NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Well said.

And to the extreme of nude or topless beaches? Is there a high percentage of violent sexual assault there? None that I have heard of.

Rape isnt a crime commited by people that are too horny, or too exposed to female flesh. Its commited by sick individuals, full of anger or hate and the need to victimize someone.

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?

Is the drunk woman, loitering about the high-street, alone on a Friday/Saturday evening dressed like a slut?

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?

Nothing "always prevents rape." I have not made such an argument, and as such this is just another strawman on your part.

I didnt know that if a woman carried a gun, it lessens the chance that she'll be raped

Well, now you know.


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.

Neither of these actually addresses the questions of mine you quoted.

Only for a couple of months, I hope you don't mind.

No- it was while you were working in the field for National Geographic, right?
I dont mind your study of me as long as it benefits human kind.

Women cannot be blamed for being raped.


The "scantly clad" or "dressed inappropriately" argument is bullshit.

If a woman gets raped in a nudist colony is it her fault?? I think not.

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.
Responsibility? Not even that. The victim has no responsibility, no blame, no nothing other than being an innocent victim.

No- it was while you were working in the field for National Geographic, right?
I dont mind your study of me as long as it benefits human kind.
Yes..."National Geographic"...yes....

Yes..."National Geographic"...yes....

thanks for being a good sport :D

Is the drunk woman, loitering about the high-street, alone on a Friday/Saturday evening dressed like a slut?
should she end up raped, its not her clothing that "causes" it. its her vulnerability that gives a rapist the opportunity to grab her and rape her.

he is not driven by her overt sexuality but by his own demons. he is not an average man driven beyond tolerance, he is a man looking for a victim.

Will you people please stop this "men are the victims when a guy rapes a girl, those bitches make it up" shit?

Its not rubbish. Not all rape cases are rape in the sense that a women definitely says no. Sometimes women make it up to get back at partners who they have left. They may play on ambiguities in the conversations before sleeping together. I agree the majority are real but there are a significent minority of fake ones.

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. Brits making more sense than the Yanks...again.

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.


Ok, you've only made the one post so I don't hold out too much hope of you coming back to answer it, but if you've been arguing along the same lines as this guy feel free to come and take his side :)

By your logic, anything we do that increases our chances of a crime occuring against us (assuming that clothing does indeed play a part in it) means we are to blame or responsibile. If I go down to the pub and just have a quiet half pint, minding my own business and out of nowhere I was smacked around the head - would I be partly responsible?

What a woman wears or how she acts has little if anything to do with her becoming a rape victim.I do not agree.

Ok, you've only made the one post so I don't hold out too much hope of you coming back to answer it, but if you've been arguing along the same lines as this guy feel free to come and take his side :)

By your logic, anything we do that increases our chances of a crime occuring against us (assuming that clothing does indeed play a part in it) means we are to blame or responsibile. If I go down to the pub and just have a quiet half pint, minding my own business and out of nowhere I was smacked around the head - would I be partly responsible?If you go to the Pub naked and get drunk...If smacked around the head, No. you would not be partly responsible.

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
Wait wait wait are you saying thats not what to do?:confused:

If you go to the Pub naked and get drunk...If smacked around the head, No. you would not be partly responsible.

I didn't quite understand, am I right assume that, based on my scenario, you are saying that I would not be responsible?

Its not rubbish. Not all rape cases are rape in the sense that a women definitely says no. Sometimes women make it up to get back at partners who they have left. They may play on ambiguities in the conversations before sleeping together. I agree the majority are real but there are a significent minority of fake ones.

and your evidence for this statement is what exactly?

I didn't quite understand...Its only because you do not want to.

but since it looks like you dont want to...I am going to take that as a "no"
I am not going to push it. ;)

Its only because you do not want to.

but since you said "no"
I am not going to push it. ;)

Is it so hard to give me a straight answer? :)

Is it so hard to give me a straight answer? :)My statement is crystal clear...figure it out for yourself (you are a Big girl)...and I do not wanna have sex with you anyways. :p

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.

A woman's sexual history has nothing at all to do with whether or not she was raped. Dragging it out into the courtroom does not defend any client. All it does is attack the victim. The only way it could possibly be admissible is if the woman has a history of falsely accusing men of rape.

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%.

That's a rather huge percentage, considering what we're talking about. Would you not think it odd if 25% of people thought that anyone who got murdered by a serial killer deserved it? Or if they thought that 25% of people who were mugged on the street deserved it?


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".

If they were both adults, and both drunk, and neither actually said no at the time, then they technically raped each other. Unless one can show that the other was more aware of their actions and intentionally taking advantage of them (rather difficult if they were both drinking a lot), a rape accusation without some evidence of physical violence simply won't hold.

and your evidence for this statement is what exactly?

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/january_2000_1.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10009532

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/04/when_is_rape_no.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10339669

Not to mention the fact that my Dad is a barrister and has seen some in his time also. I dont believe that all rape cases are fake, but I dont believe they are all true either.

My statement is crystal clear...figure it out for yourself (you are a Big girl)...and I do not wanna have sex with you anyways. :p

In that case, may I ask for a gramtically correct answer? You're being deliberately awkward, maybe because you don't have a decent answer :)

By your logic, anything we do that increases our chances of a crime occuring against us (assuming that clothing does indeed play a part in it)

Just to pick this point out. They once did a survey of rapists in prison - guys that are trying to reform, etc. One of the things they found out is that a rapist rarely targets a girl in skimpy clothing. What they usually go for is clothing that is baggy (easy to remove/get out of the way) and that they can get ahold of. Overalls were popular, as you can grab the straps to pull the woman towards you, then you can just cut through them when you want to get them out of the way. Most overalls are rather baggy, so there is less worry about unbuttoning/unzipping, etc. They also tended to go for women with longer hair for much the same reason - gave them something they could grab and control her movement with.

A woman's sexual history has nothing at all to do with whether or not she was raped. Dragging it out into the courtroom does not defend any client. All it does is attack the victim. The only way it could possibly be admissible is if the woman has a history of falsely accusing men of rape.

That's a rather huge percentage, considering what we're talking about. Would you not think it odd if 25% of people thought that anyone who got murdered by a serial killer deserved it? Or if they thought that 25% of people who were mugged on the street deserved it?

I've already responded to The Cat-Tribe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9971493&postcount=128) about both of these.

Did you bother to read the thread?

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?

People have done quite a few psychological studies on rape. One thing that has come from them over and over and over again is that rape is not about sex. It never has been. Rape is about power. For the rapist, it is about dominating someone more vulnerable than himself. It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, because a rapist is not "turned on" by her flesh, her attractiveness, etc. He is turned on by the idea of having power over her - of forcing himself upon her.

I've already responded to The Cat-Tribe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9971493&postcount=128) about both of these.

Did you bother to read the thread?

In the process. 18 pages is an awful lot to read through though, so I'm doing it backwards to get the pertinent points.

Edit: Meanwhile, that response is no less idiotic than the original post. There is no possible way to hold a woman responsible for being raped.

Just to pick this point out. They once did a survey of rapists in prison - guys that are trying to reform, etc. One of the things they found out is that a rapist rarely targets a girl in skimpy clothing. What they usually go for is clothing that is baggy (easy to remove/get out of the way) and that they can get ahold of. Overalls were popular, as you can grab the straps to pull the woman towards you, then you can just cut through them when you want to get them out of the way. Most overalls are rather baggy, so there is less worry about unbuttoning/unzipping, etc. They also tended to go for women with longer hair for much the same reason - gave them something they could grab and control her movement with.

Well, thanks for further backing up that part of the argument. I was giving them that, although I agree with what you're saying, because I didn't want to be dragged down into this as I was trying to focus on the idea of blame.

Wow, 11 pages. I'll try to be brief.

Rape is not about sex, or desire. It is about power.
That being said, when trying to assign the blame -- it has to be a case by case basis.

If a woman says no, and the guy continues, it is rape. That is the definition of rape -- sex without consent. Moving on. Bypassing the whole question of who was drunk and who wasn't (case by case basis, here) :

Scenario 1 : Woman wearing tight/revealing/slutty outfit flirts/touches/teases a guy all night then he follows her back to her apartment and rapes her. Whose fault? I think that the alleged 'victim' definitely shares blame in this case. Sure, she can say no, and he shouldn't have done it against her will ...but the 'victim' is hardly innocent, and it matters. If a woman has a known history of being, to put it simply, a teasing slut -- and acts in this manner, knowing good and well what she is doing -- she is trying to demonstrate her*power* over the man. Look but not touch. But she loses that battle --- the battle she started.

Scenario 2: Young child raped by a stranger while on way home from school. Can you honestly say the victim has ANY blame in this situation? Of course not. There's no precedent for something like this.

So, case by case. Things happen, human nature steers its course. In the end, it would be nice if things like this didn't happen but -- people will be people.

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.

Exactly!

A woman can be by herself all the time, go into bars, leave her drink unattended, go home with strange men, etc. Most of us would say that these are not really safe ways to act. However, nothing can possibly make her responsible for being raped. The rape itself is always completely the fault of the rapist. Now, we tell women to be careful, have a buddy, not leave their drink unattended, not be alone with strangers specifically because there are shitty people out there and we don't want anyone to get hurt. But if they do get hurt, it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the one harming them. Period.

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.

No, you aren't to blame. You know why? Because the types of actions that people bring up for this shouldn't put you in any danger.

If I want to go for a walk in the middle of the night, all by myself, I should freaking be able to. If I want to wear a body-paint shirt and a mini-skirt, I should be able to. If I want to wear my wallet as a necklace, I should be able to.

There shouldn't be assholes out there who will take advantage of you, and I shouldn't have to live my life in fear of them, rearranging my schedule, my time, my habits to fit them. If I choose not to do so, I may be more at risk, but that doesn't make it my fault, because what they are doing is just plain wrong in the first place.

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.

This statement rather disturbs me. It makes me really wonder about you. The very fact that the first thing you seem to think about a woman's mode of dress is "how does she not get raped?" If you saw a woman with a diamond bracelet, would you think, "How does she not get mugged?" Or would you think, "Nice bracelet. Pretty."

No, you aren't to blame. You know why? Because the types of actions that people bring up for this shouldn't put you in any danger.

If I want to go for a walk in the middle of the night, all by myself, I should freaking be able to. If I want to wear a body-paint shirt and a mini-skirt, I should be able to. If I want to wear my wallet as a necklace, I should be able to.

There shouldn't be assholes out there who will take advantage of you, and I shouldn't have to live my life in fear of them, rearranging my schedule, my time, my habits to fit them. If I choose not to do so, I may be more at risk, but that doesn't make it my fault, because what they are doing is just plain wrong in the first place.

Kantian vs Hobsian view of the world

There should'nt be but there is. With the knowledge that there is comes a level of responablility. We agree that women should not take the majority of the blame, but there is a partial element of repsonability to be taken up.

"There shouldn't be assholes out there who will take advantage of you, and I shouldn't have to live my life in fear of them"

you are right of course,but there has been crime since time began and it will continue,so why put yourself at risk? if the woman dresses like a trollop and goes bar hopping every friday night then she is putting herself at risk the same way that a smoker is at risk for cancer. she DOES share some of the responsibility,like it or not. furthermore,if society wasnt so ignorant,hateful,and repressive about sexuality,rape would go way down on the list of crimes....

In the process. 18 pages is an awful lot to read through though, so I'm doing it backwards to get the pertinent points.

Edit: Meanwhile, that response is no less idiotic than the original post. There is no possible way to hold a woman responsible for being raped.

A defence lawyer wouldn't be doing his or her job properly if they didn't try to remove all possibility of rape; including by blaming it on the woman for not making her wishes known, or whatever. That's certainly what I would do, if I were a defence lawyer for somebody up on a rape charge. I would play alot on the possibility that she was in some way responsible for some kind of "mix up". I would definitely try to put as much responsibilty as possible on the plaintiff, in order to put doubt into the minds of the jury. Because my job would be to defend my client.

Now, read the rest of the thread and see where you can possibly see me advocating a woman responsible if she is raped. In fact, you will find that I have been arguing exactly the opposite.

No, you aren't to blame. You know why? Because the types of actions that people bring up for this shouldn't put you in any danger.

If I want to go for a walk in the middle of the night, all by myself, I should freaking be able to. If I want to wear a body-paint shirt and a mini-skirt, I should be able to. If I want to wear my wallet as a necklace, I should be able to.

There shouldn't be s out there who will take advantage of you, and I shouldn't have to live my life in fear of them, rearranging my schedule, my time, my habits to fit them. If I choose not to do so, I may be more at risk, but that doesn't make it my fault, because what they are doing is just plain wrong in the first place.

Kudos.
I second that.
Not that I would do those things, because there are creepy people out there.
But that doesn't make their actions my fault.

BTW, this is Bitchkitten. Soon to be returninig in her original incarnation.

Kudos.
I second that.
Not that I would do those things, because there are creepy people out there.
But that doesn't make their actions my fault.

BTW, this is Bitchkitten. Soon to be returninig in her original incarnation.
Hey bitchkitten :)

Good God, this argument is still circling round and round…

People say that women are "asking for it". Now, it may just be me, but I fail to see how crying, screaming, begging to stop, pleading for mercy, are "asking for it".

EDIT: I remember Bitchkitten…
EDIT2: Isn't the "it's women's fault" argument actually denigrating men as well - implying that we can't control ourselves? I don't particularly want my female friends to see me as a potential rapist.

you are right of course,but there has been crime since time began and it will continue,so why put yourself at risk?

I'm not putting myself at risk. They are putting me at risk.

furthermore,if society wasnt so ignorant,hateful,and repressive about sexuality,rape would go way down on the list of crimes....

Hardly. Sexual attraction is not the cause of rape. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power - about dominating another person - about exerting power over someone more vulnerable


A defence lawyer wouldn't be doing his or her job properly if they didn't try to remove all possibility of rape; including by blaming it on the woman for not making her wishes known, or whatever. That's certainly what I would do, if I were a defence lawyer for somebody up on a rape charge. I would play alot on the possibility that she was in some way responsible for some kind of "mix up". I would definitely try to put as much responsibilty as possible on the plaintiff, in order to put doubt into the minds of the jury. Because my job would be to defend my client.

None of that has anything at all to do with how many sexual partners she has had, who they were, etc.

All of that has to do with the specific instance in question, and of course you could bring any of that in.

BTW, this is Bitchkitten. Soon to be returninig in her original incarnation.

Hiya! I never got my original incarnation back. =( Course, I didn't really try, hehe.

None of that has anything at all to do with how many sexual partners she has had, who they were, etc.

All of that has to do with the specific instance in question, and of course you could bring any of that in.
Yea...you didn't read my reply to The Cat-Tribe did you?

You know, the bit where I made it clear I wasn't referring to the sexual history section of the original quote?

I have paranoia and I hate walking out alone at night. I hate walking alone, full stop. I hate having to be anywhere, on my own, around men I don't know including if they're at the other end of the street to me. I hate having to walk back from parties in skirts of any length, shoes with heels, tops that are at all tight or fitted or revealing/emphasising cleavage, tight trousers, tops that show skin at my waist etc etc. I hate having to open the door in any of those clothes. I hate going to swimming pools. I hate the idea of drinking alcohol at all, in the company of anyone but my close friends. I hate having to get public transport alone. The list goes on. Doing all those things scares the shit out of me, largely because of the fear of rape.

No-one should have to live like that. Being scared of all those things and taking such excessive precautions (i.e. not doing any of those things apart from the things I have to to function in life) shouldn't be a normal thing, a way of life that's seen as sensible and careful.

Of course, I'm always going to advise that people take precautions and don't do reckless things. But if people don't take that advice, that in no way means they deserve to be raped or that they should take any blame whatsoever. The blame lies at the rapist's feet. Always.

Every single thing you do involves a risk, but we take calculated risks. You shouldn't have to stop enjoying your life out of fear.

Not to mention the fact that you are not in control of a rapist's actions.

And not to mention the fact that, like many people have said, rape is about power and violence, not attraction or sex.

Yea...you didn't read my reply to The Cat-Tribe did you?

You know, the bit where I made it clear I wasn't referring to the sexual history section of the original quote?

The entire original quote was based around the sexual history. It was supposed to be used to place blame on the victim.

The entire original quote was based around the sexual history.
No it wasn't.

"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."

It mentioned sexual history, and then went on to holding the woman accountable.

This is a ridiculously petty argument. I know exactly what I meant, and I suspect you know exactly what I meant.

In my opinion, all arguments that put fault/blame/responsibility for rape on the victim of rape are nothing more than societal prejudices that seek to control women's movements and blame them for their sexuality.

No one "invites" or "incites" rape any more than they invite/incite robbery by owning property or lynching by being black.

Some people on this thread claim that, because men can also get raped, it is somehow wrong to complain about the blame game against women. That argument simply doesn't track. Yes, men can and do get raped -- occasionally by women, more often by other men -- and yes, that is a vicious, violent crime that goes under-reported and under-prosecuted. How does that fact negate the prejudice against women inherent in blaming women for being the victims of rape? In fact, I'd say the same prejudicial thinking would go into labeling a guy who got raped as a "fag" who was asking for it somehow, too.

A disturbing number of people in this thread keep harping on how the woman dresses, where she goes, does she drink, does she party, does she have sex with other men. Such things are not extenuating circumstances for rape, any more than they are for gay bashing, robbery, or any other violent crime. Being drunk or confused is not a defense in a court of law. These arguments sound like little more than attempts to squirm out of responsibility for date rape.

Yes, it is true that some women make false accusations of rape. I believe such women are mentally unstable or pathologically immature and irresponsible. Making a false accusation of rape should be a crime in itself, but it should in no way lessen the severity of rape accusations in general, nor should it be used to assume all women are making false claims.

All the arguments that seek to put responsibility for inciting rape on women eventually boil down to one thing -- it's her fault because she was a woman. She was a woman out at night; a woman dressed provocatively; a woman drinking; etc., etc., etc. The only consistent detail is she was a woman. Well, that's the one part of ourselves we can't control, so guys just need to get the fuck used to it.

No it wasn't.

"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."

It mentioned sexual history, and then went on to holding the woman accountable.

This is a ridiculously petty argument. I know exactly what I meant, and I suspect you know exactly what I meant.

How the hell is that not saying that sexual history is used to blame the woman?

How the hell is that not saying that sexual history is used to blame the woman?
Because of the "and" between "which is supposed to be banned" and "blame the woman for what happened". It makes it another item in the list of what they try to do in the trial.

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

Even in the original quote, the section about sexual history, and the section about trying to blame the woman are different parts of the sentence, and should be taken individually.

I can not believe I am even having this argument.

*snip*.

Of course, if you actually take the quote in context of reality, in which sexual history discussions in court are banned because they are the very way that lawyers would prefer to blame the victim........

The type of defense the original quote was talking about was not, "This guy didn't think he raped her because she said she to." It was, "This woman has sex with lots of guys. Obviously, that means she consented this time too."

This is a ridiculously petty argument. I know exactly what I meant, and I suspect you know exactly what I meant.
That's incredibly annoying, isn't it?

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


Rape is violence, not sex. If a guy was just desperate to get laid, he could find a prostitute. (Not saying I agree with this, either.)

I think if you lived in a country like Iran, you'd be one of the men whipping women for showing a strand of their hair.
That's NOT a compliment.

That's incredibly annoying, isn't it?

Please don't get back on the "Everything anyone says but Dem is completely and totally clear to everyone else," kick.

It was not clear. It has now been cleared up, but instead of just saying, "That's not what I meant. It was, "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ IT!" Sorry if I find it a little rude for someone to place their own ambiguities on someone else. If I were the only person who had seen it in the way I described, there might be a point here. Of course, that isn't the case.....

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?
Ah...I see you've met Drunk Commies:)

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

I believe that if someone says "no" during the act, and it doesn't stop it is considered rape.

RAPE IS A CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIM.
So is murder...but some murders receive more attention and some less...the less usually being prostitutes of course.

