the woman would share the responsibility if she were raped.

I said responsibility, not "blame" or "fault".

This happens to me sometimes. Have you been stalking me?
Only for a couple of months, I hope you don't mind.

I said responsibility, not "blame" or "fault".
So did I.

So did I.

Then you've misunderstood me. All I've said is that a woman or man should always take responsibility for their actions, so as to not make their actions detrimental to their own health/well-being. The blame will always fall on the person that performed the unacceptable action.

How could you possibily know that, though? Did they survey all the rapists, ever, even the ones that have the potential but didn't, because their "target" wasn't dressed provocatively enough?
perhaps you should look up statistics on rape victims.

no, women are not chosen because they are "dressed like sluts" (although this can get you into other bad circumstances) they are raped because of opportunity.

is a woman jogging through the park dressed like a slut? is a woman asleep in her bed dressed like a slut? is the school child waiting for the bus dressed like a slut? is the woman grabbed as she gets into her car in the mall parking lot dressed like a slut?