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?
Most rapes are perpetrated by people the victim knows, and sometimes even trusts. Stranger-rapes are not as common. Nor is there a sort of formula to help you avoid it...not all rape victims are dressed 'provocatively', or inebriated at the time of the crime, out alone in an alley way at 2 in the morning, etc. Sure, there are some things you can avoid...but that isn't going to guarantee you won't get raped. If you don't avoid being raped, that should never be held against you as though you lacked foresight and planning.

Then again, I realise that's not what you're saying should happen. So, nevahmind:)

Because of the "and" between "which is supposed to be banned" and "blame the woman for what happened". It makes it another item in the list of what they try to do in the trial.

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

Even in the original quote, the section about sexual history, and the section about trying to blame the woman are different parts of the sentence, and should be taken individually.

I can not believe I am even having this argument.
Apologies. Thanks for explaining.

Either I just have bad grammar (because I'd put a comma after "banned") or it can be perceived in different ways. Or I'm just tired.

I read about 10 out of the 20 pages... but am I the only one who thought the quote "Nobody asks to be raped" funny?... Oh dear, my sense of humour may have just started to cross one too many of the infinite lines of moral decency.

Sorry, but how can any one say "Nobody asks to be raped" whilst keeping a straight face?

And on a serious side note, the question may have been take out of context. Sure rape is wrong, but as people we still have some degree of personal responsibility. For instance, going out to buy a loaf of bread in Gaza when the military is conducting a raid is not the cleverest thing to do. Neither is; going out to a nightclub on your own; having your panties showing; your boobs almost popping out of your shrunken top; drinking copious amounts of alcohol; getting separated from the friends you went with, if indeed you went with any; leaving your drink unattended; staggering down a dark alleyway; or getting into an unlicensed taxi.

It'd be nice if the world was perfect and we didn't have to worry about such things, but it isn't. We can't take risks in our lives and automatically expect to be just peechy.

And on a serious side note, the question may have been take out of context. Sure rape is wrong, but as people we still have some degree of personal responsibility. For instance, going out to buy a loaf of bread in Gaza when the military is conducting a raid is not the cleverest thing to do. Neither is; going out to a nightclub on your own; having your panties showing; your boobs almost popping out of your shrunken top; drinking copious amounts of alcohol; getting separated from the friends you went with, if indeed you went with any; leaving your drink unattended; staggering down a dark alleyway; or getting into an unlicensed taxi.

It'd be nice if the world was perfect and we didn't have to worry about such things, but it isn't. We can't take risks in our lives and automatically expect to be just peechy. But surely, if rape depended on people dressing provocatively, the rape rate in Pakistan or Afghanistan would be virtually nil?

I read about 10 out of the 20 pages... but am I the only one who thought the quote "Nobody asks to be raped" funny?... Oh dear, my sense of humour may have just started to cross one too many of the infinite lines of moral decency.

Sorry, but how can any one say "Nobody asks to be raped" whilst keeping a straight face?

Because it is true?

How can anyone say "Nobody asks to be murdered" with a straight face?

It'd be nice if the world was perfect and we didn't have to worry about such things, but it isn't. We can't take risks in our lives and automatically expect to be just peechy.

Nobody is saying they "expect to be just peechy". We are simply pointing out that the perpetrator of a crime bears full responsibility for that crime. Period. It doesn't matter if someone was somehow more vulnerable to it than others. The criminal carries all the blame for his/her actions.

If I leave my keys in my car and run into the store, a thief may find it easier to steal my car. That doesn't mean I bear any blame for having my car stolen, as only the thief stole it. It just means that I was an easier target.

A woman who leaves her drink unattended, for instance, would be an easier target for someone who wants to drug and rape a woman. However, that doesn't make the crime her fault. We're talking about someone who planned to bring drugs and find a woman he could drug and rape. ALL of the blame is on him.

Complete avoidance of the comment about the quote... oh well...

Not really what I meant, just that there should be some degree of personal responsibility. Like tripping on the pavement - look where you're going, maybe? Oh shit, this coffee scalded my legs, I had absolutely no idea my coffee would be this hot when they advertised it as being the hotest coffee in town. If I don't manage to complete all my essays for my deadline this semester then perhaps I can sue Nationstates for my being incomplete for the semester.

Some rape can be esaily avoided, and I don't beliebe there are people out there so naive that they don't think someone might try to spike their drink. I know the UK government agrees with me. They ran an add where a group of girls just chat as one of their friends is dragged screaming into a car. The ad trying to a shcok tactic of the risks involved when using unlicensed taxi or letting your friend use one.

Some rape can be esaily avoided, and I don't beliebe there are people out there so naive that they don't think someone might try to spike their drink. I know the UK government agrees with me. They ran an add where a group of girls just chat as one of their friends is dragged screaming into a car. The ad trying to a shcok tactic of the risks involved when using unlicensed taxi or letting your friend use one. Yes, but who committed the rape? Why should the girl bear responsibility for being complicit in the crime - which is effectively what blaming her is?

How can anyone say "Nobody asks to be murdered" with a straight face? <-- equally as stupid/funny. The terms include not asking by definition. "Nobody asks to be killed" is sensible. However, "Nobody asks to have sex" still isn't a intelligent comment.

Nobody is saying they "expect to be just peechy". We are simply pointing out that the perpetrator of a crime bears full responsibility for that crime. Period. It doesn't matter if someone was somehow more vulnerable to it than others. The criminal carries all the blame for his/her actions.

If I leave my keys in my car and run into the store, a thief may find it easier to steal my car. That doesn't mean I bear any blame for having my car stolen, as only the thief stole it. It just means that I was an easier target.

A woman who leaves her drink unattended, for instance, would be an easier target for someone who wants to drug and rape a woman. However, that doesn't make the crime her fault. We're talking about someone who planned to bring drugs and find a woman he could drug and rape. ALL of the blame is on him.
I court wouldn't look too kindly on you if you bought a case in front of them alleging that I 'sold' Manhattan Island to you for $10,000. (admittedly they woulld take opposing positions whether or not the transaction was via the internet or not.

Yes, but who committed the rape? Why should the girl bear responsibility for being complicit in the crime - which is effectively what blaming her is? I'd be careful with your wording there. Complicity in a crime normally brings punishments as severe as commiting the actual crime.

Nobody is saying they "expect to be just peechy". We are simply pointing out that the perpetrator of a crime bears full responsibility for that crime. Period. It doesn't matter if someone was somehow more vulnerable to it than others. The criminal carries all the blame for his/her actions.

If I leave my keys in my car and run into the store, a thief may find it easier to steal my car. That doesn't mean I bear any blame for having my car stolen, as only the thief stole it. It just means that I was an easier target.

A woman who leaves her drink unattended, for instance, would be an easier target for someone who wants to drug and rape a woman. However, that doesn't make the crime her fault. We're talking about someone who planned to bring drugs and find a woman he could drug and rape. ALL of the blame is on him.

Don't take this as representative of my beleifs of the subject, but I think if a ridiculous extreme were presented, we could find a situation where the woman could be in part responsible for making the situation more probable.

We aren't "to blame" for getting killed by a bear, but there still exists rights and wrongs as to how to avoid such an occurence in the woods, and what to do to minimize ill affects should the confrontation occur.

If the chances of being raped is totally out of ones hands, there is absolutely no preventative measure that could ever be taken to stop the occurence. Which I think can be untrue.

I very readily acknowledge that this does nothing to shift the blame off of the attacker, and that the normal rape situation isn't determined by what preventative measures are taken.

Complete avoidance of the comment about the quote... oh well...

I didn't avoid anything.

Not really what I meant, just that there should be some degree of personal responsibility.

And there is. And no one but the perpetrator of a crime is ever responsible for the perpetration of the crime unless they coerced/paid for/trained the criminal to do it.

Like tripping on the pavement - look where you're going, maybe? Oh shit, this coffee scalded my legs, I had absolutely no idea my coffee would be this hot when they advertised it as being the hotest coffee in town. If I don't manage to complete all my essays for my deadline this semester then perhaps I can sue Nationstates for my being incomplete for the semester.

All of this is completely irrelevant, as none of it involves one person attacking another. In the coffee case, McDonald's had already had several lawsuits and been warned to keep their coffee at a lower temperature, as it was well above what a reasonable person would suspect. In the other two cases, you are talking about things that are the fault of the person that might get hurt. No one else forced them/tricked them/etc. into tripping/not doing schoolwork.

Some rape can be esaily avoided, and I don't beliebe there are people out there so naive that they don't think someone might try to spike their drink. I know the UK government agrees with me. They ran an add where a group of girls just chat as one of their friends is dragged screaming into a car. The ad trying to a shcok tactic of the risks involved when using unlicensed taxi or letting your friend use one.

The UK isn't saying, "It's your own damn fault if you get raped." They are saying, "There are dangerous pieces of shit out there. This is one way you might be able to protect yourself, to a point."

I court wouldn't look too kindly on you if you bought a case in front of them alleging that I 'sold' Manhattan Island to you for $10,000. (admittedly they woulld take opposing positions whether or not the transaction was via the internet or not.

That's a ridiculous analogy. Welcome to straw-land.

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.
I agree.

Don't take this as representative of my beleifs of the subject, but I think if a ridiculous extreme were presented, we could find a situation where the woman could be in part responsible for making the situation more probable.

Being an easier target != being responsible for the crime.

We aren't "to blame" for getting killed by a bear, but there still exists rights and wrongs as to how to avoid such an occurence in the woods, and what to do to minimize ill affects should the confrontation occur.

Strawman. Bears are not "responsible" for their actions in the way that human beings are.

If the chances of being raped is totally out of ones hands, there is absolutely no preventative measure that could ever be taken to stop the occurence. Which I think can be untrue.

We aren't talking about chances. We are talking about who is to blame. The only person who can have any blame for rape is the rapist.

I very readily acknowledge that this does nothing to shift the blame off of the attacker, and that the normal rape situation isn't determined by what preventative measures are taken.

Exactly.

Being an easier target != being responsible for the crime.

If it is that way then, do you think it is possible for one to make themselves an easier target?

Strawman. Bears are not "responsible" for their actions in the way that human beings are. I meant not to focus on the will of the bear and whether the bear was to blame, but will concede if that seems like a poor example. But is it impossible to change the likelihood? I think this is less readily admitted because rape is a very fragile subject that evokes a "give an inch, take a mile sydrome". Example: we don't object to the idea that personal initiative can have some sort of affect on whether we become wealthy or not.

We aren't talking about chances. We are talking about who is to blame. The only person who can have any blame for rape is the rapist. But there seems to be some contradiction in this. I really want to say that only the rapist is to blame, and think that there is some seperation between measures of personal prevention and blame for being attacked by a rapist. But if becoming an easier target means one is part to blame, we are talking about chances.

Exactly.
I want the fact that I am arguing for a small sliver of what is in reality true to be a bottom line with this argument.

If it is that way then, do you think it is possible for one to make themselves an easier target?

Of course it is. I have listed possibilities here. If I leave my car running and go inside somewhere, it is easier to steal. If I walk alone at night, it is easier for someone I don't know (or even someone I do) to attack me. If I leave my drink unattended, it is easier for someone to drug it. And so on....

But is it impossible to change the likelihood?

It may be possible to decrease the likelihood that you will be the particular target. However, it is not possible for your actions to decrease the likelihood of a rape. If someone wants to rape another person, that someone will find a way.

But there seems to be some contradiction in this. I really want to say that only the rapist is to blame, and think that there is some seperation between measures of personal prevention and blame for being attacked by a rapist. But if becoming an easier target means one is part to blame, we are talking about chances.

Being an easier target != taking blame for the crime.

The crime is on the head of the criminal. Period. If I wanted to, I could live my life as an old maid in a house with 8 locks on every door and the windows painted and nailed shut and have a rottweiller that answered only to me and keep no expensive things in the house and grow my own food and pump my own well for water and so on and so forth....

I could cut myself off from society completely and take every possible security measure, thus making myself a very difficult target. However, it is not my responsibility to do so. It is the responsibility of others to respect that the TV in my house is mine, that my body is mine, that my money is mine, that my vehicle is mine. I may take those precautions because I know that there are shitty people out there. But it is not my responsibility to live in fear of every random person walking down the street.

I didn't quite understand, am I right assume that...no you are not rigth to assume...

I didn't avoid anything. It wasn't in reference to you. I was replying to Liskeinland's post. Your post hadn't come up when I was replying to her post.

And there is. And no one but the perpetrator of a crime is ever responsible for the perpetration of the crime unless they coerced/paid for/trained the criminal to do it.That's a bit nonsensical. A perpetration also covers bringing about a crime, not just the act. For instance, a dutch man is being tried for crimes for selling chemical weapons to Sadam's regime when he knew what they would be used for. So acting in a way which brings about a crime is a criminal offense, such as getting into an unlicenced taxt. Criminality is very slippery subject which is why I was trying to avoid it and talk more about the morality of the subject.

All of this is completely irrelevant, as none of it involves one person attacking another. In the coffee case, McDonald's had already had several lawsuits and been warned to keep their coffee at a lower temperature, as it was well above what a reasonable person would suspect. In the other two cases, you are talking about things that are the fault of the person that might get hurt. No one else forced them/tricked them/etc. into tripping/not doing schoolwork. Well I had already stated that I believe rape is wrong. I'm arguing the moot point of personal responsibility, in which this is relevant. It's also nice that you comment on it further than its irrelevance though. In all three cases I think it's fully the unfortunate persons complete responsibility. The person in the coffee was being incredibly stupid, even if normal hot coffee were to have spilled on him/her it could have distracted him/her from driving, possibly causing an accident in which they could have killed someone. And anyway, the tripped still didn't ask to trip.

The UK isn't saying, "It's your own damn fault if you get raped." They are saying, "There are dangerous pieces of shit out there. This is one way you might be able to protect yourself, to a point." Exactly, and by conciously making the decision to ignore such advice you bare, if only a tiny amount, of responsibility to what happens. And you could go further, for in legal terms ignorance isn't a credible defense either.

That's a ridiculous analogy. Welcome to straw-land. Not quite sure what you meantext to let me post

I think the issue is to be clear on what we mean by "is it her fault?" What kind of fault are we talking about?

I believe that a woman has the right to wear what she likes. If this causes her to get raped, it may be that she has faulty judgment, but it is the rapist who is ethically faulty. Poor judgment is not (and should not be) a crime, after all, so to treat the victim as the wrongdoer is mistaken.

Of course it is. I have listed possibilities here. If I leave my car running and go inside somewhere, it is easier to steal. If I walk alone at night, it is easier for someone I don't know (or even someone I do) to attack me. If I leave my drink unattended, it is easier for someone to drug it. And so on....
Then in your own words, being an easier target != being responsible for rape. So if being an easier target means you should be in part responsible, there could be an extreme circumstance where one does have some responsibility.

It may be possible to decrease the likelihood that you will be the particular target. However, it is not possible for your actions to decrease the likelihood of a rape. If someone wants to rape another person, that someone will find a way.
I see the point here and this does represent better than my examples, the general situation. But that part in bold, I think I have to disagree with, for reasons in the paragraph above.

Being an easier target != taking blame for the crime.

The crime is on the head of the criminal. Period.
If the equation above is true, I don't think that the sentence below it is entirely true.

If I wanted to, I could live my life as an old maid in a house with 8 locks on every door and the windows painted and nailed shut and have a rottweiller that answered only to me and keep no expensive things in the house and grow my own food and pump my own well for water and so on and so forth....

I could cut myself off from society completely and take every possible security measure, thus making myself a very difficult target. However, it is not my responsibility to do so. It is the responsibility of others to respect that the TV in my house is mine, that my body is mine, that my money is mine, that my vehicle is mine. I may take those precautions because I know that there are shitty people out there. But it is not my responsibility to live in fear of every random person walking down the street.
I don't think it is either. So taking measures to defend yourself (or failing to do so) is outside of being responsible for the rape. I think that this is true, but there is still some burden on a person that they take care to look out for themselves... and I don't think I know how to classify it.

A perpetration also covers bringing about a crime, not just the act.

Did you miss the part where I talked about the person forcing/paying for/etc. the crime?

For instance, a dutch man is being tried for crimes for selling chemical weapons to Sadam's regime when he knew what they would be used for.

That is called being an acessory to a crime. However, the intention of the accessory is still to help the criminal. I doubt you would argue that the intention of a woman who leaves her drink sitting on the bar for a moment is trying to help a rapist rape her.

The person in the coffee was being incredibly stupid, even if normal hot coffee were to have spilled on him/her it could have distracted him/her from driving, possibly causing an accident in which they could have killed someone.

Wow, way to demonstrate complete ignorance of the case. The woman in question was not driving. She was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. In fact, she specifically asked the driver to pull into a parking space so that she could put her cream and sugar in her coffee.

Exactly, and by conciously making the decision to ignore such advice you bare, if only a tiny amount, of responsibility to what happens.

No, you don't. Because the crime is still the entire fault of the criminal. The only reason we even have to suggest these things is the fact that the criminal exists. But the crime itself is never the fault of anyone but the criminal.

Not quite sure what you mean

Look up the term, "Strawman argument".

I think the issue is to be clear on what we mean by "is it her fault?" What kind of fault are we talking about?

I believe that a woman has the right to wear what she likes. If this causes her to get raped, it may be that she has faulty judgment, but it is the rapist who is ethically faulty. Poor judgment is not (and should not be) a crime, after all, so to treat the victim as the wrongdoer is mistaken.
I think I agree with this. But I was thinking along the lines of personal responsibility and criminal responsibility. A rape victim doesn't bare criminal responsibility, but they may bare some personal responsibility.

Then in your own words, being an easier target != being responsible for rape.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

!= means "not equal to"

So if being an easier target means you should be in part responsible, there could be an extreme circumstance where one does have some responsibility.

This is the exact opposite of what I said.

I see the point here and this does represent better than my examples, the general situation. But that part in bold, I think I have to disagree with, for reasons in the paragraph above.

If I am not an easy target, a rapist will just look for the easiest target he can find. Constantly placing the responsiblity on the victim to be less of a target will eventually result in exactly what I described, people locking themselves in little houses and never coming out and having a big dog and a shotgun and 8 locks on every door, etc.

If the equation above is true, I don't think that the sentence below it is entirely true.

Again, != means "not equal to".

I don't think it is either. So taking measures to defend yourself (or failing to do so) is outside of being responsible for the rape. I think that this is true, but there is still some burden on a person that they take care to look out for themselves... and I don't think I know how to classify it.

I don't either. But it isn't to call them responsible for the crimes of others.

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.
Perhaps because no correlation has ever been found between what a woman wears and whether or not she gets raped?
If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're just as likely to get raped if you're wearing a snowsuit as if you're wearing a miniskirt.

So how about you go learn something about rape before you pretend to be an authority on it, ok? Disgusting.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

!= means "not equal to"



Sorry, I wasn't sure what it meant but thought you meant gets infinately close to. my mistake.

Perhaps because no correlation has ever been found between what a woman wears and whether or not she gets raped?
If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're just as likely to get raped if you're wearing a snowsuit as if you're wearing a miniskirt.

So how about you go learn something about rape before you pretend to be an authority on it, ok? Disgusting.
That's about all that need be said.

exact opposite
That was based on my faulty assumption.

So there is some hand the victim has in how likely they are to be raped, but it is far from the cheif factor involved and very different from being responsible. I think whenever anyone tries to point to 'responsibility' of rape and put it on the female they mean this.

Did you miss the part where I talked about the person forcing/paying for/etc. the crime? Indeed I did not, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote properly? The said that no one but the perpetrator is ever resonsible for a crime, except... This meaning you weren't aware of the full meaning of perpetrator.

That is called being an acessory to a crime. However, the intention of the accessory is still to help the criminal. I doubt you would argue that the intention of a woman who leaves her drink sitting on the bar for a moment is trying to help a rapist rape her. Oh I certainly could, but I would have to get far too philisophical.

Wow, way to demonstrate complete ignorance of the case. The woman in question was not driving. She was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. In fact, she specifically asked the driver to pull into a parking space so that she could put her cream and sugar in her coffee. Yes, I'll openly admit my ignorance about the case as I don't really care about it.

No, you don't. Because the crime is still the entire fault of the criminal. The only reason we even have to suggest these things is the fact that the criminal exists. But the crime itself is never the fault of anyone but the criminal. That's completely untrue. Without the victim we would be dicussing this either. You can't have one without the other. eg. Parent is only qualified by the terms child, son or daugter and vice versa.

Look up the term, "Strawman argument". Having looked up the term I belive you are either abusing the meaning of the term or misunderstood it to simply put down any point you slightly agree with but damages yourstand point. Many analogies people use are purposefully easy to knock down so that it's easy to show the point they are trying to make.

On a side note I think you're being very agressive, more so than is nessiary. So I think you're not willing to cede any ground in your arguement, in which case there's no point what-so-ever in debating with you.
b

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?
:rolleyes:

Wow, you don't know fuck all, do you?

Seriously, please quote and respond to my points. It's rather annoying to have to copy and paste everything you say separately.

[QUOTE=The Infinite Dunes]Indeed I did not, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote properly? The said that no one but the perpetrator is ever resonsible for a crime, except... This meaning you weren't aware of the full meaning of perpetrator.

No, I am aware of the full meaning. Those who are tried for aiding the criminal are not tried for the crime committed, but for being accessories to a crime - a crime in and of itself.

Yes, I'll openly admit my ignorance about the case as I don't really care about it.

Good to know you like to throw accusations around without "caring about" or being informed about things.

That's completely untrue. Without the victim we would be dicussing this either.

The victim is made by the criminal. Without criminals around, there would be no victims. The only way to not have a victim is to not have a criminal, or to not have people at all.

Having looked up the term I belive you are either abusing the meaning of the term or misunderstood it to simply put down any point you slightly agree with but damages yourstand point. Many analogies people use are purposefully easy to knock down so that it's easy to show the point they are trying to make.

And that is exactly what makes them strawmen arguments. They use improper analogies that are intentionally easy to knock down in order to make the argument of the other person look silly, when, in truth, it is only the analogies that are silly.

On a side note I think you're being very agressive, more so than is nessiary.

How so?

So I think you're not willing to cede any ground in your arguement, in which case there's no point what-so-ever in debating with you.

If you come up with something that demonstrates me to be wrong, I'll happily cede the point.

Of course, your suggestion that you have an argument that anyone who leaves her drink on the bar has the intention of helping a rapist makes me wonder....

Read the majority of the thread, and based on the reading comprehension that I've witnessed so far, I can practically guarantee that nobody will read my post and a fewer number will actually comprehend/agree with me.

There are two basic sides here.

1) The people who believe that when a rape victim (stop picturing a woman, fuckwit, that's how gender stereotypes occur) says no, they mean 'no', or 'stop', or 'forget it', or 'go take a cold shower' or anything else that means 'get the fuck off me, I'm done with this'.

2) The people who believe that 'oh, well if they turn me on they have to deal with it'. Just because you are sexually aroused doesn't mean that you have to abuse someone else, especially not the person unfortunate enough to make someone as socially handicapped as yourself aroused. If the person doesn't want it, no matter what they did to make you aroused, it's still your fault if you do anything to him or her. Asshat.


... Because I'm relatively misanthropic, you know what I'd like to see? Gather groups of the population together in small rooms. Explain what I've explained in this post to them. Ask who supports viewpoint two, and then kill them. Release the rest into the population.

Who wants to bet that the instance of rape would decrease dramatically?

(PS: Just because I expressed a viewpoint that the people who say 'a woman has some blame' are potential rapists doesn't mean that my entire post is invalid. Just letting some of the nitpicky pricks know.)

[QUOTE=The Infinite Dunes]Seriously, please quote and respond to my points. It's rather annoying to have to copy and paste everything you say separately.As you wish. At least I know you care enough to respond to my points even if you have to reformat the text.

No, I am aware of the full meaning. Those who are tried for aiding the criminal are not tried for the crime committed, but for being accessories to a crime - a crime in and of itself. They're still a perpetrator of the original crime though. I do believe they're tried for the 'accessory to' crime so 'accessory to' can be defined with specific regard to that crime. A way of avoiding legal loop holes. But I feel I'm preaching to the converted.

Good to know you like to throw accusations around without "caring about" or being informed about things. Meh, it happened when I was going the obligatory america-sucks-teen-angst-thing, never bothered to look it up after. However, I still am deeply opposed to the compensation culture that, I believe, is strangling the state and causing excessive amounts of buearucracy.

The victim is made by the criminal. Without criminals around, there would be no victims. The only way to not have a victim is to not have a criminal, or to not have people at all. That didn't really address my point, more support it really. It makes equally as much sense if you swap the victim's and criminal's around. Especially since we aren't living in 1984 or Minority Report yet.

And that is exactly what makes them strawmen arguments. They use improper analogies that are intentionally easy to knock down in order to make the argument of the other person look silly, when, in truth, it is only the analogies that are silly.Well I'm sorry if I use an analogy to make my point obvious and clearly defined, so that you can look at the real case in hand and see if my point exists within that case.

How so? -- well you seem, to me, to be verging on personal attacks rather than on my arguements. Oh, actual point related to the debate - if you leave your car running with the keys it is your personal responsibility if the car gets stolen ie. your insurance company will not fork out for a new car. However, it's not your criminal responsibility. This is the point I'm trying to make. That we have have a personal responsibility that is separate and distinct from criminal responsibility.

If you come up with something that demonstrates me to be wrong, I'll happily cede the point.I believe I have. You don't believe I have. We're not getting very far.

Of course, your suggestion that you have an argument that anyone who leaves her drink on the bar has the intention of helping a rapist makes me wonder....Haha, I don't have one, but I could come up with one if I thought about it for long enough. Something to do with the unconcious and alter egos... Or I could just point to some of the darker, stranger places on the internet. There are a lot of strange sexual fetishes out there.

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

Have you ever heard of Viagra?

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 a womans clothes, her body language, everything about her short of an actual vocal statement says "I want you to have sex with me" and its directed at an individual guy, then if he does have sex with her and she refuses while it can be tecnically considered rape, she must bear some kind of responsability. In the same way that in a bar room brawl, regardless of who started the fight by physical provocation, the person who made the inital provocation (insult against a persons charater, beliefs, apperance etc) must bear a level of responablity. Obviously this does not mean that the woman should pe punished, but the sentence of the rapist should be reduced.

This is a question for those of you who believe that the victim of a rape bears personal responsiblity (thanks for making that distinction Infinite Dunes). If the victim is a child, do they bear personal responsibility? Do children dress provocitively or get piss drunk? These are two of the arguments that I've seen repeatedly in this thread, and I don't think they hold up.

There is no excuse for rape. Ever. I strongly condemn having consensual sex under the influence, or even sober, and then regretting it later and calling it rape. This takes away from actual rape cases. The point has been made, but I forget by who, that there is also a certain amount of risk in coming forward as a victim. If they lose the case, all kinds of labels can be put on them, woman or man.

Especially if the rapist is a loved one, the situation becomes increasingly delicate. In the case of a minor, that is under age 18 (in the US), if the rapist is living in the house with the victim, an mandatory order of protection is imposed, which tears families apart. It can also, depending on the judge, be extended to siblings of the victim under age 18. How can anyone ask a child to assume personal responsibility for all this? Aside from the trauma of the actual experience(s), everything that results from the rape becoming known is an extra burden that one simply cannot ask a child to take on.

That's incredibly annoying, isn't it?
Please tell me you know what I mean, because I'm getting a bit bored with this whole thread.

In the same way that in a bar room brawl, regardless of who started the fight by physical provocation, the person who made the inital provocation (insult against a persons charater, beliefs, apperance etc) must bear a level of responablity. I've seen many people make similar arguments, so I'll tell you a little story.

I have a friend who likes to fight. In a strip club once, a guy was looking at him. When my friend looked over at him, the guy winked at him. My friend got increasingly uncomfortable about this situation, and proceeded to walk over to the guy and bash the absolute fuck out of him. He was later charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. My friend's argument (which I happen to understand, knowing my friend as well as I do) was that he was "asking for it coz you don't look at other guys in strip clubs, and you definitely don't wink at them." The guy he bashed sustained a broken jaw, several broken ribs, and some internal bleeding. Did his actions (a wink) invite these injuries. In my friend's mind, yes they did. Therefore, according to many of you, he should share responsibility for what happened to him.

Did the guy he bashed really deserve all that to happen to him because he winked at my friend, probably to show his mutual appreciation for the entertainment? I don't think so. I think my friend was totally and completely responsible for his actions. I understand why he reacted the way he did, but I don't condone it, and I think he deserved the $5000 fine, and a hell of a lot more. I don't think the many people my friend has flogged, bashed or otherwise assaulted bear any responsibility because they looked at my friend the wrong way, or they accidentally cut in front of him in a club. But according to many of you on here, they do. Because you say the same thing about women and men who may inadvertently "lead on" a man or a woman, without knowing their personal beliefs about where such actions should lead.

I understand how a girl who leaves her drink unattended gets her drink spiked. I understand how a man who is teased into believing that he's gonna get laid that night can react badly. I don't lay any blame on the victim in these cases or in any other case, and I believe that the rapist is completely responsible. What a victim did before she or he was raped is completely irrelevant once the word no is uttered or even implied.

If a womans clothes, her body language, everything about her short of an actual vocal statement says "I want you to have sex with me" and its directed at an individual guy, then if he does have sex with her and she refuses while it can be tecnically considered rape, she must bear some kind of responsability. In the same way that in a bar room brawl, regardless of who started the fight by physical provocation, the person who made the inital provocation (insult against a persons charater, beliefs, apperance etc) must bear a level of responablity. Obviously this does not mean that the woman should pe punished, but the sentence of the rapist should be reduced.
There are really no technicalities. If she doesn't want to and she is forced to, it's rape. She could tell the guy, "I want you to have sex with me." and still say no.

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.

YES, THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING IT SO WELL.

What seems to be the major sticking point is that women are completely innocent when it comes to rape. I think people abandon the protection of the law when they break it themselves. Consider if any of the following individuals would be able to seek damages:

- a jaywalker that was hit by a drunk driver
- a junkie that was ripped off by a drug dealer
- a burgular that was injured breaking into someone's house

In some cases, not all, women engage in flirtatious behavior that either borders on, or crosses the line, into prostitution. I mean, the price that is asked may be as little as a drink from the bar, but still, a woman could be seen as offering sex for payment.

Really though, if it were possible, sex would be outlawed because the participants are just criminals that decide not to press charges against each other.

What seems to be the major sticking point is that women are completely innocent when it comes to rape. I think people abandon the protection of the law when they break it themselves. Consider if any of the following individuals would be able to seek damages:

- a jaywalker that was hit by a drunk driver
- a junkie that was ripped off by a drug dealer
- a burgular that was injured breaking into someone's house

In some cases, not all, women engage in flirtatious behavior that either borders on, or crosses the line, into prostitution. I mean, the price that is asked may be as little as a drink from the bar, but still, a woman could be seen as offering sex for payment.

Really though, if it were possible, sex would be outlawed because the participants are just criminals that decide not to press charges against each other.

are you suggesting that if you buy a woman a drink in a bar she should have no legal right to refuse sex with you???

If I want to go for a walk in the middle of the night, all by myself, I should freaking be able to. If I want to wear a body-paint shirt and a mini-skirt, I should be able to. If I want to wear my wallet as a necklace, I should be able to.

There shouldn't be assholes out there who will take advantage of you, and I shouldn't have to live my life in fear of them, rearranging my schedule, my time, my habits to fit them. If I choose not to do so, I may be more at risk, but that doesn't make it my fault, because what they are doing is just plain wrong in the first place.

Yes, thats a lot of shoulds. Unfortunately, the world works in "is's" and not "shoulds." Currently, reality is not as it "should" be. Thus, one should take that into account when interacting with that reality. Now, if you choose not to take any steps and essentially walk through life pretending that criminals and crime doesn't exist, the criminal is still to blame and is still at fault for taking advantage of you. BUT you may have, and in your case knowingly (wearing the wallet as a necklace?) walked into a situation in which you could be taken advantage of and you should, if you value not being taken advantage of, try to avoid that.

Is that so wrong to say?

are you suggesting that if you buy a woman a drink in a bar she should have no legal right to refuse sex with you???

Not at all, but it would not be entirely outrageous for a woman to say "I'll sleep with you if you buy me a drink."

When it comes to courtship, the rules often run afoul of the law. I'm having a difficult time thinking of a scenario where people could engage in sex without the opportunity on either side of filing charges for "sexual harassment".

Not at all, but it would not be entirely outrageous for a woman to say "I'll sleep with you if you buy me a drink."

When it comes to courtship, the rules often run afoul of the law. I'm having a difficult time thinking of a scenario where people could engage in sex without the opportunity on either side of filing charges for "sexual harassment".
when a woman has sunk so low that she would sell herself for less than $10, i recommend that you turn her down.

to be sexual harrassment there has to be a pattern of unwanted sexual advances. i dont see how successful sexual advances could qualify as harrassment.

its the concept that any legal transgression on the woman's part might make her legally incapable of pressing a rape charge that bothers me. but then, most rapes dont come out of bar flirting situations. the vast majority of men, drunk or sober, are not interested in forcing themselves on unwilling women.

when a woman has sunk so low that she would sell herself for less than $10, i recommend that you turn her down.

to be sexual harrassment there has to be a pattern of unwanted sexual advances. i dont see how successful sexual advances could qualify as harrassment.

its the concept that any legal transgression on the woman's part might make her legally incapable of pressing a rape charge that bothers me. but then, most rapes dont come out of bar flirting situations. the vast majority of men, drunk or sober, are not interested in forcing themselves on unwilling women.

Well, in order to determine if sexual advances are wanted, one has to make them. There are no "safe" sexual advances. There are indeed many scenarios that would qualify as rape and it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Attacked by a stranger while walking down the street or someone breaking into a house to commit rape, those are pretty cut and dry. It's the ones with ongoing relationships where playing hard to get becomes a game and it becomes difficult to tell where the game ends and actual refusal begins.

Yes, thats a lot of shoulds. Unfortunately, the world works in "is's" and not "shoulds." Currently, reality is not as it "should" be. Thus, one should take that into account when interacting with that reality. Now, if you choose not to take any steps and essentially walk through life pretending that criminals and crime doesn't exist, the criminal is still to blame and is still at fault for taking advantage of you. BUT you may have, and in your case knowingly (wearing the wallet as a necklace?) walked into a situation in which you could be taken advantage of and you should, if you value not being taken advantage of, try to avoid that.

Is that so wrong to say?

No, it isn't. It is not wrong to say that people should take (reasonable) steps to protect themselves from the assholes. It is wrong to say that not doing so makes you, in any way, responsible for their crimes.

That didn't really address my point, more support it really. It makes equally as much sense if you swap the victim's and criminal's around. Especially since we aren't living in 1984 or Minority Report yet.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Criminals make victims. Victims do not make criminals. The criminal's own motivations, his own intentions to lie/cheat/steal/rape/murder/etc. make him a criminal.

Well, in order to determine if sexual advances are wanted, one has to make them. There are no "safe" sexual advances. There are indeed many scenarios that would qualify as rape and it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Attacked by a stranger while walking down the street or someone breaking into a house to commit rape, those are pretty cut and dry. It's the ones with ongoing relationships where playing hard to get becomes a game and it becomes difficult to tell where the game ends and actual refusal begins.
If you are coming on to a stranger at a bar, a party, on the train, etc., then it is impossible to know in advance, if your advances will offend the person, because you don't what offends that person in general.

But there ARE "safe" advances. They are verbal flirtations and visual clues such as smiling, winking, playful little pantomimes before coming over to speak, etc. All these things are done BEFORE you touch a person you don't know. Sometimes, you may have to go through more than one date of this BEFORE you touch the person; other times, not. If in doubt, you can also just come out and ask the person if they're into you. Those are all "safe" advances.

An "unsafe" advance would be if you find out if a woman is into you by grabbing her backside or breast. Not cool. Even if she was into you at first sight, that's likely to turn her off. Likewise if you ask her if she wants you, and she says no, and you call her a bitch and then complain to all your friends about how she needs to be taught a lesson. Those are not "safe" advances.

It's easy to see the difference -- unless you're a closet rapist.

NOTE: I'm using the generic "you" applied to all and any guys who are confused about this issue.

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.

only if by lying she actually cried wolf and accused someone of rape when it was clearly impossible that they hadn't. If she lied about other things than the lies really are applicable.

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

If a woman has a history of sleeping around, that does not in any way imply that she wanted to "sleep around" with the person on trial. Thus, it has no bearing on the case.

Now, if a woman has a history of lying, that can certainly be brought into the case, as it would possibly bring doubt upon her testimony of what happened.

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

Im sure people could survive

snippage

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?
Yes I can. Can you honestly tell me that you believe most men are very likely to commit rape? I dont believe all or most men are rapists so I dont believe that it is very likely that rape would occur in the situation you describe. My belief is that only a minority of men are rapists so in such a scenario it's likely the male concerned wouldnt be a rapist, so it's likely rape wouldnt occur.

Can you honestly tell me that her actions didn't help provoke the crime?
Yes. Being incrediably horny and someone acting bitchy toward you (even if that person made you incredibly horny) is no reason to start raping someone, so it's not provocation to rape.

Can you say that to no extent should she be held accountable for putting herself in such an obviously bad situation?
Accountable how exactly? Is there some aspect of illegality to the act? How exactly would we hold her 'accountable' given it doesnt appear she has commited any crime or breached any tort?

Hell, can you even tell me for sure it was rape?
If someone says no, and the other person carries on, and then the person who said no claims it was rape, then I'm sure it was rape.

Can you be sure that she doesn't enjoy the power these actions give her over men?
No, and I dont need to be sure. Whether or not she gets off on any 'power' her actions might bring her is irrelevent to whether or not she consented without revocation.

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?
What the crap are you talking about? The 'cant stop myself' crap is exactly that....crap. Great myth, but in reality, if a person cant 'stop themselves' they ought to be locked up in a secure facility where they can be supervised and controlled by trained 'handlers'.

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.
Obviously you have not read this thread because people have said exactly that (although not in those exact words).

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?
Yes I would.

Would you hold me blameless?
Of course.

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?
Yes I have heard of it, but my advice is to not play along. If you choose to play along and one day it happens that the person you thought you were 'playing' with wasnt actually playing, then the other person is in for a world of hurt, and you're in for a load of trouble.
If you want to play those games then you're responsible for the consequences if you misjudge the situation. It's better to play safe and keep games between consenting adults. If you want to walk on the edge and take risks with the safety and well being of yourself and others, then you'd be better off keeping it in your pants. Like drunk driving, some games are not all that much fun for innocent people who get caught up in your play. I dont want my daughter, sister, mother raped because you thought she didnt mean no and she was too intimidated to press the point.

You think that only happens outside the bedroom? There are also women who like to be dominated during sex.
Every women I know who enjoys a bit of domination also enjoys the full use of her wits, and will only play if and when 'safe-words' or a great amount of trust and mutual understanding exist. In fact I cant think of anyone (male or female) who doesnt insist on both before play commences. What kind of idiot would play those kinds of games without ensuring mutual safety? One who wants to get charged with rape is the only answer that springs to my mind.

Maybe she's saying no to you so you'll be ruffer and make her do it? You don't know until you try.
Maybe she's saying no because she means no but once you rough her up she'll be intimidated into saying yes....if someone wants to play rough stuff, dont agree until you've soughted out ground rules.

If at that point she's still telling you to stop then you need to stop.
If once you've beat up on her she still has the guts to resist then you might consider not raping her! That is friggin sick!

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.
You put possible pleasure ahead of avoiding rape?! What kind of person are you? Talk about screwed up priorities! No one is going to have their entire life ruined because they didnt have a particular sexual encounter.

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.
What a load of crap. Yes when a women regrets having consensual sex an alarm goes off and is heard by every women in the world who then 'knows' whether or not charges are pressed or if the act is described as rape, and then they all either congradulate the women involved or denigrade her depending on whether she calls it rape and lets the partner involved get away with it....:rolleyes:


In summary here's what makes it rape... If you say 'no' and I continue, that's called being insistant.
No it's called rape. More fool you if dont know that.

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.
Oh I see the secret code word today is 'rape' rather than 'no', may I ask why it's not possible for a women to act exactly as you've described but use the word 'rape' when playing hard to get rough me up games? What a banal disengenius attempt to excuse reprehensible attitudes!

hat 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.
That line has already been drawn, it's called the 'no' line. Unfortunately it's not that simple because when the line exists, some folk want to shift it to for instance a line that consists of the word 'rape' instead of the word 'no'. If the line were the word 'rape' I'd expect the same sorry people to make up the same sorry excuses and come up with the stupid suggestion that it would all be 'that simple' if the line were drawn at some other verbal utterance (for instance 'criminal charges'), but if their suggestion were followed then the same sorry people with come up with the same sorry excuses and a stupid suggestion that the line should be changed to something else (for instance 'No I really mean that's rape, I really will press criminal charges, stop, stop, stop, oh please God why wont he stop'), and if that suggestion were taken up, I'd expect the same sorry people....well surely you get the picture...it's never going to be that simple because sorry ass sickos will always have their sorry ass excuses and ever more inventive ways for women to make their non-consent clear.

The simple answer is people are responsible for ensuring they have consent, the onus isnt on one partner to show non-consent, but rather on both partners to be very certain (100% certain) that the other person/s involved in their sexual activities is a competent consenting adult. If that measure is too hard for you to meet, then I suggest you keep it in your pants.

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%.
25% is 1/4 of potential jurers. In a jury of twelve that's enough of a front to prevent a unamious conviction. It's concerning.

<the thread above this one>

very nicely done!

Here's another area where things get murky: sex under false pretenses. Ok, so this is more limited to sitcoms, but still, if you get drunk and have sex with someone , only to wake up the next day and find out that you were actually having sex with someone other than the person that you thought you were having sex with, can you press rape charges?

Another area where it gets murky: gold-digging. Say a woman sleeps with a man because she thinks that she can get any variety of gifts and services out of him. The next day, he dumps her. Can she claim rape?

Here's another area where things get murky: sex under false pretenses. Ok, so this is more limited to sitcoms, but still, if you get drunk and have sex with someone , only to wake up the next day and find out that you were actually having sex with someone other than the person that you thought you were having sex with, can you press rape charges?

Another area where it gets murky: gold-digging. Say a woman sleeps with a man because she thinks that she can get any variety of gifts and services out of him. The next day, he dumps her. Can she claim rape?
Yes.
No.

Well, in order to determine if sexual advances are wanted, one has to make them. There are no "safe" sexual advances. There are indeed many scenarios that would qualify as rape and it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Attacked by a stranger while walking down the street or someone breaking into a house to commit rape, those are pretty cut and dry. It's the ones with ongoing relationships where playing hard to get becomes a game and it becomes difficult to tell where the game ends and actual refusal begins.

Not only are your views of rape and sexual harassment erroneous, they are dangerous. You are perpetrating the type of attitudes that (a) produces rapists and (b) lets them get away with rape.

What you call "cut and dry" rape is largely mythical. While actual rape is not a "game" where lines accidently get crossed.

Bullshit like you are spreading helps excuse and belittle traumatic, violent rape. Most rapist claim the rape was consensual. "She wanted it rough."

Please take the time to read the following article. If you persist in spreading your misinformation, you are a collaborator.

All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html)

Not only are your views of rape and sexual harassment erroneous, they are dangerous. You are perpetrating the type of attitudes that (a) produces rapists and (b) lets them get away with rape.

What you call "cut and dry" rape is largely mythical. While actual rape is not a "game" where lines accidently get crossed.

Bullshit like you are spreading helps excuse and belittle traumatic, violent rape. Most rapist claim the rape was consensual. "She wanted it rough."

Please take the time to read the following article. If you persist in spreading your misinformation, you are a collaborator.

All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html)

and, unfortunately, you are perpetuating the very misinformed feminist claim that A) men rape women and that is that and B) all men are the cause of rape.

did you know that there are FEMALE rapists?! honestly, did you? there are about 5 or 6 warrants for arrest out right now for female rapists in the city i live in. rape may not as "cut and dry" as you say it is, but its still very clear.

Here's another area where things get murky: sex under false pretenses. Ok, so this is more limited to sitcoms, but still, if you get drunk and have sex with someone , only to wake up the next day and find out that you were actually having sex with someone other than the person that you thought you were having sex with, can you press rape charges?

Another area where it gets murky: gold-digging. Say a woman sleeps with a man because she thinks that she can get any variety of gifts and services out of him. The next day, he dumps her. Can she claim rape?

Not murky at all.

As you admit the first scenario is largely absurd fiction, but I'll entertain it. The statute of the specific state in which this act occurs would deterimine whether you had committed a crime. If you are asking if you can trick a person into having sex with you when that person is too drunk to not know that you are pretending to be someone else, then the answer is likely no. Someone that intoxicated is likely unable to consent to sex. Also, your deliberate intent to trick the other person indicates that you wish to have sex with someone that would not otherwise have sex with you. Sounds like rape to me.

The second is not rape. You know that.

Not murky at all.

As you admit the first scenario is largely absurd fiction, but I'll entertain it. The statute of the specific state in which this act occurs would deterimine whether you had committed a crime. If you are asking if you can trick a person into having sex with you when that person is too drunk to not know that you are pretending to be someone else, then the answer is likely no. Someone that intoxicated is likely unable to consent to sex. Also, your deliberate intent to trick the other person indicates that you wish to have sex with someone that would not otherwise have sex with you. Sounds like rape to me.

The second is not rape. You know that.

yes, the deliberate attempt to force someone you dont know to get drunk and force them to consent to having sex with you, even though its not your fault for their state of mind in the first place. am i supposed to tell the person that they are drunk and let them know what they are doing is wrong? if what you say is true, then they would give in because they would be drunk and would be "unable to consent."

so, what? are women drunk only because men want to have sex with them?

and, unfortunately, you are perpetuating the very misinformed feminist claim that A) men rape women and that is that and B) all men are the cause of rape.

1. I have said neither thing anywhere in this thread or at anytime. I can only assume you are trying to distract from the important point I was making.


But I will address your points.

2. Um, men do rape women. The overwhelming percentage of rape is perpetrated by men upon women.

But I am certainly aware that men rape men, women rape men, and women rape women. I have said so earlier in this thread. I have not implied or said otherwise.

3. Feminists are well aware of and active in fighting rape other than male upon female rape.

4. Of course all men are not guilty of rape. I said no such thing. Nor will you find a reputable feminist of any significance that has said such a thing.
(You may think there are quotes to that effect, but they are myths.)

did you know that there are FEMALE rapists?! honestly, did you? there are about 5 or 6 warrants for arrest out right now for female rapists in the city i live in. rape may not as "cut and dry" as you say it is, but its still very clear.

As I have said, I am aware there are female rapists. I happen to be a male that was molested by a woman.

Rape is "cut and dry" generally -- whether perpetrated by men or by women.
I don't excuse rape. Why are you siding with someone that says it is "ambiguous" and a "game"?

say, for example, you are dating someone and you ask them if you can have sex with them. lets say that she says okay. so you do your thing and everything seems okay...

what if she decides to press rape charges? i mean, there are people out there sick and demented enough to try to steal money from victims of 9/11... and there are people that press these sort of phony charges. this is the main reason why most companies outlaw intercourse between two coworkers: the repurcussions of some kind of frivolous lawsuit that they must pay up for.

1. I have said neither thing anywhere in this thread or at anytime. I can only assume you are trying to distract from the important point I was making.


But I will address your points.

2. Um, men do rape women. The overwhelming percentage of rape is perpetrated by men upon women.

But I am certainly aware that men rape men, women rape men, and women rape women. I have said so earlier in this thread. I have not implied or said otherwise.

3. Feminists are well aware of and active in fighting rape other than male upon female rape.

4. Of course all men are not guilty of rape. I said no such thing. Nor will you find a reputable feminist of any significance that has said such a thing.
(You may think there are quotes to that effect, but they are myths.)



As I have said, I am aware there are female rapists. I happen to be a male that was molested by a woman.

Rape is "cut and dry" generally -- whether perpetrated by men or by women.
I don't excuse rape. Why are you siding with someone that says it is "ambiguous" and a "game"?

no, i am not trying to distract you from your very important point... i am making a counterpoint to it. isnt that what these forums are for?

by the by, i dont excuse rape, either. however, i do not excuse people that use rape as an excuse to get money, payback, et al. it is wrong at best and criminal at worst to say someone "raped you" when the sex was consensual.

however, if such a trial is to take place in court, how do you believe it would be judged? who would be the jurors? what do you believe the verdict would be?

Not murky at all.

As you admit the first scenario is largely absurd fiction, but I'll entertain it. The statute of the specific state in which this act occurs would deterimine whether you had committed a crime. If you are asking if you can trick a person into having sex with you when that person is too drunk to not know that you are pretending to be someone else, then the answer is likely no. Someone that intoxicated is likely unable to consent to sex. Also, your deliberate intent to trick the other person indicates that you wish to have sex with someone that would not otherwise have sex with you. Sounds like rape to me.

The second is not rape. You know that.

In the first case, there is the possibility that the man genuinely believed that the woman wanted to have sex with him but it was simply the woman's misunderstanding of the identity of her partner that made the situation possible.

What's sticking in my craw more than anything else with this whole discussion is portraying women as victims. People should not be allowed to think of themselves as victims because it renders them powerless to do something about their situation. I would much rather that women think of themselves as rape survivors so they can learn from the experience and not find themselves in the same situation with the same problem. If one insists that they are a rape victim, chances are they are going to get raped again and again.

say, for example, you are dating someone and you ask them if you can have sex with them. lets say that she says okay. so you do your thing and everything seems okay...

what if she decides to press rape charges? i mean, there are people out there sick and demented enough to try to steal money from victims of 9/11... and there are people that press these sort of phony charges. this is the main reason why most companies outlaw intercourse between two coworkers: the repurcussions of some kind of frivolous lawsuit that they must pay up for.
What if I put my money in your pocket and told the cops you stole it? What are you gonna say then? Huh? Huh??

yes, the deliberate attempt to force someone you dont know to get drunk and force them to consent to having sex with you,

... would be rape. Get the part how forcing someone to have sex with you against their will is rape?

even though its not your fault for their state of mind in the first place. am i supposed to tell the person that they are drunk and let them know what they are doing is wrong? if what you say is true, then they would give in because they would be drunk and would be "unable to consent."

I responded to a specific, absurd scenario. You are accusing me of saying or implying things I did not say. In the scenario as given the rapist deliberately tricks a person into having sex by pretending to be someone else when they victim is too drunk to tell the difference. Consent obtained from someone that drunk is questionable. Consent obtained by fraud is not valid.

The scenario obviously did not include the sober individual informing the drunk individual of what was going on and that they were too drunk to consent. The whole point of the scenario was fraudulent pretense.

BTW, if someone is too drunk to consent to sex, then they can't consent. Period.

so, what? are women drunk only because men want to have sex with them?

I never said any such thing. Nor is it relevant to the scenario.

say, for example, you are dating someone and you ask them if you can have sex with them. lets say that she says okay. so you do your thing and everything seems okay...

what if she decides to press rape charges? i mean, there are people out there sick and demented enough to try to steal money from victims of 9/11... and there are people that press these sort of phony charges.

She could also falsely accuse you of stealing money from her.

As it happens, false rape accusations are very rare. Statistically rape is falsely reported less often than most crimes.

There are many, many, many reasons why victims don't report real rape. They are many, many, many more reasons (including it being a crime) why victim's rarely make false rape accusations.

this is the main reason why most companies outlaw intercourse between two coworkers: the repurcussions of some kind of frivolous lawsuit that they must pay up for.

No. It isn't. And you appear to know nothing about sexual harassment law.

In the first case, there is the possibility that the man genuinely believed that the woman wanted to have sex with him but it was simply the woman's misunderstanding of the identity of her partner that made the situation possible.

Now you just changed the scenario. Nice bait and switch.

What's sticking in my craw more than anything else with this whole discussion is portraying women as victims. People should not be allowed to think of themselves as victims because it renders them powerless to do something about their situation. I would much rather that women think of themselves as rape survivors so they can learn from the experience and not find themselves in the same situation with the same problem. If one insists that they are a rape victim, chances are they are going to get raped again and again.

1. You didn't read the article, did you?

2. You don't know what the hell you are babbling about.

3. The highlighted sentence is pure bullshit. You have no evidence to support it.

no, i am not trying to distract you from your very important point... i am making a counterpoint to it. isnt that what these forums are for?

You made no response to what I said. You accused me of saying things I did not say. You therefore did not contribute to the discussion, but have tried to sidetrack it.

by the by, i dont excuse rape, either. however, i do not excuse people that use rape as an excuse to get money, payback, et al. it is wrong at best and criminal at worst to say someone "raped you" when the sex was consensual.

It is, in fact, a crime to falsely report a rape to the police. It is also extremely rare that this happens.

You a perpetuating a dangerous myth.

however, if such a trial is to take place in court, how do you believe it would be judged? who would be the jurors? what do you believe the verdict would be?

What trial are you referring to?

She could also falsely accuse you of stealing money from her.

As it happens, false rape accusations are very rare. Statistically rape is falsely reported less often than most crimes.

There are many, many, many reasons why victims don't report real rape. They are many, many, many more reasons (including it being a crime) why victim's rarely make false rape accusations.



No. It isn't. And you appear to know nothing about sexual harassment law.

no, well i guess i dont... seeing as the guidelines at work have been laid out in near-concrete to me at my workplace. no, i dont have any sort of memory at all, i guess.

apparently, you know nothing about false claims and accusations and their weight in court. who do you believe a judge will side with if a woman presses a charge of rape in a trial? she has the semen samples, *possible* bruising or swelling, depending on her sensitivity to "passionate love embraces" (the first time ive actually been able to say the phrase in context...), and all the other evidence to say that he most likely raped her. all the man has is... well... his word. it is like putting a man on trial for doing an act no one but the defendant saw. its her word vs. his word and, most likely, the judge will side on her behalf, given your statistics you were speaking of earlier.

of course, thats ruling out the possibility that there was a witness *in the room* at the time of intercourse, which is very unlikely

You made no response to what I said. You accused me of saying things I did not say. You therefore did not contribute to the discussion, but have tried to sidetrack it.



It is, in fact, a crime to falsely report a rape to the police. It is also extremely rare that this happens.

You a perpetuating a dangerous myth.



What trial are you referring to?

i was referring to a hypothetical court case... just use some imagination... just imagine what it would be like to be the defendant in the trial.

yes, i am aware of the fact that reporting false crimes are uncommon... however, i am merely pointing out to you that such cases should not be overlooked because such instances hold so much weight in court.

and what sort of myth is that? the "myth" that malicious people report false crimes? since when has that ever been a myth?

Now you just changed the scenario. Nice bait and switch.



1. You didn't read the article, did you?

2. You don't know what the hell you are babbling about.

3. The highlighted sentence is pure bullshit. You have no evidence to support it.

The point I was trying to make with the scenarios is that there are times when women are simply screwed, rather than raped.

1. Initially, I didn't read the article because I suspected is would be biased towards portraying women as victims. After reading it, I have the same impression.

2. You may be correct. I haven't been raped or raped anyone, or at least nobody has pressed charges. I'm expressing my opinion and since it is my opinion, I know what I'm talking about.

3. I didn't offer any evidence. I put it out there as food for thought. If you want to reject it, you are entitled to do so.

One thing I would like to establish is the difference between legal responsibility and personal responsibility. Are women legally responsible when it comes to rape? No, not unless they are raping someone. Do women have a personal responsibility when it comes to rape? Yes. Shoving the responsibility for crime onto the criminals is stupid because they have no interest in improving the situation. If women accept personal responsibility for rape, then there will be improvement since they have the most to gain by seeing it prevented.

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.
Whether it is a good idea or not is irrelevent. What is irrelevent is whether people have a reasonable right to reasonably expect they wont be forcably sodomised, and they do have such a right, so if they end up forcibly sodomised whether or not their behaviour was 'a good idea' they are still not in the least bit responsible for the soddomy.
Impressive ad hominem;
No ad hominem was involved.
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.
Actually the only comments I made on 'your character' were deduced from your stated opinion about a group that you are (as you yourself state in your post) a member of.
News for you: I've enough self-control, decorum and humanity to restrain myself.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
I reiterate my earlier comments. Not all men are as you describe, and if you have such a low self opinion that you believe you are as you describe, then that is your problem, I see no need for all men to be maligned. If you dont believe what you stated you believe, it's not my fault. I responded to your statements, I'm not responsible if your statements are lies that misrepresent you.
Nevertheless, do I have any faith that the vast majority of men have those qualities? No, I do not. Hence what I say
Whatever, you dont think of yourself like that, just every other man....again not my fault you initially misrepresented yourself so that it appeared you were 'talking for yourself'. In fact rather than having a low opinion of yourself you have a high self opinion and happen to think most other men are comparitively inferior? Either way, I disagree with your assesement of the majority of men as being violent retarded sperm fountains who lack self control.
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.
Really? Prove it! Anthropologists, sociologists, physchiatrists, they're all still trying to figure it out. Present your evidence for peer review, might win you a nobel prize because apparently you're the first one to get there. Unless of course you happen to be talking through a hole in the top of your head.

So what exactly is this evidence that will make a mockery of all the efforts of countless social and evolutionary scientists who somehow have missed the revelation only you possess?
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.
Then explain why despite there being many compulsive eaters existing, many of whom get drunk and then see food, few crimes involving drunk compulsive over-eaters get reported. I think the explanation is obvious, just like rape, the existence of temptation and even having the idea of temptation being given into does not necessitate giving in. It's just an idea, one need not act on one's idea. You break the bakery window you are entirely responsible, not the baker, not the cake, you. You rape someone, you are responsible, not the victim, not the victim's clothes, not the booze either you or the victim may have consumed, but you...simple as that!
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.
Or to move their shop somewhere else...so what ought a women do? Move somewhere men dont exist, whilst assuming every man is a rapist....because no one will find that an unreasonable precaution will they?
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.
We are not talking (when we discuss rape) about a vital need that a person will die from lack of meeting.
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.
Right a women ought to try to control the responses a man has, but a man ought only try his darndest to control his own responses!

Women are responsible for the responses others have towards them, but men are responsible only for trying their darndest to control their own responses....?!
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.
No one need not. One must recognise that only people who break the law are responsible for criminal acts.
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.
I cant cease what I have not commenced. You claimed that women are more responsible for rape than men. If there is some reason why you would think that which doesnt involve a belief that women owe men something and/or men have some entitlement where women are concerned, then I'll be damed if I can figure out what that reason would be.
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).
Nonsense, many hot-blooded men I know would willingly forgo a night of sex for a particularly wanted hi-fi stereo. The primary difference between the two temptations is the attitudes towards them. Most people dont think an expectation that one's desire for a stereo is the fault or responsibility of someone else, for some reason at least some people seem to think that the desire for sex is the responsibility of women, even when it's a man and not a women that has the particular desire.
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.
Your lack of imagination is surprising...
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.
Oh she leads some poor victimised person no more drunk than she is on. Poor drunk man is just a passive victim of powerful in control drunk woman....?!
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.
Dressing up fine and going out for a night on the town with one's female friends, and then getting shit faced drunk before walking onto a public street is not 'doing ones damnedest to lead on' some random drunk male who happens to also be in the streets..or are you changing your hypothetical story now?
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.
To put it terms of reality, no it's leading one's own life without breaking the law whilst acting on the reasonable assumption that others in one's society will do likewise.
I enjoy ad hominem very much.
That's nice, although I dont see how it is relevent here.
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.
Why the hell should looking fine and getting drunk be considered 'leading a man on'?
Men, I maintain (and I say this with no disrespect towards my sex at all) are machines designed to hunt, kill and propagate genes.
No they are not. You've not stated a single thing that proves that they are. If this is the basis of your argument, no wonder your argument is unsound.
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.
What a load of old toss-potting. Prove that organisms even have a purpose, prove that if they have purpose there is only one, then prove it's this particular one.
Admirable indeed; it is only to be regretted that more men cannot exercise such restraint.
That's not admirable! It's the minimum standard of behaviour.
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?
No.
Are you in the habit of saying that you are speaking for a group that you simultaniously claim to be a member of, then positing characteristics you say the entire group possesses, then expecting people to not believe you are stating you have such characteristics?
If so I suggest you divest yourself of it.
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.
So you see it's entirely possible.
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.
So you have a low opinion of men. I dont see any reason to share this low opinion, it is contrary to my own understandings. You might think all or most men are rapists, but unless you can provide some good reason why I should believe it, I'll continue to take your assertions no more seriously than I take the same assertions when made by misguided female supremisists.
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.
As I say above, while you are entitled to your low opinion of most men, I dont buy the 'all (or most) men are rapists' crap when it's touted by misguided (or outright nasty) female supremisists, and I dont find it any credible when you spout it.
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.
An opinion that no doubt comes from your low opinion of men as violence and sperm production machines. An opinion you dont appear to have offered a single supporting argument for. I dont believe that men are as banal and pathetic as you seem to think they are. In the absence of even an attempt by you to prove otherwise, my mind remains unchanged.
However, I doubt that this applies to men when it comes to sexual behaviour.
People overcome all kinds of temptation all the time. For the most part the ability to do so, is related to attitude. Where people believe it is reasonable for them to control themselves, they usually do. Where people think it's reasonable to claim 'I couldnt control myself' they often dont even try to. So far as I know this pattern has been found to occur in relation to rape and violence unrelated to rape. People who beat their kids use exactly this 'I couldnt control it' crap, and yet so many parents dont beat their kids, just like so many men have been drunk, enticed by scantily clad drunk women, and yet have never and will never rape anyone...
As I keep saying to you, the sole reason men exist is to spread sperm liberally to any available partners.
Repeating it neither makes it true, nor proves that it is true. Instead of reapeating it, why not produce an argument that demonstrates that it is true?
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 you follow the law and become a victim of criminal activities, any suffering you incur as a result of criminal activities is undeserved.
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.
False analogy. You would be trespassing if you went on the railway's property in contravention of their order not to. You would be breaking the law and even though you wouldnt deserve to be hit by a train, you would be responsible for being hit by a train if it occured. After all you broke the law and that act led directly to the non-preventability of a preventable accident that others took every reasonable step to prevent.
Such a situation is not analogous to a law abiding person being intentionally criminally attacked by another member of their society. That you would need to rely on such clearly false attempts at analogy to prove your point is probably directly related to the unprovability of your non-point.
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.
Really, what exactly do you imagine you mean by human nature?
True enough. However, dressing and acting provocatively is asking for trouble,
Who decides what is provocative? And regardless no it isnt asking for trouble. Breaking the law is making trouble. Dressing and acting provocatively is simply dressing and acting provocatively.
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.
Use your own sense. If the law says it is illegal to touch someone when they dont want to be touched and 'how they dressed and acted' is not a legal defense to a charge of breaking that law, then it should be pretty damn clear that the only one responsible for touching someone when they dont want to be touched is the person doing the touching.
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.
Then law and order is clearly not working on Moss Side. That's not my fault, I'm not responsible for maintaining law and order on Moss Side. It sure as heck is not an excuse for advocating that a person obeying the law is responsible for a criminal act.
Use your common sense and realise that ideals and reality don't match, and that in reality, you have to be careful.
In reality you dont have to be careful. It's possible to take many risks and never to face unpleasant consequences for even a single one, it's possible to take every pre-caution and still end up subject to unpleasant consequences. You're welcome to your common sense, but I prefer good sense, you know the kind of sense that leads to the conclusion that people are responsible for their own actions, and that law abiding citizens are not responsible for the criminal acts of others.
If you can't get a better argument than that, cease wasting my time with pointless speculations about my personality.
It's a deduction not a speculation. You have tried to excuse viscious attacks made on people that are not yourself, and plenty of men would not ever do this. So it is your nature and yet not the nature of all men. That's not speculative, it's deductive. If you see it as 'an attack' then that's your own concern. If you see an accurate description of your behaviour as an attack, then I suggest you change your behaviour.
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.
Right, on the one hand drunk men are described by you as 'so drunk...they dont know what they are doing' but when you are drunk at the ATM you follow a meticulous proceedure based entirely on rational thought and a rational appraisal of possible dangers....I suppose this goes back to your apparent argument that you are superior to most if not all other men...
If this is the case, then why, pray, do electronics stores use steel shutters over their windows? :)
Actually where I live it's not standard practise to do so, although some people do, no one considers they are at fault if they dont and some scummy crim smashes their window and makes off with their property.
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"
That's right, the law assumes that nothing provokes the attack. So no matter how smart or disobediant a child, the child has not provoked the assault their parent made on them that put them in a coma because it is assumed that there is nothing that would equate to provokation in such a case. In the instance of rape the victim is assumed to not have provoked the attack because no provocation to rape exists. The fact that the perpetrator of the crime might consider themselves provoked is at odds with the law.
(I use the inverted commas simply because I consider that a fair bit of statutory rape is probably not violent, or even rape).
I consider you are probably wrong about that too.
If the victim has done something to provoke the attack, the law becomes questionable.
So you do think that it shouldnt be a crime to use physical force to have sex with a female if you are both drunk and you see her walking down the road provokatively dressed?:confused:
I disagree.
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.
No you have not. Violent assault is wrong, that's why it is illegal, and frankly it's a law that I agree with. Verbal utterances are not an excuse for violence.
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.
It fails to happen less often than it does happen. I've witnessed far more aggressive verbal exchanges than I've witnessed physical altercations. The consistent factor in physical altercations arising from verbal confrontations is the belief of one person (or more) involved that it is not unreasonable to resort to violence, ie the kind of beliefs that you are touting. Where people firmly believe violent responses are always unacceptable, violence rarely occurs.
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.
So women ought to be blamed for this? :confused:
To pretend that the woman is, in such cases, entirely blameless strikes me as inaccurate;
Any person abiding by the law is blameless in regards to criminal acts. That is accurate, ask a lawyer if you dont believe me.
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.
To pretend that if someone doesnt consent to sex, the other party is not raping them is folly.
It's evidently not the same situation you initially described. It was just walking down the street drunk and looking fine whilst a drunk man happened to be on the same street....now apparently it's not the street but in a bed, or is the bed in the street now?!?
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.
Which is why we have rape laws. Ideally people wouldnt murder each other. The way we deal with the reality of people none-the-less murdering each other is to hold murderers responsible for their actions, not to friggin apologise for and attempt to justify their actions, or hold some other party (ie the murdered person) more responsible.
What is being proposed here is that, no matter what, the man is always the guilty party.
What is being proposed is that the criminal who commits the crime is responsible and the law abiding victim is not...nothing revolutionary about that, it's fairly standard actually.
This is a nonsensical and damaging assumption in cases where men have been lead on by women, only to be turned down by them
No, it is consistent with other aspects of legal systems and the apparent will of society. It's also good practise so far as I can tell.
at a point where they simply cannot control themselves.
There is no such point so far as a competent adult is concerned. Incompetent (ie not legally sane or accountable) adults who through their incompetence present a danger (such as an inability to control themselves) ought to be held in secure circumstances until they are become competent.
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.
There is a simple and obvious line between rape and non-rape. Rape is sex where one or more persons doesnt consent to the sex acts.
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.
You want might to find out what an ad hominem attack is.
How is stating my surprise insulting to you, or perhaps you think my opinion of your opinion is an insult to you?
You do realise that you are not your opinion dont you?:confused:
By the way, it is against the forum rules to threaten other posters with physical assault.
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.
You must have misread my comments (not to mention failed to understand the implications of your own arguments). I am stating that people ought to be responsible for themselves; that if a person breaks the law they are entirely responsible for the crime and law abiding persons are not at all responsible. That is entirely contrary to your position in which someone obeying the law is more responsible for the criminal act of rape than is the perpetrator commiting the crime.

I'm not sure quite how you got it all so mixed up and turned around.:confused:
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.
Alcohol does not cause lack of self control. It is passive and inanimate and does nothing on it's own accord.
My point, which I should have thought was fairly easy to grasp, is that by taking precautions one can reduce risk.
No, your point was that women are more responsible for rape than men...
but it is especially the fault of the woman.
The above quote is about taking precautions, it's about women being more responsible (for rape) than men, and it sums up the tone of your comments (not to mention it actually is a direct quote from your earlier post).....
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.
I suggest that isnt the kind of rape that you appear to be referring to when you state women bring it on themselves by appearing drunk in public wearing a short skirt.
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.
Reasonable pre-cautions. I dont see that dressing in a way that would ensure drunk men not be tempted, or not ever going out for a drunken night with friends to be reasonable pre-cautions, but rather unjustifiable restrictions on the liberty of women. Why shouldnt women be able to dress up fine and go drinking in a free society? Why should every women alive be held prisoner to the refusal of a few men to abide by reasonable laws?
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.
I dont favour anything so brutal. Further more I'm not convinced it would act to prevent the castrated person commiting further violence. Is not leading an ordinary, not very bright average male on "giving up their freedom"?
No.
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 -
How is that working both ways? Either you give up your freedom as a woman or you pay the consequences (of not giving up freedom) which consist of giving up your freedom as a woman. More like women's freedom is screwed both ways...
because they didn't do anything to stop it happening until it was too late.
They live in a society where the law states it ought not happen. They are free to reasonably expect that law will be obeyed.
Now me, I'm perfectly free to, as I say, walk along a railway line in the middle of the night.
Not where I live. Where I live that would be an illegal act, specifically trespass, I'd be surprised if it wasnt trespass where you live too.
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.
A man's sex drive is not a train, nor does a man's sex drive only 'travel' at such speed and force in areas that it is an illegal act for a person to wander into without proper authorisation, nor does a man's sex drive only exist in areas where there are sign posts warning people to stay out. Once again your analogy proves more the unreasonableness of your arguments more than anything else.
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.
Yes I have done some biology. I dont agree that males of the human species are here only to to have sex. Passing genes involves much more thanm 'having sex'. If human males were here only to successfully pass on their genes, that still wouldnt necessitate that males were here only to have sex.
That is our sole motive for existing.
No it isnt.
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)
We didnt come from monkeys, and civilisation is not a veneer, it is part and parcel of humaness.
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.
People have to consume alcohol for it to have any effect whatsoever.
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.
Right, so men evolved to procreate and only to procreate, alongside women who evolved to not procreate....? WTF?!
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 see reality quite fine thank you. Evidently you seem a bit confused about what constitutes an insult. For your future benefit, a critical opinion about someone's opinion is not an insult.
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.
I'm assuming that men are no less competent at maintaining self control than women are. If you disagree, that's probably related to your previously stated strange and rather low opinion of most men (excluding apparently yourself).
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..
What are you on about? I assume that people should either obey the law or be responsible for not doing so.
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.
Actually the notion that people either obey the law or be held responsible for not doing so is the lynchpin of most Westernised justice systems in contemporary times, and I see no evidence of it being 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).
I find it hard to believe you have such a right.
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.
How does this apply to a women who gets raped for being drunk and scantily dressed in a public street? Even if a woman consents, nobody ought to be screwing in a public street - it's illegal to do so! 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.
If you dont know you have consent, keep it in your pants. Simply really.
Yes, the man should be admonished and punished for having lacked the self-control necessary prior to his complete loss of control;Loss of control is a myth.
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.
No one acting in accordance with the law should be responsible for criminal acts.
Well, actually, I've no respect for "sex workers" (nice polite PC term I note) whatsoever.
That's your problem.
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.
How is that relevent to your comments that dressing as 'whorishly' makes a person responsible for rape?
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.
So what? Our cities are more filled with animals that obey the law, and in most cases a woman can walk down the street, drunk and looking fine without some scum raping her. That's as it should be.
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);
Statory rape refers to one partner being beneath the age of consent. There is no excuse for an adult engaging in statutory rape.
cases in which the man and woman fail to understand one another's signals,[/quote
No, it is up to anyone engaging in sex acts to ensure they have consent.
and the man is later accused of rape over a simple (and mutual) error;
An error that cannot occur if the man is acting responsibly.
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;
That isnt rape! If your only way to prove rape isnt rape is by proving that non-rape isnt rape, you clearly dont have much to stand on do you?
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.
If it's rape then the person responsible is the rapist.
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.
Well seeing as how I have not bawled about how someone is a misogynistic perverted little swine who treats women like dirt, whilst not knowing anything about referred to person, in the past, there's little reason to believe I'd do such a thing in the future...

no, well i guess i dont... seeing as the guidelines at work have been laid out in near-concrete to me at my workplace. no, i dont have any sort of memory at all, i guess.

apparently, you know nothing about false claims and accusations and their weight in court. who do you believe a judge will side with if a woman presses a charge of rape in a trial? she has the semen samples, *possible* bruising or swelling, depending on her sensitivity to "passionate love embraces" (the first time ive actually been able to say the phrase in context...), and all the other evidence to say that he most likely raped her. all the man has is... well... his word. it is like putting a man on trial for doing an act no one but the defendant saw. its her word vs. his word and, most likely, the judge will side on her behalf, given your statistics you were speaking of earlier.

of course, thats ruling out the possibility that there was a witness *in the room* at the time of intercourse, which is very unlikely
What percentage of the 16% of women who report their being raped to the police do you think are lying? You know, because women love to go public about being raped left and right. It's kind of like a rite of passage.

no, well i guess i dont... seeing as the guidelines at work have been laid out in near-concrete to me at my workplace. no, i dont have any sort of memory at all, i guess.

apparently, you know nothing about false claims and accusations and their weight in court. who do you believe a judge will side with if a woman presses a charge of rape in a trial? she has the semen samples, *possible* bruising or swelling, depending on her sensitivity to "passionate love embraces" (the first time ive actually been able to say the phrase in context...), and all the other evidence to say that he most likely raped her. all the man has is... well... his word. it is like putting a man on trial for doing an act no one but the defendant saw. its her word vs. his word and, most likely, the judge will side on her behalf, given your statistics you were speaking of earlier.

of course, thats ruling out the possibility that there was a witness *in the room* at the time of intercourse, which is very unlikely

You haven't been paying attention.

It is very difficult to convict someone of rape -- even in very clear-cut cases.

Only one in 100 victims of forcible rape sees her attacker sent to prison, according to a report releasedthe Senate Judiciary Committee

FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE. THE "THREAT" OF THEM IS A DANGEROUS MYTH.

The incidence of unfounded* reporting of rape is only 2%-8%, the same as other major violent crimes, according to the FBI. Now, considering all the steps between an initial report and a conviction, how many false rape cases are likely?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/soo.txt
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=25893

* Note: Unfounded inlcudes situations other than just false reports. Thus false reports are actually a lower number.

BTW, according to the DOJ, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male

I would never rape anyone, but i can agree with 1 thing, women (with their dishonourable ways) have killed chivalry and drive men litterely mad, so much so this happens, sometimes tho it does happen to the innocent but the majority of times those women do bring it on somewhat, but nobody deserves to be violated.

I would never rape anyone, but i can agree with 1 thing, women (with their dishonourable ways) have killed chivalry and drive men litterely mad, so much so this happens, sometimes tho it does happen to the innocent but the majority of times those women do bring it on somewhat, but nobody deserves to be violated.


Could you be more specific please? Like if I'm wearing a tank top in 95 F degree weather, am I begging to be raped? Or does it only work if I'm drunk at a bar? Do I get extra points if I wear my hair down or in a ponytail? :rolleyes:

Could you be more specific please? Like if I'm wearing a tank top in 95 F degree weather, am I begging to be raped? Or does it only work if I'm drunk at a bar? Do I get extra points if I wear my hair down or in a ponytail? :rolleyes:
Jesus! Stop killing chivalry.

Sorry, I'm just your basic dishonourable feminist here. Seriously, whose puppet is that?

You haven't been paying attention.

It is very difficult to convict someone of rape -- even in very clear-cut cases.

Only one in 100 victims of forcible rape sees her attacker sent to prison, according to a report releasedthe Senate Judiciary Committee

FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE. THE "THREAT" OF THEM IS A DANGEROUS MYTH.

The incidence of false reporting of rape is only 2%-8%, the same as other major violent crimes, according to the FBI. Now, considering all the steps between an initial report and a conviction, how many false rape cases are likely?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/soo.txt
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=25893

BTW, according to the DOJ, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male

again with the 'facts' and the 'real world'. don't you know that your 'reality' doesn't conform itself to my machismo wishes and misogynist dreams, and must therefore be ignored or destroyed?

again with the 'facts' and the 'real world'. don't you know that your 'reality' doesn't conform itself to my machismo wishes and misogynist dreams, and must therefore be ignored or destroyed?

"Cry Wolf," Cried the Wolf. ;)

"Cry Wolf," Cried the Wolf. ;)

all i'm saying is don't you ever get sick of always being on the side with the data to support it? wouldn't it be nice to be stupidly, trivially, dangerously wrong (and proud of it!) for a change?

So...
Is this discussion limited to sexual rape or are there broader contexts that can be explored?

Is forcing one's opinion onto someone else a form of mental rape?

If it is a form of mental rape, then half the participants on this forum would be guilty, guilty, GUILTY!

Sorry, I'm just your basic dishonourable feminist here. Seriously, whose puppet is that?
I'm not a puppet. I'm just slightly ridiculous.

If it is a form of mental rape, then half the participants on this forum would be guilty, guilty, GUILTY!

Not only guilty, but proud of it as well. At least this is something more people can relate to. Considering the cause, either form of rape could stem from self-esteem issues: if one can't be accepted, then there is no choice but to force one's self/ opinions on others.

So...
Is this discussion limited to sexual rape or are there broader contexts that can be explored?

Is forcing one's opinion onto someone else a form of mental rape?

Obviously not. As you have explained, the fact that someone has a brain capable of forming an opinion means that it is their own fault if someone else's opinion is forced upon them. Shame on them.

Not only guilty, but proud of it as well. At least this is something more people can relate to. Considering the cause, either form of rape could stem from self-esteem issues: if one can't be accepted, then there is no choice but to force one's self/ opinions on others.
Are you saying that rapists have no choice if they want to have sex but to rape a girl?

Not only guilty, but proud of it as well. At least this is something more people can relate to. Considering the cause, either form of rape could stem from self-esteem issues: if one can't be accepted, then there is no choice but to force one's self/ opinions on others.


Well, it IS the internet - I've read enough of these threads to believe that a lot of what people say here they would probably never say to someone's face.

Not only guilty, but proud of it as well. At least this is something more people can relate to. Considering the cause, either form of rape could stem from self-esteem issues: if one can't be accepted, then there is no choice but to force one's self/ opinions on others.

So, sometimes, "there is no choice" but to commit forcible sexual rape!!!!!!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Are you saying that rapists have no choice if they want to have sex but to rape a girl?
In the mind of a rapist, that may be the case. The self-esteem of many guys may be based on their ability to "score". Of course, women are not helpful. If some woman is being hit on by a guy that she has no interest in and replies "Piss off, you limp dick moron!", it may be interpreted as an attack for which the only way to redeem one's self is to physically prove that the statement is not true.

EDIT:
Do I think this way? No. Is it possible for people to think this way? Yes. Am I condoning such thoughts? Definitely not.

I always was told that rape wasn't about sex, but about control and power. Even so, I still think it's up to the man to control himself.

What if he's drunk? Well, if he gets shot down while he's drunk, but decides to show up the little lady later he is still cognizant enough to PLOT OUT A CRIME. Which means he has enough brains in his head to control himself and not use his dick as a weapon.

In the mind of a rapist, that may be the case. The self-esteem of many guys may be based on their ability to "score". Of course, women are not helpful. If some woman is being hit on by a guy that she has no interest in and replies "Piss off, you limp dick moron!", it may be interpreted as an attack for which the only way to redeem one's self is to physically prove that the statement is not true.

EDIT:
Do I think this way? No. Is it possible for people to think this way? Yes. Am I condoning such thoughts? Definitely not.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.htm :

Men who rape do so because they cannot find a consenting sexual partner.

False. Studies suggest that most rape offenders are married or in consenting relationships.

In the mind of a rapist, that may be the case. The self-esteem of many guys may be based on their ability to "score". Of course, women are not helpful. If some woman is being hit on by a guy that she has no interest in and replies "Piss off, you limp dick moron!", it may be interpreted as an attack for which the only way to redeem one's self is to physically prove that the statement is not true.

EDIT:
Do I think this way? No. Is it possible for people to think this way? Yes. Am I condoning such thoughts? Definitely not.
This would be a good argument if the case were just men raping strangers to get sex. 77% of rapes are done by people known by the victim.


77% of completed rapes are committed by non-strangers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).

I always was told that rape wasn't about sex, but about control and power. Even so, I still think it's up to the man to control himself.

What if he's drunk? Well, if he gets shot down while he's drunk, but decides to show up the little lady later he is still cognizant enough to PLOT OUT A CRIME. Which means he has enough brains in his head to control himself and not use his dick as a weapon.

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said at all. What I do disagree with is the implication that women bear no personal responsibility for preventing rape. Based on what started this whole thread in the first place, it's obvious that the perpetrators and the bystanders in rape situations are not interested in preventing it, so if there's any action to be taken, it's going to be by the people that are targets, or potential targets, of rape.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.htm :

Men who rape do so because they cannot find a consenting sexual partner.

False. Studies suggest that most rape offenders are married or in consenting relationships.

Maybe in light of this information, women should have frank discussions with their partners as to what is considered rape. Assuming that someone already knows is what is going to get a woman raped.

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said at all. What I do disagree with is the implication that women bear no personal responsibility for preventing rape. Based on what started this whole thread in the first place, it's obvious that the perpetrators and the bystanders in rape situations are not interested in preventing it, so if there's any action to be taken, it's going to be by the people that are targets, or potential targets, of rape.
Yeah. Like living next door to a rapist. Stupid tramp...

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said at all. What I do disagree with is the implication that women bear no personal responsibility for preventing rape. Based on what started this whole thread in the first place, it's obvious that the perpetrators and the bystanders in rape situations are not interested in preventing it, so if there's any action to be taken, it's going to be by the people that are targets, or potential targets, of rape.

So, by your logic, every victim of every crime has in some way failed in his or her "personal responsibility for preventing" the crime. Cute.

Also, you have turned the question on its head from "does a woman deserve the blame for getting raped?" to somehow imply that no woman should ever do anything to avoid getting raped.

Your collaborator mind must be getting tired of coming up with this crap.

Maybe in light of this information, women should have frank discussions with their partners as to what is considered rape. Assuming that someone already knows is what is going to get a woman raped.

You misread the statistic. But it directly refutes your speculation.

Moreover, you are trying to perpetuate the myth that rape is the result of some "misunderstanding" between the participants. Rape is very clear.

Your attempts to make rape seem like bad sex or misunderstanding in "grey areas" are exactly the type of bullshit that makes you a collaborator.

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said at all. What I do disagree with is the implication that women bear no personal responsibility for preventing rape. Based on what started this whole thread in the first place, it's obvious that the perpetrators and the bystanders in rape situations are not interested in preventing it, so if there's any action to be taken, it's going to be by the people that are targets, or potential targets, of rape.


My problem with this statement is what qualifies as 'personal responsibility'? What exactly do you mean here?

So, by your logic, every victim of every crime has in some way failed in his or her "personal responsibility for preventing" the crime. Cute.

Yes.

Also, you have turned the question on its head from "does a woman deserve the blame for getting raped?" to somehow imply that no woman should ever do anything to avoid getting raped.

Your collaborator mind must be getting tired of coming up with this crap.
Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that women should do whatever is within their power to avoid getting raped. To say that the only person capable of preventing rape is a rapist creates rape victims.

Blaming anyone or anything for something is only useful if the target of one's blame is willing and able to accept responsibility. It's like blaming the government for being poor. It may be the case, but knowing this is not going to make one any richer. If one wants something, one must take action to obtain it. In this case, if women want to prevent being raped, I would suggest that they take inventory of the options available to do so. Chances are, many of the people that are charged with rape thought their actions were justifiable or didn't even think at the time that they were raping.

Maybe in light of this information, women should have frank discussions with their partners as to what is considered rape. Assuming that someone already knows is what is going to get a woman raped.
You can't unknowingly rape someone.
From the Comic Book, The Maxx (I know, I know. Bear with me. It's how I first got into feminism.)

Julie: I mean, guys are saying that sometimes no means yes, and honestly, sometimes it does. But I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she wanted.

Yes.

Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that women should do whatever is within their power to avoid getting raped. To say that the only person capable of preventing rape is a rapist creates rape victims.

Blaming anyone or anything for something is only useful if the target of one's blame is willing and able to accept responsibility. It's like blaming the government for being poor. It may be the case, but knowing this is not going to make one any richer. If one wants something, one must take action to obtain it. In this case, if women want to prevent being raped, I would suggest that they take inventory of the options available to do so. Chances are, many of the people that are charged with rape thought their actions were justifiable or didn't even think at the time that they were raping.

You are a collaborator. Period.

Do you realize that 1 in 6 rape victims is under 12?

I am suggesting that women should do whatever is within their power to avoid getting raped.


That is a pretty broad statement. That could mean anything from 'don't leave the house' to 'make sure to always carry mace in your pocket'. Neither of which would have done me any good if the person the police just caught here had targeted me - he was breaking into homes, tying up the men at gunpoint and raping all the females in the home, including minors. Granted, this is a limited instance, but it serves to highlight my point, which is that a lot of the time, you may not KNOW what action to take to prevent rape, barring what common sense tells you.

**In 2002-2003, there were an average of 223,280 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.

**Only about 40% of rapes sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement in 2003.

**Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.

**One out of every six women in American has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. About 62% of rape victims knew their assailant.

**2.78 million men in American has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

**Approximately 44% of rape victims are under the age of 18.


**According to the FBI, about 2%-8% of reported rapes are "unfounded." The Portland Oregon police reported in 1990 that of the 431 rape and attempted rape complaints received, 1.6% were determined to be false compared with 2.6% of stolen vehicle reports that were false. A 1989 comparative analysis of data on false rape allegations reported a rate of 2%. {Hecht-Schafran, Lynn (1993). Women in the Criminal Justice System. Writing and Reading About Rape: A Primer. St. John's Law Review, Volume 66 fall/winter. No. 4.}

**According to the Senate Judiciary Committee Report, 1993, 98% percent of rape victims never see their attacker caught, tried, and imprisoned. Over half of all rape prosecutions are either dismissed before trial or result in acquittal. A rape prosecution is more than twice as likely as a murder to be dismissed and 30% more likely to be dismissed than a robbery. Forty eight percent of cases are dismissed before trial. More than one gender bias study has concluded that prosecutors don't file acquaintance rape cases because they feel convictions are unlikely.


If the denial of reality on here continues, I'll add more reality checks.

Well, it IS the internet - I've read enough of these threads to believe that a lot of what people say here they would probably never say to someone's face.

You're a woman, the majority of posters here are male. So of course most of what gets said here wouldn't be said to your face; it might be said to your breasts, though.:p

ok i must say somthing.....i dont post on jolt much, but i have to say something


1) just because a girl says she is raped, doesn't mean that she was, my ex-girlfriend call rape on me, but after a very long court trail i was found to be inosent, of any wrong doing.....more so i used her history to help me, and a letter that she sent me.....shes not too bright what can i say. for anyone to say that you should not use a persons past to help your defence, stuff it, i might have been in jail for something i did not do.

2) you cannot pervent rape/crime to happen, but you can lower the chances alot, dont live in fear, but use your brain, if your going to get smashed go with friends, and stay with them, dont be stupid. now you say why should I? BECAUSE THERE ARE FUCKED UP PEOPLE OUT THERE, AND WE CANNOT GET RID OF THEM ALL.

3) fighting back, well i dont know about many people, but i play fight wiht my girlfriend all the time, she is about half the size of me, and i kid you not i cannot hold her down and do anything else, i have no idea how someone would rape anyone,
she cracked some ribs one time....we had to cut back on how rough we got after that


now i must say to, a rapist is a sick person that should be shot.....but not all "rapist" raped anyone, i was lucky and had a stupid girl call it on me, but if it was someone with half a brain, i would be a criminal

ok i am perpared for the crap to now be tossed in my direction

ok i must say somthing.....i dont post on jolt much, but i have to say something


1) just because a girl says she is raped, doesn't mean that she was, my ex-girlfriend call rape on me, but after a very long court trail i was found to be inosent, of any wrong doing.....more so i used her history to help me, and a letter that she sent me.....shes not too bright what can i say. for anyone to say that you should not use a persons past to help your defence, stuff it, i might have been in jail for something i did not do.

2) you cannot pervent rape/crime to happen, but you can lower the chances alot, dont live in fear, but use your brain, if your going to get smashed go with friends, and stay with them, dont be stupid. now you say why should I? BECAUSE THERE ARE FUCKED UP PEOPLE OUT THERE, AND WE CANNOT GET RID OF THEM ALL.

3) fighting back, well i dont know about many people, but i play fight wiht my girlfriend all the time, she is about half the size of me, and i kid you not i cannot hold her down and do anything else, i have no idea how someone would rape anyone,
she cracked some ribs one time....we had to cut back on how rough we got after that


now i must say to, a rapist is a sick person that should be shot.....but not all "rapist" raped anyone, i was lucky and had a stupid girl call it on me, but if it was someone with half a brain, i would be a criminal

ok i am perpared for the crap to now be tossed in my direction

No fucking comment that won't start a flame war.

ok i must say somthing.....i dont post on jolt much, but i have to say something


1) just because a girl says she is raped, doesn't mean that she was, my ex-girlfriend call rape on me, but after a very long court trail i was found to be inosent, of any wrong doing.....more so i used her history to help me, and a letter that she sent me.....shes not too bright what can i say. for anyone to say that you should not use a persons past to help your defence, stuff it, i might have been in jail for something i did not do.

2) you cannot pervent rape/crime to happen, but you can lower the chances alot, dont live in fear, but use your brain, if your going to get smashed go with friends, and stay with them, dont be stupid. now you say why should I? BECAUSE THERE ARE FUCKED UP PEOPLE OUT THERE, AND WE CANNOT GET RID OF THEM ALL.

3) fighting back, well i dont know about many people, but i play fight wiht my girlfriend all the time, she is about half the size of me, and i kid you not i cannot hold her down and do anything else, i have no idea how someone would rape anyone,
she cracked some ribs one time....we had to cut back on how rough we got after that


now i must say to, a rapist is a sick person that should be shot.....but not all "rapist" raped anyone, i was lucky and had a stupid girl call it on me, but if it was someone with half a brain, i would be a criminal

ok i am perpared for the crap to now be tossed in my direction

ooh, anecdotes

As for number one, nobody smart is claiming false allegations don't happen. The point is, as made by The Cat Tribe a few posts back, that the instances are low (2%-8% of allegations according to the FBI, similar to other violent crimes). Click Me! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9981581&postcount=376)

Number two, well, I guess I agree with you there.

Number three: tells us nothing. You could be ridiculously frail and dating a female midget body builder. Oh, and I doubt your girlfriend is scared of you, or that you hold a weapon while play fighting and force her to do as you say. It's an utterly different scenario.

for anyone to say that you should not use a persons past to help your defence, stuff it, i might have been in jail for something i did not do.


**sigh** I only just noticed that part.

The point of it is to stop the accused saying that because the woman has slept around, had a lot of sexual partners in the past, earned herself a reputation as an easy lay etc. she must have been only playing when she said no because, hey, anyone can have that girl, she's a slut. And it's a good general rule, because sexual consent has to be taken on a case by case, time by time basis, or it's just pointless.

**sigh** I only just noticed that part.

The point of it is to stop the accused saying that because the woman has slept around, had a lot of sexual partners in the past, earned herself a reputation as an easy lay etc. she must have been only playing when she said no because, hey, anyone can have that girl, she's a slut. And it's a good general rule, because sexual consent has to be taken on a case by case, time by time basis, or it's just pointless.


na, more for the fact that i was a vergin, and the hisotry of someones actions can help explain future actions and respones to situations

iam not trying to start a flame war, because the defence of a guy here would be off the wall crazy

na, more for the fact that i was a vergin, and the hisotry of someones actions can help explain future actions and respones to situations

iam not trying to start a flame war, because the defence of a guy here would be off the wall crazy

Slight misunderstanding on my part there.

Okay, as far as I'm aware (which isn't all that far) it's only the past history of the victim that can't be brought up as evidence. Who would seriously consider saying the accused's past couldn't be brought up in court?

iam not trying to start a flame war, because the defence of a guy here would be off the wall crazy

Rarely is it necessary to actually try and start a flame war. They just sort of happen.

Slight misunderstanding on my part there.

Okay, as far as I'm aware (which isn't all that far) it's only the past history of the victim that can't be brought up as evidence. Who would seriously consider saying the accused's past couldn't be brought up in court?

well i dont think anyone would say that the accused past couldn't be brought up in court, but many people say that the wo/man's past should not be......now the last time i heard the courts are fair....well should be fair, (but thats a different issue now isnt it)

fair is fair,

Slight misunderstanding on my part there.

Okay, as far as I'm aware (which isn't all that far) it's only the past history of the victim that can't be brought up as evidence. Who would seriously consider saying the accused's past couldn't be brought up in court?

Actually, it is difficult to get an accused's criminal history into evidence.

Obvioulsy, the defense can always enter into evidence stuff about the lack of a criminal record, sexual history, etc., of the defendant.

well i dont think anyone would say that the accused past couldn't be brought up in court, but many people say that the wo/man's past should not be......now the last time i heard the courts are fair....well should be fair, (but thats a different issue now isnt it)

fair is fair,

So you're saying what? Because it's admissable that the guy spent nine months following the woman, studying her movements and repeatedly boasted to his friends that he was going to have her "one way or the other", it should be admissable that the woman worked as a stripper and supplemented her income through prostitution? (to make up an example from nowhere, but it's similar to something that happened to a friend of a friend)

well i dont think anyone would say that the accused past couldn't be brought up in court, but many people say that the wo/man's past should not be......now the last time i heard the courts are fair....well should be fair, (but thats a different issue now isnt it)

fair is fair,

Chastity /= truth.

There may have been special circumstnaces in your particular alleged case, but normally the sexual history of the alleged victim is of no relevance to his/her credibility.

So you're saying what? Because it's admissable that the guy spent nine months following the woman, studying her movements and repeatedly boasted to his friends that he was going to have her "one way or the other", it should be admissable that the woman worked as a stripper and supplemented her income through prostitution? (to make up an example from nowhere, but it's similar to something that happened to a friend of a friend)


ya, what would a jury do if that "friend" came in and told that this person was saying that.

but hey the defence can call the plantif a whore, that will sway the jury.....or maybe, your eg. makes my point

ya, what would a jury do if that "friend" came in and told that this person was saying that.

but hey the defence can call the plantif a whore, that will sway the jury.....or maybe, your eg. makes my point

Is english your second language, or can I yell at you for making almost no sense and having godawful grammar?

Is english your second language, or can I yell at you for making almost no sense and having godawful grammar?

so this is how flame wars start....iam going to stop now, this is going to an ugle place

ya, what would a jury do if that "friend" came in and told that this person was saying that.

but hey the defence can call the plantif a whore, that will sway the jury.....or maybe, your eg. makes my point

You don't seem to get the point. Whether the victim was a prostitute would not be relevant to whether or not she was raped. Thus, the defense should not "call [her] a whore."

so this is how flame wars start....iam going to stop now, this is going to an ugle place

Yes, they start when people trying to have a debate are left staring at the brick wall of incompetence and stupidity.

i find the statistics of the OP hard to believe.
i cannot believe that 25% of people would blame a friend if said friend was raped.

it would not cross their mind.

we are all agreed that rape is awful, yes? we all agree that it should warrent a very lengthy prison sentence for the person upon whos shoulders the fault lies.

if you say that women are partly to blame you are saying that they deserve to be punished for being raped. you suggest that there is fault in the raped person for being raped.

how can that be right? if i say you cannot borrow my money and you take it anyway, is that not theft?
does it matter if i have allowed you to borrow money before? no, i don't think it does.
is it my fault for my being stolen from because i was not prepared for it? i don't think so. if we were to attempt to take into account every single possibility of something bad happening we would never do anything.
am i to blame for the theft because i allowed the person to borrow money before? no. this is a totally new incident and as such should be treated with NO reference to the past.


i am shocked and disgusted that people would think, even for a moment, that the rapee is, even slightly, to blame.

would you blame the jews for what Hitler did to them?
is it my fault due to

i find the statistics of the OP hard to believe.
i cannot believe that 25% of people would blame a friend if said friend was raped.

it would not cross their mind.

we are all agreed that rape is awful, yes? we all agree that it should warrent a very lengthy prison sentence for the person upon whos shoulders the fault lies.

if you say that women are partly to blame you are saying that they deserve to be punished for being raped. you suggest that there is fault in the raped person for being raped.

how can that be right? if i say you cannot borrow my money and you take it anyway, is that not theft?
does it matter if i have allowed you to borrow money before? no, i don't think it does.
is it my fault for my being stolen from because i was not prepared for it? i don't think so. if we were to attempt to take into account every single possibility of something bad happening we would never do anything.
am i to blame for the theft because i allowed the person to borrow money before? no. this is a totally new incident and as such should be treated with NO reference to the past.


i am shocked and disgusted that people would think, even for a moment, that the rapee is, even slightly, to blame.

would you blame the jews for what Hitler did to them?
is it my fault due to

If you read the thread, you will see that many do blame the victim.

does it matter if i have allowed you to borrow money before? no, i don't think it does.
is it my fault for my being stolen from because i was not prepared for it? i don't think so.

Well, look at it this way. If you know you live in a rough part of town, where there are a lot of burglaries/house breakings and you decide to leave your front door wide open with a big stack of fifties in the window, yes it is partially your fault if they get stolen because you acted like a retard.

Similarly, if a woman gets drunk and walks home, alone, in the middle of the night through an area where she knows there is a statistically high occurence of rape or sexual assault, and she doesn't carry anything like pepper spray or mace or even a personal alarm, and she gets raped, yes she is partially responsible for acting like a dumb fuck. The rapist is, IMO, far more responsible, but there still has to be a degree of personal responsibility.

Humans have free will.

the rapist chooses to force themself upon the raped. the rapist has no choice.

sure, the raped person may have chosen to wear revealing clothes. these however do not say 'I REALLY WANT SEX!! I WILL SAY NO BUT JUST DO IT ANYWAY!!' on them.
maybe if they did then there would be fault on the part of the raped.

in many hundreds of other cases though the raped person IS NOT wearing revealing clothes. many of the most recent rape reports i have seen are ones in which the raped person is wearing trousers.

it takes a concious decision on the part of the rapist.

do you really suggest that everyone should go outside with the full kit of; body armour, mace/peppers pray, unarmed combat training, a gun, a personal alarm, a bodyguard named chuck, a chase car, a first aid kit and a knowledge of how to revive someone and bind wounds?

oh and suncream, sun glasses, an umbrella, a fur coat...

you can't prepare for everything.

maybe my example of theft was not very good. theft is a very common crime (a lot more common than rape). there are more people who are willing to steal.

i will pose this one then. if i happen to go into public without my stabproof vest, am i responsible for being stabbed?

i will pose this one then. if i happen to go into public without my stabproof vest, am i responsible for being stabbed?

Like I said before, yes, you are, if you, for example, wlak through Compton wearing a racist t-shirt and carrying a sign saying "Go home, niggers!". If you knowingly take actions that significantly increase the likelihood of you being a victim of crime, then yes you are partially responsible when said crime happens to you. It doesn't make it your fault, or the criminal not responsible.

Not so much entirely on topic here but I wanted to say that a lot of the things we 'should' feel according to what our civilization is supposed to stand for are not the things we really do feel.

For instance, people tend to believe that if someone is accused of a crime that they are likely to be guilty of it. This is in spite of what most laws in Western Societies state to be the case, that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

In a similar way, if a woman who commonly wears ankle length skirts, goes to Church regularly and is married with five children gets raped, people think it must have been rape. If however a girl who goes clubbing regularly and dresses in a provocative manner gets raped...some people will think 'that figures'.

Is this fair? No.

I think too that if we are honest there are grey areas about such things as rape. There is a lot of difference between someone who blatantly has someone beat them into submission in order to force them to have sex and someone who has been acting as though they wanted to have sex and then when both parties are drunk ends up too drunk to give or deny consent. Is it rape then?

What I'm getting at here is this: sometimes consent is a bit of a fuzzy issue. I think the suggestion 'were they asking for it' is silly, since it implies they were asking to be raped, the theoretical victims. The real question is "were they implying they wanted to have sex?" and it is a question that would have to be asked, legally speaking.

someone who has been acting as though they wanted to have sex and then when both parties are drunk ends up too drunk to give or deny consent. Is it rape then?


Yes.

Yes.

But if both parties are too drunk to give or deny consent, then who is raping whom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavenrunz
someone who has been acting as though they wanted to have sex and then when both parties are drunk ends up too drunk to give or deny consent. Is it rape then?

Yes.

Are you kidding me? If you voluntarily consumed enough of an intoxicant that you can't make clear decisions, how does someone else deserve to go to jail because you then make a poor desicion? If you didn't want to 'accidentally' have sex with someone you wouldn't normally have sex with you shouldn't get drunk or high enough that it might happen. Now if someone were to slip you something and take advantage then that's rape. Why is it that woman don't have to be responsible once they're under the influence, but men do? What if the man is too drunk to be able to tell if the woman is in a clear enough state of mind? Why is it still his fault but not hers?

Like I said before, yes, you are, if you, for example, wlak through Compton wearing a racist t-shirt and carrying a sign saying "Go home, niggers!". If you knowingly take actions that significantly increase the likelihood of you being a victim of crime, then yes you are partially responsible when said crime happens to you. It doesn't make it your fault, or the criminal not responsible.

There is an important difference between my example and yours: my example is of someone not taking preventative action for something that is highly unlikely to happen. Yours is of someone actively going out with an item likely to aggravate the situation.

As I said before do you expect people to go around wearing 3 inches of protective clothing that entirely cocoon them from the outside world? Should humans only meet over video conferencing? Extreme examples but if you say that women are partially to blame if they are raped then you are, in a round-a-bout way, advocating this.

Women don't make themselves look good just to 'pull' guys. If a woman feels she looks good then it boosts her self-confidence. They do it as much for themselves as they do to try to attract males.

Are you suggesting that maybe males and females should be indistinguishable from one another? This would fix the rape problem.
It is an infringement on our rights but I’m sure that everyone will understand if it will wipe out rape. Right?




Decisions, decisions, decisions. People have free will. a revealing top may have an effect on a man. He still has free will. He still makes a choice. That choice is what makes a rape happen. If the man chooses to follow his lust instead of his morality then he would make that same choice no matter what the woman is wearing.
if a person will make a conscious decision to disregard his morality in one situation then he will do it in another. It is often said that the raped persons are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had it been another person then the rape would have happened to them.

In a rape only the rapist has free will. The rapist makes all the decisions. The rapist is the only person to blame.

In the case of assult if someone provokes an assult IE insults, threatens etc and then someone else attacks them, while they themselves are not prosecuted, they bear a level of responsability. In the case of rape, the majority of rapes are commited by people the victim knows and not in the "attcak on the street" situation, but in the "couple sleeping together, woman/man refuses they have sex anyway" situation. If there is a degree of ambiguity about the refusal or the partner refuses but has provoked their partner to sleep with them in some other way, they bear a level of responsability, but not all of it. And they are not prosecuted. Obviously it is primaryly the fault of the rapist, but not universally. It should be considered on a case by case basis.

As I said before do you expect people to go around wearing 3 inches of protective clothing that entirely cocoon them from the outside world? Should humans only meet over video conferencing? Extreme examples but if you say that women are partially to blame if they are raped then you are, in a round-a-bout way, advocating this.

Women don't make themselves look good just to 'pull' guys. If a woman feels she looks good then it boosts her self-confidence. They do it as much for themselves as they do to try to attract males.

Are you suggesting that maybe males and females should be indistinguishable from one another? This would fix the rape problem.
It is an infringement on our rights but I’m sure that everyone will understand if it will wipe out rape. Right?


Your pulling it to the extreme end. This is called the slippery slope falacy. Basicly if a woman directs her body language, her clothes basicly every signal she can at a guy that says "I want to have sex with you" and then refuses, she is provoking it. Thus she can be seen to have a level of responability. This doesnt mean we should restrict the provocation, what it does is mean we should advise against the provocation, and consider provocation when sentencing the rapist IE the greater the provocation the sentence should be reduced perhaps

Decisions, decisions, decisions. People have free will. a revealing top may have an effect on a man. He still has free will. He still makes a choice. That choice is what makes a rape happen. If the man chooses to follow his lust instead of his morality then he would make that same choice no matter what the woman is wearing.
if a person will make a conscious decision to disregard his morality in one situation then he will do it in another. It is often said that the raped persons are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had it been another person then the rape would have happened to them.

In a rape only the rapist has free will. The rapist makes all the decisions. The rapist is the only person to blame.

The rapist is to blame for the rape, and he follows his lust, but his lust is empowerd by her clothing. Granted she should not be prosecuted for it, but provocation should be taken into account when sentencing rapists.

Are you kidding me? If you voluntarily consumed enough of an intoxicant that you can't make clear decisions, how does someone else deserve to go to jail because you then make a poor desicion? If you didn't want to 'accidentally' have sex with someone you wouldn't normally have sex with you shouldn't get drunk or high enough that it might happen. Now if someone were to slip you something and take advantage then that's rape. Why is it that woman don't have to be responsible once they're under the influence, but men do? What if the man is too drunk to be able to tell if the woman is in a clear enough state of mind? Why is it still his fault but not hers?

Hmm. The rapist would be the one actually doing something. if the man is thrusting himself inside the woman, he's the rapist. If the woman stimulates the man until he has an erection and then manouveres herself with him just lying there in a drunken stupor, she's the rapist.

There is an important difference between my example and yours:
~~snip~~

Go and check what I said before. I said the rape victim has partial responsibility if she (or he) knowingly takes action that will increase the likelihood of them being raped. Yes, it's different (I suppose the equivalent would be walking around naked carrying a stereo playing Nirvana's "Rape Me").

I still maintain that the rape victim has to accept that if they did something to significantly increase the probability then they are partially responsible.

There is an important difference between my example and yours: my example is of someone not taking preventative action for something that is highly unlikely to happen. Yours is of someone actively going out with an item likely to aggravate the situation.

As I said before do you expect people to go around wearing 3 inches of protective clothing that entirely cocoon them from the outside world? Should humans only meet over video conferencing? Extreme examples but if you say that women are partially to blame if they are raped then you are, in a round-a-bout way, advocating this.

Women don't make themselves look good just to 'pull' guys. If a woman feels she looks good then it boosts her self-confidence. They do it as much for themselves as they do to try to attract males.

Are you suggesting that maybe males and females should be indistinguishable from one another? This would fix the rape problem.
It is an infringement on our rights but I’m sure that everyone will understand if it will wipe out rape. Right?




Decisions, decisions, decisions. People have free will. a revealing top may have an effect on a man. He still has free will. He still makes a choice. That choice is what makes a rape happen. If the man chooses to follow his lust instead of his morality then he would make that same choice no matter what the woman is wearing.
if a person will make a conscious decision to disregard his morality in one situation then he will do it in another. It is often said that the raped persons are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had it been another person then the rape would have happened to them.

In a rape only the rapist has free will. The rapist makes all the decisions. The rapist is the only person to blame.
i agree with most of your post

but

a rapist isnt an average man overcome by lust. he picks his victim not because she is "so hot he cant stand it and just has to have her" but because she is vulnerable and he thinks he can get away with it

her clothing and attractiveness are irrelevant. all that really matters is that she is vulnerable at that point and he has a "need" for sexual violence. not lust but a desire to dominate, demean and hurt.


i find it funny to have all these men advocate that a woman should keep herself safe by dressing to look her worst, learning aggressive self defense, carrying a gun and mistrusting all men.

in another thread women like this would not be called prudent, they would be reviled as "feminazis". they would be mocked as women who want to be men or lesbian man-haters.

in other words, life as usual, damned if we do, damned if we dont.

her clothing [is] irrelevant.

I'm not sure I buy that. Wouldn't it be easier to rape someone in a short skirt and no underwear than someone wearing jeans and massive granny pants?

Following this logic it is the fault of a person who wears an expensive suite if he gets mugged. After all, he was displaying his wealth.

Following this logic it is the fault of a person who wears an expensive suite if he gets mugged. After all, he was displaying his wealth.

It is his fault if he's flashing his cash somewhere where he knows there is poverty and high crime. That, pal, should be fucking obvious.

Or I guess if I put my mobile phone, wallet, car keys and mp3 player on the floor in a supermarket it's not my fault when all my stuff gets nicked?

Your pulling it to the extreme end. This is called the slippery slope falacy. Basicly if a woman directs her body language, her clothes basicly every signal she can at a guy that says "I want to have sex with you" and then refuses, she is provoking it. Thus she can be seen to have a level of responability. This doesnt mean we should restrict the provocation, what it does is mean we should advise against the provocation, and consider provocation when sentencing the rapist IE the greater the provocation the sentence should be reduced perhaps
you have a horribly low opinion of men. are you male yourself?

do you really think that men are so vile that they are incapable of controlling themselves at all?do you think it is in ANY WAY reasonable that if a woman should turn a man down at a bar that he follow her out of the place and rape her in the first convenient spot he finds???

do you think YOU would ever do that?

rapists do not rape out of uncontrollable lust. they rape out of a desire to HURT. the clothing and attractiveness of a woman is irrelevant. they only look for someone who is vulnerable to attack. if they have a particular woman in mind as a victim, they dont wait until she is at her most attractive to "lose control", they way until she is vulnerable.

Following this logic it is the fault of a person who wears an expensive suite if he gets mugged. After all, he was displaying his wealth.

Your missing the point. It is not the fault of the victim, but they have a partial responability. IE If I am waving my new Ipod nano everywhere for all to see it is no suprise if someone should take it from me at some point. Now yes it is the person who steals it who is responsable, but I bear some blame because I was flaunting it all over the place, and should have been more discreet. I dont get prosecuted, but I should have known better

you have a horribly low opinion of men. are you male yourself?

do you really think that men are so vile that they are incapable of controlling themselves at all?do you think it is in ANY WAY reasonable that if a woman should turn a man down at a bar that he follow her out of the place and rape her in the first convenient spot he finds???

do you think YOU would ever do that?

rapists do not rape out of uncontrollable lust. they rape out of a desire to HURT. the clothing and attractiveness of a woman is irrelevant. they only look for someone who is vulnerable to attack. if they have a particular woman in mind as a victim, they dont wait until she is at her most attractive to "lose control", they way until she is vulnerable.

Firsrtly, I am male

Secondly, the majority of rapes do not occur in the 'attack' manner which you describe. They occur within a realtionship useally when the woman or the man is ambigious about whether they want sex and their refusal is confusing compared to other body language signals etc that they give off. I know there are some rapes that happen in the vunrableness area you talk about, but the majority of them do not. Its just the attack ones get a higher profile.

Your missing the point. It is not the fault of the victim, but they have a partial responability. IE If I am waving my new Ipod nano everywhere for all to see it is no suprise if someone should take it from me at some point. Now yes it is the person who steals it who is responsable, but I bear some blame because I was flaunting it all over the place, and should have been more discreet. I dont get prosecuted, but I should have known better
But at what point do you stop having partial responsibilty? Should you not listen to your ipod with the white earbuds because that shows that you most likely have an Ipod? Should you not show it to your friends in public?

You shouldn't be afraid to dress a certain way, or to say certain things. It's just not right.

Firsrtly, I am male

Secondly, the majority of rapes do not occur in the 'attack' manner which you describe. They occur within a realtionship useally when the woman or the man is ambigious about whether they want sex and their refusal is confusing compared to other body language signals etc that they give off. I know there are some rapes that happen in the vunrableness area you talk about, but the majority of them do not. Its just the attack ones get a higher profile.
no

rape is not an accidental misunderstanding between lovers that comes about by lack of good communications skills.

to quote from desperate measures post...

Julie: I mean, guys are saying that sometimes no means yes, and honestly, sometimes it does. But I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she wanted.

But at what point do you stop having partial responsibilty? Should you not listen to your ipod with the white earbuds because that shows that you most likely have an Ipod? Should you not show it to your friends in public?

You shouldn't be afraid to dress a certain way, or to say certain things. It's just not right.

Did you really just whinge that "life isn't fair"?

Well, here's a newsflash: it isn't. But sometimes, that's just the way it is.

It comes down to calculated risks. A lot of things increase the likelihood that you will have a crime commited against your person. It doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't do them, just that you have to be prepared for the consequences

Did you really just whinge that "life isn't fair"?

Well, here's a newsflash: it isn't. But sometimes, that's just the way it is.

It comes down to calculated risks. A lot of things increase the likelihood that you will have a crime commited against your person. It doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't do them, just that you have to be prepared for the consequences
Life may not always be fair but each person should do their best to make it fair. If that means that you have to take a chance, then so be it. Freedom of expression without fear is more important than possessions.

no

rape is not an accidental misunderstanding between lovers that comes about by lack of good communications skills.

to quote from desperate measures post...

Sometimes it is like that, but the vast majoirty of the time is isnt.

I'm not sure I buy that. Wouldn't it be easier to rape someone in a short skirt and no underwear than someone wearing jeans and massive granny pants?
if you have read this thread, and i think you have, you know this was already answered (by dakini i think)

loose fitting clothing, especially overalls, are most dangerous because it gives a rapist an easier chance at getting a good hold on you and they are easy to remove. long hair in a braid or pony tail is also dangerous as its so easy to grab and control a victim with.

the only problem with a short skirt is that it is most often worn with high heels which are very hard to run in, making escape more difficult.

and no, once you are at the point of getting to panties, none is not more convenient than a thong which is not more convenient than granny panties. at least not enough to have wearing of granny panties be a deterrent to rape.

Sometimes it is like that, but the vast majoirty of the time is isnt.
*just stares at the screen*

*just stares at the screen*

The "attack" rapes get the most publicity in the media, but the more common sort is a couple where there is a consfusion between the partners about what they both want and then one later thinks that they didnt want it or that they were forced etc.

It is his fault if he's flashing his cash somewhere where he knows there is poverty and high crime. That, pal, should be fucking obvious.

Or I guess if I put my mobile phone, wallet, car keys and mp3 player on the floor in a supermarket it's not my fault when all my stuff gets nicked?
well lets see....

my neice got distracted and left her purse in the shopping cart in the walmart parking lot

when she got back 10 minutes later, it had already been taken

were the couple who stole it forgiven because of my neices carelessness?

NO. turns out that in the eyes of the law, theft is theft.

if you have read this thread, and i think you have, you know this was already answered (by dakini i think)

loose fitting clothing, especially overalls, are most dangerous because it gives a rapist an easier chance at getting a good hold on you and they are easy to remove. long hair in a braid or pony tail is also dangerous as its so easy to grab and control a victim with.

the only problem with a short skirt is that it is most often worn with high heels which are very hard to run in, making escape more difficult.

and no, once you are at the point of getting to panties, none is not more convenient than a thong which is not more convenient than granny panties. at least not enough to have wearing of granny panties be a deterrent to rape.

Damn. I should remember to run the hell away when people who know what they're doing enter threads I'm in.;)

Actually, my point was slightly frivolous. I don't remember the previous post that answered this (I've only skimmed the pages before I started posting) but I do know that almost no (I'm not going to say absolutely no, because there's always one) rape victims are chosen for the way they're dressed.

The "attack" rapes get the most publicity in the media, but the more common sort is a couple where there is a consfusion between the partners about what they both want and then one later thinks that they didnt want it or that they were forced etc.
did you get this idea from some source other than your own head?

if you want me to stop laughing, youll have to post a link.

The "attack" rapes get the most publicity in the media, but the more common sort is a couple where there is a consfusion between the partners about what they both want and then one later thinks that they didnt want it or that they were forced etc.

You have statistics for this, do you?

well lets see....

my neice got distracted and left her purse in the shopping cart in the walmart parking lot

when she got back 10 minutes later, it had already been taken

were the couple who stole it forgiven because of my neices carelessness?

NO. turns out that in the eyes of the law, theft is theft.

No, of course they wernt forgiven. But the fact of the nices carelessness may be factored into the case when the thief is prosecuted.

You dont seem to understand what I am arguing for here. I'm not arguing "Women share the blame in rape and therefore must pe prosecuted". I'm saying "In some instances the blame is shared between the partners, however the one who initated the rape is ultimatley repsonable and should be punished, but the puinshment should take the other partners actions into account"

well lets see....

my neice got distracted and left her purse in the shopping cart in the walmart parking lot

when she got back 10 minutes later, it had already been taken

were the couple who stole it forgiven because of my neices carelessness?

NO. turns out that in the eyes of the law, theft is theft.

Yes, I know theft is theft. My insistance on the existance of personal liability is not an attempt to say that the crime is made less bad by the actions of the victim, but if the victim makes it more likely to happen, they are, in my eyes, partially responsible. I'm not saying the criminal should get a reduced punishment or anything like that, though.

Damn. I should remember to run the hell away when people who know what they're doing enter threads I'm in.;)

Actually, my point was slightly frivolous. I don't remember the previous post that answered this (I've only skimmed the pages before I started posting) but I do know that almost no (I'm not going to say absolutely no, because there's always one) rape victims are chosen for the way they're dressed.
id be sorry for busting you on this one but there seem to be so many boys on this thread who think that women really are to blame for rape because they dress attractively.

No, of course they wernt forgiven. But the fact of the nices carelessness may be factored into the case when the thief is prosecuted.

You dont seem to understand what I am arguing for here. I'm not arguing "Women share the blame in rape and therefore must pe prosecuted". I'm saying "In some instances the blame is shared between the partners, however the one who initated the rape is ultimatley repsonable and should be punished, but the puinshment should take the other partners actions into account"
no my neices carelessness wont be factored in because theft is theft.

the temptation of easy pickings does not mitigate their guilt.

(not that they helped their case by running home, getting naked and taking pornographic pictures of themselves with her cellphone)

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/january_2000_1.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10009532

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/04/when_is_rape_no.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10339669

http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm

An estimated 80% of people who have been raped knew the person who raped them...A survey of college women indicated that they had experienced acquaintance rape much more often than stranger rape, but they were more likely to report the stranger rape to the police. It is NOT know what percentage of rapes are reported to the police.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html#rape_statistics

You have statistics for this, do you?

Yes, see post above

An estimated 80% of people who have been raped knew the person who raped them...A survey of college women indicated that they had experienced acquaintance rape much more often than stranger rape, but they were more likely to report the stranger rape to the police. It is NOT know what percentage of rapes are reported to the police.

And that proves what exactly? Sure as shit doesn't prove this:

The "attack" rapes get the most publicity in the media, but the more common sort is a couple where there is a consfusion between the partners about what they both want and then one later thinks that they didnt want it or that they were forced etc

It says they know the person, not that they're in a sexual relationship with them. Or have you never met your mother?

] http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/january_2000_1.html

OK this one is about false reports.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10009532

OK this one is about a false report.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/04/when_is_rape_no.html

OK this one is about false reports

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10339669

OK this one is about false reports

http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm
i couldnt get to this one, but your quote from it is a well known statistic that no one has a problem with.



http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html#rape_statistics[/QUOTE]
this is someones opinion about how to avoid dangerous situations. it has some pretty good advice.

what does this have to do with your contention that the majority of rape springs from a misunderstanding between lovers?

if your neighbor breaks into your house and rapes you, you were raped by someone you knew. knowing them does not imply a previous loving sexual relationship.

I dont know where people get these crazy ideas about clothes from. So far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever that rape has ever been much of a problem for pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians, and their women spent their lives stark naked.

Once and for all, seeing bare flesh does not cause people to rape, choosing to rape causes people to rape. It is not clothes, booze or the fact that a small minority of people make false rape complaints, anymore than the small minority of people burning down their own buildings for the arson insurance causes bored teens to burn down public schools. It is the choice on the part of a rapist to privledge their wants over the well-being of another human being.

Frankly I'm shocked and surprised at the way males have been denigrated throughout this thread, mostly it seems by males...I thought the myth was that only 'so called 'feminazis' believed the all men are rapists claptrap, but judging by the number of males who appear to think it is barely possible (and in some cases not possible) to avoid raping someone, apparently quite a few NS males also believe all men are rapists and that those that have not raped have simply never yet been 'driven beyond control' by all those skimpily dressed drunken harlots who flirt all night before having the nerve to walk down public streets.:rolleyes:

I dont know where people get these crazy ideas about clothes from. So far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever that rape has ever been much of a problem for pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians, and their women spent their lives stark naked.

Once and for all, seeing bare flesh does not cause people to rape, choosing to rape causes people to rape. It is not clothes, booze or the fact that a small minority of people make false rape complaints, anymore than the small minority of people burning down their own buildings for the arson insurance causes bored teens to burn down public schools. It is the choice on the part of a rapist to privledge their wants over the well-being of another human being.

Frankly I'm shocked and surprised at the way males have been denigrated throughout this thread, mostly it seems by males...I thought the myth was that only 'so called 'feminazis' believed the all men are rapists claptrap, but judging by the number of males who appear to think it is barely possible (and in some cases not possible) to avoid raping someone, apparently quite a few NS males also believe all men are rapists and that those that have not raped have simply never yet been 'driven beyond control' by all those skimpily dressed drunken harlots who flirt all night before having the nerve to walk down public streets.:rolleyes:
Thanks for making this statement. I don't think a lot of guys realize that they are only insulting themselves.

What seems to be causing the most problem here is the failure to differentiate between blame and responsibility. They are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangably. Let me provide an example that has nothing to do with rape in the hopes that the distinction might be more clear:

Someone breaks into your house, Takes a dump on your living room floor and leaves.

Who is to blame for the pile of shit on the living room floor? The person that broke into your house.

Who is responsible for the pile of shit on your living room floor? You.

If you took the blame for the pile of shit in your living room, then you would not press charges against the person that broke in. However, if you don't take responsibility for the pile of shit in your living room, it is going to stay there and stink up the house because the person to blame is not coming back to clean it up and probably has no interest in cleaning it up.

Back to the rape thing. If women take the blame for rape, then no charges will be filed and nobody goes to jail for anything. If women take no responsibility for rape, the same factors that created a rape in the first place can occur again.

Back to the rape thing. If women take the blame for rape, then no charges will be filed and nobody goes to jail for anything. If women take no responsibility for rape, the same factors that created a rape in the first place can occur again.
Ok, interesting analogy...but I'm still not sure how women need to take responsibility for rape...because in your example you were talking about taking responsibility for the outcome of the crime...not responsibility for PREVENTING the crime.

Ok, interesting analogy...but I'm still not sure how women need to take responsibility for rape...because in your example you were talking about taking responsibility for the outcome of the crime...not responsibility for PREVENTING the crime.

indeed. the analogy that they used actually translates to mean that even if you lock your doors, put bars on the windows, buy an electronic security system, hire security guards, and put up motion detecting machine guns outside, you are still responsible for someone breaking in and taking a dump on your floor floor/raping you.

indeed. the analogy that they used actually translates to mean that even if you lock your doors, put bars on the windows, buy an electronic security system, hire security guards, and put up motion detecting machine guns outside, you are still responsible for someone breaking in and taking a dump on your floor floor/raping you.
I kind of read it as you are responsible for cleaning up the after affects...ie. the shit, or the trauma of the rape?:confused:

Ok, interesting analogy...but I'm still not sure how women need to take responsibility for rape...because in your example you were talking about taking responsibility for the outcome of the crime...not responsibility for PREVENTING the crime.

Well, how about preventing the crime then? Say a woman gets raped and the rapist is sentenced to being the woman's bodyguard for x units of time. That would make the rapist responsible for preventing rape, right? Do you think he's going to do a good job? For that matter, do you think any woman would be comfortable with such an arrangement?

I kind of read it as you are responsible for cleaning up the after affects...ie. the shit, or the trauma of the rape?:confused:
One of the after effects would be prevention.

Well, how about preventing the crime then? Say a woman gets raped and the rapist is sentenced to being the woman's bodyguard for x units of time. That would make the rapist responsible for preventing rape, right? Do you think he's going to do a good job? For that matter, do you think any woman would be comfortable with such an arrangement?
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

First, you're saying that women are responsible for the outcome of rape, but somehow implying responsibility for prevention of rape...now you're talking about a rapist preventing his/her victim from getting raped?

Start over please. Just what are you trying to say?

I kind of read it as you are responsible for cleaning up the after affects...ie. the shit, or the trauma of the rape?:confused:

that's almost certainly what they wanted to say. but being responsible for dealing with the effects of a mess/crime is not the same as being responsible for the mess/crime itself. they wanted to divide up blame and responsibility, but when it comes to the act of committing a crime/causing a mess, blame and responsibility are one and the same. they equivocated on the meaning of their terms.

and, of course, after the crime has been committed part of the point of justice (i'd say almost all of the point, but that's a different topic) is that the responsibility for repairing the damage caused falls on the criminal, not the victim. and we also think this about people making messes. when somebody causes a mess, we expect them to fix it themselves. we generally hold that the responsibility for causing a mess creates a responsibility for fixing it.

and, of course, after the crime has been committed part of the point of justice (i'd say almost all of the point, but that's a different topic) is that the responsibility for repairing the damage caused falls on the criminal, not the victim. and we also think this about people making messes. when somebody causes a mess, we expect them to fix it themselves. we generally hold that the responsibility for causing a mess creates a responsibility for fixing it.
Sounds like restitution. I support that. We use that in sentencing circles...the person who commits the crime is made responsible for 'fixing' the crime, or making restitution.

The rapist is to blame for the rape, and he follows his lust, but his lust is empowerd by her clothing. Granted she should not be prosecuted for it, but provocation should be taken into account when sentencing rapists. Provocation? Surely screaming and crying are quite a strong "no" signal?
Anyway, how can you willingly provoke rape? Rape is by nature against consent.

Provocation? Surely screaming and crying are quite a strong "no" signal?
Anyway, how can you willingly provoke rape? Rape is by nature against consent.
Yeah, it's like saying that a guy who is skinny and nerdy looking provokes a beating.:rolleyes:

Yeah, it's like saying that a guy who is skinny and nerdy looking provokes a beating.:rolleyes:


heres a very UN PC comment but a women who does wear "slutty" clothes is "asking" for it.

Just like if I walk down some busy road in a jewish area covered in a nazi uniform

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

First, you're saying that women are responsible for the outcome of rape, but somehow implying responsibility for prevention of rape...now you're talking about a rapist preventing his/her victim from getting raped?

Start over please. Just what are you trying to say?

What I am trying to show is that it is rediculous to make rapists responsible for rape prevention. One, it's something that would require personal conviction on the part of the rapist (not likely) and two, it would just create another opportunity for a repeat offense.

See the thing is I work in Quality Assurance. Things can, and do, go wrong. While I am not blamed for things going wrong, I am responsible, in the sense that I have to identify what happened, fix the immediate problem, and take steps to ensure that the problem doesn't occur again. I didn't cause the problem, but I am responsible for fixing it. That is the message I am trying to pass along here.

heres a very UN PC comment but a women who does wear "slutty" clothes is "asking" for it.

Just like if I walk down some busy road in a jewish area covered in a nazi uniform
It's not just un-PC, it's stupid. Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9983721&postcount=466) again.

How about the RAPISTS take responsibility for their actions, and refrain from committing the crime? And if not, let them pay for it. The victim is not responsible for stopping idiots from being idiots.

heres a very UN PC comment but a women who does wear "slutty" clothes is "asking" for it.

Just like if I walk down some busy road in a jewish area covered in a nazi uniform

bullshit. the reason nazi's deserve their beatings is because the very nature of being a nazi means that you are proclaiming that you want to have me killed and will do so at the first available opportunity. proactive self defense.

how a woman dresses has no relation to anything at all (including whether she will be raped or not - can we drop the skimpy clothes leads to rape bullshit yet?). and certainly not anything to which raping her would be a reasonable course of action.

What I am trying to show is that it is rediculous to make rapists responsible for rape prevention. One, it's something that would require personal conviction on the part of the rapist (not likely) and two, it would just create another opportunity for a repeat offense.

See the thing is I work in Quality Assurance. Things can, and do, go wrong. While I am not blamed for things going wrong, I am responsible, in the sense that I have to identify what happened, fix the immediate problem, and take steps to ensure that the problem doesn't occur again. I didn't cause the problem, but I am responsible for fixing it. That is the message I am trying to pass along here.
Ok. So, you're saying that we can't expect criminals to stop themselves from committing crimes (else we would have none). Fair enough. Now, what do you think women (and men, and children) could do to prevent rape...or fix the problem (what IS the problem, in your mind?)

The rapist is to blame for the rape, and he follows his lust, but his lust is empowerd by her clothing. Granted she should not be prosecuted for it, but provocation should be taken into account when sentencing rapists.

Rape is not a result of simple lust. Nor is it spur of the moment.

Rape is experienced by the victims as an act of violence. It is a life-threatening experience. One out of every eight adult women has been a victim of forcible rape. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992) While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.

Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

Do 6-month old babies provoke their rapist?
Do 98-year old grandmothers?

Yeah, it's like saying that a guy who is skinny and nerdy looking provokes a beating.:rolleyes:

to be fair, i'd assume that the same people who think women are 'asking for it' think nerds are too.

ok, that's probably not actually fair, but it is definitely the same mindset.

heres a very UN PC comment but a women who does wear "slutty" clothes is "asking" for it.

Just like if I walk down some busy road in a jewish area covered in a nazi uniform
Here's a reality check comment, but many societies where people (including women) typically wear no clothes have lower incidents of rape than modern Western societies. Here's another reality check comment, clothes are inanimate, not promiscuous. No article of clothing has been demonstrated to have consented to have sex with large numbers of people.

Here's another reality check, wearing a Nazi uniform would in most cases be intentionally going out of one's way to upset or offend others but would in no way excuse a physical assault. Wearing clothes that one looks fine in, or that reveal a particular degree of flesh, or (heaven forbid) both makes one look fine and reveal a particular degree of flesh is not in most cases an act intended to offend people.

How is intentionally provoking people's offence by wearing regalia that symbolises the desiribility of an ethnic group's genocide at all analogous to wearing to clothes that happen to look good but are not symbolic of anything that can reasonably be described as offensive? :confused:

Or maybe you think women go about dressed with you particularly in mind. They all get up one day having decided that it would personally offend you if they looked good and so by goodness they are going out of the house looking fine and hoping you pass by and are personally offended by the obvious statement their 'fine-lookiness' is making - specifically that they want to genocide you and all your ethnic group off the face of the earth? If you really think so, I suggest you are being paranoid...:rolleyes:

bullshit. the reason nazi's deserve their beatings is because the very nature of being a nazi means that you are proclaiming that you want to have me killed and will do so at the first available opportunity. proactive self defense.

how a woman dresses has no relation to anything at all (including whether she will be raped or not - can we drop the skimpy clothes leads to rape bullshit yet?). and certainly not anything to which raping her would be a reasonable course of action.

your egging on perverts and bad guys. Just like at a bar if I mouth off some drunk idiot and get the crap beaten out of me, I dont deserve it but because I was stupid it happened.

Rapists deserve what they get. I personally think ye old cut the balls off choice is something to think about.

Heres an example, A girl I know went to a house party, "whoring it up" wearing really skanky clothes etc etc, acting very "slutty" Talking about sex sex sex, flashing guys.

One thing leads to another, she gets raped by some ugly guy.

What do you expect? Most women get raped by peops they know.

What seems to be causing the most problem here is the failure to differentiate between blame and responsibility. They are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangably. Let me provide an example that has nothing to do with rape in the hopes that the distinction might be more clear:

Someone breaks into your house, Takes a dump on your living room floor and leaves.

Who is to blame for the pile of shit on the living room floor? The person that broke into your house.

Who is responsible for the pile of shit on your living room floor? You.

If you took the blame for the pile of shit in your living room, then you would not press charges against the person that broke in. However, if you don't take responsibility for the pile of shit in your living room, it is going to stay there and stink up the house because the person to blame is not coming back to clean it up and probably has no interest in cleaning it up.

Back to the rape thing. If women take the blame for rape, then no charges will be filed and nobody goes to jail for anything. If women take no responsibility for rape, the same factors that created a rape in the first place can occur again.

1. Your semantical games with "blame" versus "responsibility" prove nothing.

2. You erroneously assume their are "factors that created the rape" that are under the control of the victim, rather than the perpetrator.

This is all double-talk seeking to excuse the actions of rapists and to paint women as whores that deserve what they get.

your egging on perverts and bad guys. Just like at a bar if I mouth off some drunk idiot and get the crap beaten out of me, I dont deserve it but because I was stupid it happened.

Rapists deserve what they get. I personally think ye old cut the balls off choice is something to think about.

Heres an example, A girl I know went to a house party, "whoring it up" wearing really skanky clothes etc etc, acting very "slutty" Talking about sex sex sex, flashing guys.

One thing leads to another, she gets raped by some ugly guy.

What do you expect? Most women get raped by peops they know.

Cute anecdote.

I expect that persons such as yourself should have stepped in and prevented the rape. You imply on the one hand that it was obvious the woman was going to get raped, but make clear on the other that you did nothing to stop it. Either it wasn't obvious/her actions did casuse the rape or you knowingly allowed her to be raped. Which is it?

I know that since rape is not a crime of mere lust that it was not the woman's actions that "lead to" her getting raped.

what does low rape instances in other countries have to do with rape in the west?

You wear skimpy clothes you are inviting trouble. The west is a visual society, more skin equates sex.

Again not unlike walking through a bad area of town flashing cash. You dont deserve getting mugged but your still stupid.

Why are most women raped by people they know?

Cute anecdote.

I expect that persons such as yourself should have stepped in and prevented the rape. You imply on the one hand that it was obvious the woman was going to get raped, but make clear on the other that you did nothing to stop it. Either it wasn't obvious/her actions did casuse the rape or you knowingly allowed her to be raped. Which is it?

I know that since rape is not a crime of mere lust that it was not the woman's actions that "lead to" her getting raped.


Yes rape is all about power :rolleyes: not sex.

And ya I was at the place and I filmed the whole thing or maybe said person told me about the deed. :rolleyes:

heres a very UN PC comment but a women who does wear "slutty" clothes is "asking" for it.

Just like if I walk down some busy road in a jewish area covered in a nazi uniform

Whether PC or not, your comment is simply ignorant.

what does low rape instances in other countries have to do with rape in the west?

You wear skimpy clothes you are inviting trouble. The west is a visual society, more skin equates sex.

Again not unlike walking through a bad area of town flashing cash. You dont deserve getting mugged but your still stupid.

Why are most women raped by people they know?

What makes you think that rapes don't occur in non-western countries?

Rape is a crime of opportunity.

your egging on perverts and bad guys. Just like at a bar if I mouth off some drunk idiot and get the crap beaten out of me, I dont deserve it but because I was stupid it happened.
Women should not be expected to live their entire lives acting this way and that just in case they happen to be in the vicinity of perverts or bad guys.

Rapists deserve what they get. I personally think ye old cut the balls off choice is something to think about.

Heres an example, A girl I know went to a house party, "whoring it up" wearing really skanky clothes etc etc, acting very "slutty" Talking about sex sex sex, flashing guys.

One thing leads to another, she gets raped by some ugly guy.

What do you expect? Most women get raped by peops they know.
Men go out dressed to attract sexual interest, talking about sex non-stop and flirting all the time....what do we expect, that some ugly guy will soddomise them....? Not really because most of us expect such perverted sick scum will be so rare that it's not a big risk...just what kind of percentage of the male population do you have pegged as sick rapists of women? I find it disgusting that most males seem to think that a women is ever at a significant risk of being raped. I keep reading all this finger pointing 'oh raping is bad but what do you expect?' like every 2nd man is apparently a potential rapist, and none of them would lift a finger to stop a rape occuring, yet not a single man has yet fingered themselves as the '2nd male' doing all the raping...

Funny how so large a percentage of males are 'the rapists' that women cant go to a simple party with folks she knows without getting raped if she doesnt tow some unspecified line with regards to her dress and decorum, yet not a single male in this thread is willing to own up and admit he is one of these raping jerks.

So which is it, are these raping scum so common women should be mindful in their every act, utterance, and choice of the possibility that they might inadvertently 'provoke' a rape, and males who state rapists are scum really mean that they think rape is great if they get the chance but dont want to admit, or did NS really luck out and get only 'non-rapists' males joining despite their rarity in the population at large, or are all these finger pointings about the 'perverts and bad guys' just another excuse to control the behaviour of women and justify the objectification and denigration of those who dont 'buckle under'?:confused:

Yes rape is all about power :rolleyes: not sex.

You have evidence to the contrary. It is a well-studied and well-established fact.

While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.

Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

Rape is a lot more than an unwanted sex act, it is a violent crime. Many rapists carry a weapon and threaten the victim with violence or death.

Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.

And ya I was at the place and I filmed the whole thing or maybe said person told me about the deed. :rolleyes:

Nice dodge. So you don't really know anything about the incident first-hand. Why did you try to present it as if you did?

You have evidence to the contrary. It is a well-studied and well-established fact.

While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.

Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

Rape is a lot more than an unwanted sex act, it is a violent crime. Many rapists carry a weapon and threaten the victim with violence or death.

Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.



Nice dodge. So you don't really know anything about the incident first-hand. Why did you try to present it as if you did?

Sure 2nd hand from the person who was raped.

Again your evidence forgets the fact that most rapist are not by serial rapists who are into violence and sex but by morons the women knows.

Again your evidence forgets the fact that most rapist are not by serial rapists who are into violence and sex but by morons the women knows.
Which does nothing to back up your point. Read the information again. Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets. Many rapes are committed by people familiar to the victim, for the reasons listed above, NOT FOR THE WAY SHE DRESSES. Cripes. Get it straight.

Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

I've already presented evidence that discredits that. Can you please now cite yours.

I've already presented evidence that discredits that.
Where? Please don't make us comb through 30+ pages:(

Edit: You don't know Cat do you...well, you'll get your sources. And then some:D

Really, this is stumping me. How can a woman be guilty of "asking for it" by wearing provocative clothing, when she is raped she'll be crying and screaming and possibily repeating words pertaining to the negative? Doesn't sound like asking for it to me.

Oh, and if someone wants sex alone, they go to whorehouse. Much safer, easier and better on the conscience than raping someone.

Really, this is stumping me. How can a woman be guilty of "asking for it" by wearing provocative clothing, when she is raped she'll be crying and screaming and possibily repeating words pertaining to the negative? Doesn't sound like asking for it to me.

Oh, and if someone wants sex alone, they go to whorehouse. Much safer, easier and better on the conscience than raping someone.
I think it's interesting that people are so busy defending rapists...as though they simply can't help themselves.:rolleyes:

Calling it the womens fault is bull shit. Total and complete bull shit. Yet society to some extent tells women they are, making it that much harder for them to recover.

I've got some strong feelings on this, especially recently. My last GF was just raped... was it her fault.... nope. Were there things she could have done to avoid it, probably. But who honestly goes about expecting to be raped every moment of their lives and takes every possible precation? Esspecially when seeing a "freind". Don't get me started on this right now. I'm leaving this thread, before I loose my temper. This is a bit touchy for me right now.